.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The Asylum

Welcome to the Asylum. This is a site devoted to politics and current events in America, and around the globe. The THREE lunatics posting here are unabashed conservatives that go after the liberal lies and deceit prevalent in the debate of the day. We'd like to add that the views expressed here do not reflect the views of other inmates, nor were any inmates harmed in the creation of this site.

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Sunday, May 27, 2007

The call goes out, and the pros are answering -- Updated and bumped!

On Friday, Hugh Hewitt put the call out to counterterrorism experts and intelligence officers to either tell him he was wrong about assessing Michael Chertoff's opinion regarding the immigration bill. Not to put to fine a point on it, but Sec. Chertoff basically told Hugh he was overreacting to the bill as a whole, and assured him that terrorists wouldn't be able to get around the security measures in the immigration bill being debated right now in the Senate. The flip side of the challenge was to back up Hugh's concerns. Michael Cutler, a former INS guy that has testified on the Hill on the issue of immigration was the first one to reply:

In listening to the politicians go at where the illegal immigration crisis is concerned, I am forced to wonder if most of these "leaders" have taken the time to consider the findings and recommendations of the Presidential Commission on the Attacks of September 11, 2001 or the companion report, "The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel." Those politicians who favor providing millions of illegal aliens (undocumented workers) in the parlance of Senator Kennedy and others, appear to be ignoring a basic issue that has not been, addressed in all of the discussions about the implementation of a Guest Worker Amnesty Program: How would the adjudicators at USCIS know what name and other identifiers should be imprinted on the "tamper-proof" identity documents that would be issued to many millions of illegals? This may seem to be a strange question, but lets consider the facts. When Kennedy and others refer to these millions of illegal aliens as being "undocumented" a political agenda is in play here, they want to distract us from the fact that these people are aliens and that they are present in the United States in violation of law. That makes them "Illegal Aliens." Kennedy, in fact, has on occasion simply referred to these law violators as simply, "The Undocumented." This term is particularly devious because it neatly sidesteps the facts that these aliens are violating our laws. But, for a moment, let us consider what documents they are lacking so that he can blithely refer to them as "The Undocumented." They lack any form of reliable identification that properly identifies them. Without reliable identity documents, how can the adjudicators know the names, dates of birth or even the nationalities of these millions of illegal aliens? How would they determine when, where or how they entered the United States? These would be important questions under normal circumstances, but under the current situation where our nation is, on a daily basis, focused on averting the next terrorist attack, these questions become absolutely critical!

Read it all, folks because Cutler knows what the Hell he's talking about. He's not blowing smoke up your skirt, and he's hard-pressed to get this message across to a group of politicians in Washington that think they have the solution. In short, their solution doesn't even come close to the mark.

Today, he posted another response to his challenge, and this one is starting to generate a buzz. I recommend checking out the comments on this one:

Your colleague Hugh is more than right. Hell, he ought to be the secretary of Homeland Security. Look Michael Chertoff is a good guy, but he's a bureaucratic ass-hat. He's in this for his job, and not the security of the nation. Like every guy in his position, he doesn't quite get the depths of what it takes to really protect a nation.

Example? Hugh wrote:

Secretary Chertoff told me I was wrong. He argued that providing probationary status to every illegal who turns in their paperwork would be useful in the effort to find the terrorists hidden in our own country. If I understand him correctly, he believes that the covert terrorists ill be afraid to turn in the paperwork and will thus be left much more exposed as everyone else will have their probationary documents.

This is a false assumption, and a dangerous one, at that. You and I both know that those trying to attack us either A) have solid documentation, or B) have been living long enough in the shadows that they're not going to risk exposure, and will slip through the net. Look, these people aren't idiots. They've been doing this long enough to know that certain scrutiny is going to get them caught, and that's just not good for them. The ones who have the passports and other documents will be willing to make the risk because thus far, those documents have protected them.

As Hugh states prior to posting the letter, this letter was relayed to him, hence the reason why it sounds like the person isn't addressing him. He's not. But his point is well-founded. The writer is a 25 year veteran of Naval Intelligence, and has worked closely with the Spec-Ops community for the bulk of his time in the Navy. This is another must-read letter, but I'll warn readers that the language is a bit salty, though Hugh cleaned it up nicely. You'll get the point of his frustration, and for good reason. He spent 25 years defending this nation from attack, and the fools in congress want to leave us vulnerable.

