FBI 'Concerned' Somalis Could Attack U.S.

[SF-TX]

Remind me, why have we given special status to Somalis to emigrate to the United States?

FBI director: Somali jihadists could launch attacks inside U.S.

It certainly stands to reason that if al-Shabaab can get Somalis and other Muslims to leave the U.S. to wage jihad in Somalia, they can get their personnel into the U.S., or use U.S.-based jihadists to wage jihad here instead of going overseas. "FBI Director: Al Qaeda-Linked Somali Group Could Attack U.S.," by Catherine Herridge for FoxNews, October 2:

They could strike the United States. That grim assessment is the first time the FBI director or any other senior law enforcement or intelligence official has stated on the record that the Al Qaeda-linked group al-Shabaab is no longer content to strike within the East African nation of Somalia.

During a hearing on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, FBI Director Robert Mueller was asked if members of al-Shabaab, which translates as "mujahideen youth," would send American recruits back to the U.S. to launch attacks.

"I would think that we have seen some information that the leaders would like to undertake operations outside of Somalia," Mueller told the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

Mueller said he is "absolutely" concerned that Americans who traveled to Somalia to train as terrorists would have U.S. legal status and would therefore be able to return to the United States and carry out attacks.

A U.S. counterterrorism official told FOX News that al-Shabaab has exploded since 2006, and it is becoming a full-fledged Al Qaeda affiliate, similar to Al Qaeda in Iraq. Initially the group's militias fought against the Somali government and Ethopian forces who are against an Islamic state in East Africa, the official said, but now the group's focus is turning toward the establishment of a "caliphate" or broad Islamic state not limited to Africa.

It was never just about Somalia. Somalia was just the initial, local expression of a global agenda that is the underlying factor in jihadist conflicts from Chechnya to Thailand: The intent of imposing Islamic law, everywhere. That is the ultimate aim of jihad.

In fact, in an exclusive briefing on Thursday, a U.S. counterterrorism official told FOX News that al-Shabaab's leadership is bona fide Al Qaeda. In many cases, the operatives who guide the group in East Africa have pledged allegiance to Usama Bin Laden in person, and in some cases the Al Qaeda leader has entrusted them with missions outside of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, according to the official.

Training camps are now well-established in Somalia, and as many as 1,100 foreign fighters have joined the al-Shabaab movement, the president of Somalia's transitional government told a crowd gathered at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington on Wednesday.

A U.S. counterterrorism official said there are other troubling developments. A recent videotape from al-Shabaab pledged a formal allegiance to bin Laden, and the intelligence community is now monitoring jihadist Web sites to see if bin Laden will respond and "officially" bless their relationship, the official said.

In addition, the use of simultaneous attacks and suicide bombings -- the signature of al Qaeda -- has now taken hold in Somalia.

In October last year, a Minneapolis man, Shirwa Ahmed, became the first known American suicide bomber, according to the FBI. Ahmed, who travelled from Minnesota to the training camps of al-Shabaab, is one of nearly two dozen men from the United States who authorities believe joined the group.

The FBI is currently investigating another man, an 18-year-old from Seattle, who may be the second documented case of an American suicide bomber. Investigators are comparing the man's DNA with remains from an attack in the Somali capital last month.

In early September, FOX News exclusively identified the American mouthpiece for al-Shabaab as a native of Daphne, Ala. Born Omar Hammami, the big-eared and bright-eyed teenager now goes by the name Abu Mansour al-Amriki, or simply "The American."...

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/10/fb...inside-us.html

Immigration and Resettlement to the United States

The first Somali immigrants to the United States, mostly sailors, arrived in the 1920s and settled around New York. In the 1960s, Somali students began traveling to the United States, either supported by government scholarships or by family members living in the country. In the mid-1980s, small numbers were admitted as refugees; in the 1990s, the number of refugees increased because of the civil war (Putnam & Noor, 1999). The U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement reports that during 1983–2004, 55,036 Somali refugees resettled in the United States. In 2004 alone, nearly 13,000 Somalis entered the country (U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement, 2004). Current estimates of the number of Somali-born persons living in the United States range widely, from 35,760 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000) to 150,000 (Lehman & Eno, 2003). The majority of Somalis have settled in Minnesota, California, Georgia, and Washington, D.C. (U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement, 2004).

Because most Somalis enter the United States as refugees, the government resettlement process is relevant to TB control programs. Appendix F details specific TB screening procedures for refugee resettlement, but other government programs are also worth noting. The Department of Health and Human Services provides newly arrived refugees with transitional cash and medical assistance and provides a range of social and health services to refugees who have resided in the United States for fewer than five years. Employment services are the primary focus and include skills training, job development, orientation to the workplace, and job counseling. Transitional cash assistance benefits are provided to refugees on the basis of family composition: single adults and childless couples are eligible for Refugee Cash Assistance for up to eight months after arrival, and families with children are eligible for mainstream welfare for unemployed families for up to two years. In terms of health benefits, singles and childless couples are eligible for Refugee Medical Assistance for their first eight months in the United States, and families with minor children are covered by the Medicaid program. Though states must meet certain federal requirements, they have flexibility in designing their assistance programs; therefore, benefits and time limits vary by state.

http://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/g...s/chapter1.pdf

Somali arrivals according to the Office of Refugee Resettlement:

FY 08 - 2,510
FY 07 -6,958
FY 06 - 10,330
FY 05 - 10,106
FY 04 - 13,019
FY 03 - 1,708
FY 02 - 242
FY 01 - 4939
FY 00 -6,021

[Defender968]

I've come to the conclusion that we don't actually need to address our open borders, it would be silly at this point as we keep importing Somalis, Afghanis, Palestinians, and many others who hate us. Have we met our quota on North Koreans yet, how about Yeminis or Syrians? Who are the idiots letting these people in?

