More and more facts about the San Bernardino terrorist attack continue to come out as law enforcement officials and the media do their jobs. An American citizen hooked up with the wrong people, took a trip, came back with a terrorist wife, and we know the rest of the murderous story. Liberals jumped quickly out the gate blaming the NRA and racism for what took place last week. It's all about not letting a crisis go to waste, you see. However, if we are going to play the blame game, there is indeed one group who is morally culpable for what took place last week and has blood on its intellectual hands: the ACLU.
The ACLU sued the New York Police Department over its 2007 report on the dangers of "homegrown" terrorism. JJ warned its readers about the danger posed by the ACLU's lawsuit earlier this year. JJ published this post on January 21, 2015:
The New York Post reported last week:
In top-secret talks to settle federal lawsuits* against the NYPD for monitoring mosques, the city is weighing a demand that it scrub from its Web site a report on Islamic terrorists, The Post has learned.
The groundbreaking, 92-page report, titled “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat,” angers critics who say it promotes “religious profiling” and discrimination against Muslims. But law-enforcement sources say removing the report now would come at the worst time — after mounting terror attacks by Islamic extremists in Paris, Boston, Sydney and Ottawa....
Sources familiar with the case confirmed that removal of the NYPD report is one of the major sticking points in settlement negotiations.
The report was the basis for the NYPD’s controversial “demographic unit” which specifically targeted Muslims. Also on the table are demands that the NYPD halt any ongoing surveillance in the Muslim community and that records of prior monitoring be expunged, sources said.
With what seems today like a crystal ball, the 2007 NYPD report identified an “emerging threat” — al Qaeda-inspired jihadists in the United States and abroad, hell-bent on attacking their host countries. “Radicalization is something the NYPD saw happening in Europe,” said the former NYPD official. “It was prescient in identifying this phenomenon and predicting it would increase.” Rest of article.
Here are some actual excerpts from the report:
The NYPD’s understanding of the threat from Islamic-based terrorism to New York City has evolved since September 11, 2001. While the threat from overseas remains, terrorist attacks or thwarted plots against cities in Europe, Australia and Canada since 2001 fit a different paradigm. Rather than being directed from al-Qaeda abroad, these plots have been conceptualized and planned by “unremarkable” local residents/citizenswho sought to attack their country of residence, utilizing al-Qaeda as their inspiration and ideological reference point.....
Where once we would have defined the initial indicator of the threat at the point where a terrorist or group of terrorists would actually plan an attack, we have now shifted our focus to a much earlier point—a point where we believe the potential terrorist or group of terrorists begin and progress through a process of radicalization. The culmination of this process is a terrorist attack.
Understanding this trend and the radicalization process in the West that drives“unremarkable” people to become terrorists is vital for developing effective counter-strategies and has special importance for the NYPD and the City of New York. As one of the country’s iconic symbols and the target of numerous terrorist plots since the1990’s, New York City continues to be among the top targets of terrorists worldwide......
An assessment of the various reported models of radicalization leads to the conclusion that the radicalization process is composed of four distinct phases:
• Stage 1: Pre-Radicalization
• Stage 2: Self-Identification
• Stage 3: Indoctrination
• Stage 4: Jihadization....
The NYPD’s understanding of the threat from Islamic-based terrorism to New York City has evolved since September 11, 2001. Where once we would have defined the initial indicator of the threat at the point where a terrorist or group of terrorists would actually plan an attack, we have now shifted our focus to a much earlier point—a point where we believe the potential terrorist or group of terrorists begin and progress through a process of radicalization. The culmination of this process is a terrorist attack.....
However, as al-Qaeda’s central core of leaders, operatives, and foot soldiers shrunk, its philosophy of global jihad spread worldwide at an exponential rate via radical Internet websites and chat rooms, extremist videotapes and literature, radical speeches by extremist imams—often creating a radical subculture within the more vulnerable Muslim diaspora communities. This post-September 11 wave of militant ideological influences underpins radicalization in the West and is what we define as the homegrown threat..."
This report was issued before the rise of ISIS and other similar groups. Muslim groups are not the only ones who want to banish this report from reality forever. The ACLU says on its website:
Like a villain in a horror movie, the widely debunked concept of terrorist "radicalization" is once again raised from the grave by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in its 2013 report, "American Jihadist Terrorism: Combating a Complex Threat." CRS is an influential legislative branch agency charged with providing objective policy analysis for members of Congress, which makes its continued reliance on the "radicalization" model promoted in a now-discredited 2007 New York Police Department report, "Radicalization in the West," particularly troublesome....
In addition to being factually wrong, this radicalization concept is also dangerous, because, as the CRS report points out, adopting beliefs and associating with like-minded people is First Amendment-protected activity. But if counter-terrorism officials believe that adopting radical beliefs are a necessary first stage to terrorism, they will obviously target belief communities and activists with their enforcement measures, as they often do. The CRS report highlights the NYPD radicalization theory, and while it acknowledges the criticism of the NYPD report it continues to hew closely to the model of radicalization it promotes.... Rest of ACLU statement.
Dear ACLU, the concept of radicalization is indeed "dangerous". There are fourteen graves that prove how dangerous "radicalization" actually is. There are another 21 injured victims who can literally testify to its peril as well. However, they may define "dangerous" a little differently than does the ACLU. Their view is somewhat distorted by the fact that they were trying to avoid bullets and bombs instead of lawsuits. Meanwhile, the ACLU calls "dangerous" law enforcement's efforts to prevent more terrorism.
The ACLU has made important strides in fourth and fifth amendment protections. It stood up for the first amendment in Skokie. However, the ACLU is just plain wrong as it now tries to prevent law enforcement from gathering intelligence about the enemy. It does not want our protectors to understand the enemy nor develop strategies to stop the enemy. In other words, the ACLU demands the police do the dirty work of stopping terrorism without actually getting its hands dirty. If a few people die, well, they were sacrifices for the cause.
The ACLU's attempts to suppress the report will have a chilling effect on fighting terrorism. It will force law enforcement officials to think twice before monitoring terrorism threats in our communities. Are you a police chief in a major city who wants to make a serious threat assessment? Don't write it down on paper as the ACLU may take you to court if it doesn't like what you wrote. Law enforcement officials never thought the only threat of terrorism came from "homegrown" radicals. However, they would be derelict in doing their duty to protect us if they ignored this particular threat as the ACLU so desires. One can hope that America does not reach a sad state of affairs in America where police must fear the ACLU more than it does terrorists.
Keep in mind what the ACLU is attempting to do is keep police from studying the concept of radicalization and how it might be used to fight terrorism. Think of it as thought police for the police. The ACLU can argue all day long that homegrown radicalization is a "debunked" theory.
However, what was debunked in San Bernardino last week was the ACLU as terrorists shot through its credibility.
*The case settled earlier this year. NYC Mayor Bill Deblasio and Police Commissioner William Bratton disbanded the unit that oversaw the program.