It's true that the status quo doesn't cut it anymore. Anybody who says different is a moron. The system is broken, and due completely to the fact that the government's been an absentee lanlord on the issue of controlling our borders, and ensuring our safety and security. The government's efforts have been woefully inadequate, and nothing shows it more than the 12-20 million illegal aliens here, but more importantly, our failures were on display with the Dix Six and the 11 September hijackers.

As long as we have open borders, we're vulnerable. But simply enforcing the borders isn't enough. That's why the 25 year Navy veteran offers this simple piece of advice to Congress:

You want solid reform, here's how you do it. First, if you're going to let these &^%$# in, you give them a background check they won't forget. You crawl up their &&%$ so much they'll want to leave. Each day, every day you monitor them. This way even if you get a phony name, you got a better chance of nailing them. It's either that or you end all emigration from those nations I listed above. And believe me, that list is by no means complete. Secondly, you create a computer system that will connect to ALL national computer databases to track these guys, and if the nation in question says "no," then emigration from that country ends immediately. If they claim they don't have a database, emigration ends until they do. Those that do come here are still subject to scrutiny that would make any American citizen squeamish. That's OK though because they're not citizens. They don't like it? Screw them. Move to Britain then. Lastly, if they come from one of those suicide-loving countries, you follow them like the plague until such a time that they become a citizen and are subject to the laws and protections of the nation. And personally [name ommitted], that won't happen. These $#@& never want that. They just want to hurt us worse than the last guy.

He's got the right idea and that's because security is a serious business for him. The time for patty-cake games is done. If we don't take the steps necessary to protect ourselves, we're going to be hit again. The veteran presents a couple of "what if" scenarios that are perfectly plausible. Frank Gaffney alluded to the possibility of an EMP weapon used against the United States. He brings that up, and he also brings up the possibility of bio-terrorism. In this day and age, folks, our enemy is constantly looking for ways to hurt us the best they possibly can. Now the Dix Six were amateurs unaffiliated with al-Qaeda or any other group. But that doesn't change the fact that they could have inflicted serious damage to this nation's military but making a suicide attack on a military base. Likewise, over half of that wanna-be jihadi team were here illegally.

It wasn't the FBI, NSA, or CIA that found these guys. It was an alert citizen that noticed something was hinky about their video, and notified the authorities. Sure, the FBI admitted they had these guys under surveillance, but in the same breath they acknowledged that they were unaware of how close these guys were to making their move. Doesn't instill a lot of confidence in making sure we stay protected now does it?

Look, we're on the side that says let's deal with the security factors FIRST. We can deal with the regularization later. And we need the extra notice paid attention to those that come here from the list of countries that veteran rattles off. But even he recognized that the list is incomplete. There are Islamofascists in Britain, in France, in Bosnia, in Chechnya, etc. Come on already. The Dix Six team consisted of Albanians, a Turk, and a Jordanian. So it's time we start utilizing some extra scrutiny on these people. Furthermore, they should have a special visa issued to them if they're coming here, and not one of the ones being debated in Congress right now. Make it a visa that has to be renewed several times in a year, say every three months or so. (It'd be even better if there was a way we could possibly track the visa where it goes, say by some sort of micro dot or some such. Hey I just think this stuff up. I don't explain how it works.)

Above all, these professionals that are sounding off are making it clear that we need to seriously rethink this bill, and implement better safeguards against letting covert jihadists into America. Right now, this bill doesn't possess any such provisions.

Publius II

ADDENDUM: Hugh notes that Uncle Jimbo at BlackFive answers him. He also says that he disagrees with him in part, though he doesn't elaborate. He promises that he'll address the issue on Tuesday after the Memorial Day holiday is over. I do, however, agree with Uncle Jimbo in part: Had al-Qaeda had a decent number of active cells in the United States, the ideal time to have struck after 11 September would have been the following day, and in a midwestern city. The true essence of terrorism is to spread terror, not just rack up a body count.

And I'd like to address something that is appearing in a lot of comments on both sites -- I don't think Hugh is looking for "parrots." The idea is to hash this out. If you think he's wrong, feel free to let him know, and WHY. Don't just sit there like a lot of commenters have, and state you disagree because Hugh's not addressing the idea of the overall amnesty and mess this bill would end up creating. We ALL agree that the illegal alien problem must be addressed. But I can't say it enough that security comes first. We're in a war. It's unprecedented to leave ourselves wide open in a war where there's a distinct possibility of enemy agents penetrating the nation and wreaking havoc.

Publius II


Post a Comment

<< Home

weight loss product