[jw74]

Originally Posted by Defender968

Who are the idiots letting these people in?

We are the idiots. This is a recurring generational problem of not demanding more from our elected officials.

[nmap]

Interestingly enough, when they bring children the local schools are required to provide a period of instruction in the children's native language. So as one adds up the costs, don't ignore increased school taxes.

[Sigaba]

[W]e keep importing Somalis, Afghanis, Palestinians, and many others who hate us.

To clarify, people are immigrated, goods are imported.

[PRB]

"Remind me, why have we given special status to Somalis to emigrate to the United States?"

Because Teddy Kennedy sponsored a bill in the 60's changing the ratio of Europeans to 3rd worlders.
He reversed the stats so now we allow 2/3 from 3rd world..asia, africa etc and 1/3 from euro nations.
More Democrats looking for handouts and nanny state to help them.

Thank the Lord for Mary Jo's sacrifice and keeping that bloated bastard from the Presidency

[mojaveman]

Thank the Lord for Mary Jo's sacrifice and keeping that bloated bastard from the Presidency

Now that's some pretty straight shootin' there PRB.

Seems those once generous and liberal immigration laws will now be slitting our throats in this new 21st Century of terrorism.

[Sigaba]

Source is here.

The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act)

The Immigration Act of 1924 limited the number of immigrants allowed entry into the United States through a national origins quota. The quota provided immigration visas to two percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census. It completely excluded immigrants from Asia.

In 1917, the U.S. Congress enacted the first widely restrictive immigration law. The uncertainty generated over national security during World War I made it possible for Congress to pass this Act, and it included several important provisions that paved the way for the 1924 Act. The 1917 Act implemented a literacy test that required immigrants over 16 years old to demonstrate basic reading comprehension in any language. It also increased the tax paid by new immigrants upon arrival and allowed immigration officials to exercise more discretion in making decisions over whom to exclude. Finally, the Act excluded from entry anyone born in a geographically defined "Asiatic Barred Zone" except for Japanese and Filipinos. In 1907, the Japanese Government had voluntarily limited Japanese immigration to the U.S. in the Gentlemen's Agreement. The Philippines was an American colony, so its citizens were American nationals and could travel freely to the United States. China was not included in the Barred Zone, but the Chinese were already denied immigration visas under the Chinese Exclusion Act.

The literacy test alone was not enough to prevent most potential immigrants from entering, so members of Congress sought a new way to restrict immigration in the 1920s. Immigration expert and Republican Senator from Vermont William P. Dillingham introduced a measure to create immigration quotas, which he set at three percent of the total population of the foreign-born of each nationality in the United States as recorded in the 1910 census. This put the total number of visas available each year to new immigrants at 350,000. It did not, however, establish quotas of any kind for residents of the Western Hemisphere. President Wilson opposed the restrictive act, preferring a more liberal immigration policy, so he used the pocket veto to prevent its passage. In early 1921, the newly inaugurated President Warren Harding called Congress back to a special session to pass the law. In 1922, the act was renewed for another two years.

When the Congressional debate over immigration began in 1924, the quota system was so well-established that no one questioned whether to maintain it, but rather discussed how to adjust it. Though there were advocates for raising quotas and allowing more people to enter, the champions of restriction triumphed. They created a plan that lowered the existing quota from three to two percent of the foreign born population. They also pushed back the year on which quota calculations were based from 1910 to 1890.

Another change to the quota altered the basis of the quota calculations. The quota had been based on the number of people born outside of the United States, or the number of immigrants in the United States. The new law traced the origins of the whole of the American population, including natural-born citizens. The new quota calculations included large numbers of people of British descent whose families were long resident in the United States. As a result, the percentage of visas available to individuals from the British Isles and Western Europe increased, but newer immigration from other areas like Southern and Eastern Europe was limited.

The 1924 Immigration Act also included a provision excluding from entry any alien who by virtue of race or nationality was ineligible for citizenship. Existing nationality laws dating from 1790 and 1870 excluded people of Asian lineage from naturalizing. As a result, the 1924 Act meant that even Asians not previously prevented from immigrating - the Japanese in particular - would no longer be admitted to the United States. Many in Japan were very offended by the new law, which was a violation of the Gentlemen's Agreement. The Japanese government protested, but the law remained, resulting in an increase in existing tensions between the two nations. But it appeared that the U.S. Congress had decided that preserving the racial composition of the country was more important than promoting good ties with the Japanese empire.

The restrictionist principles of the Act could have resulted in strained relations with some European countries as well, but these potential problems did not appear for several reasons. The global depression of the 1930s and World War II both served to curtail European emigration. When these crises had passed, emergency provisions for the resettlement of displaced persons in 1948 and 1950 helped the United States avoid conflict over its new immigration laws.

In all of its parts, the most basic purpose of the 1924 Immigration Act was to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity. Congress revised the Act in 1952.

On the Gentleman's Agreement and the role of immigration relations in Japanese-American relations in general, source is here.

A U.S.-Japanese treaty signed in 1894 had guaranteed the Japanese the right to immigrate to the United States, and to enjoy the same rights in the country as U.S. citizens. In 1906, however, the San Francisco Board of Education enacted a measure to send Japanese and Chinese children to segregated schools. The Government of Japan was outraged by this policy, claiming that it violated the 1894 treaty. In a series of notes exchanged between late 1907 and early 1908, known collectively as the Gentlemen's Agreement, the U.S. Government agreed to pressure the San Francisco authorities to withdraw the measure, and the Japanese Government promised to restrict the immigration of laborers to the United States.

With the immigration problem temporarily settled, the two countries met to provide mutual reassurances about their territories and interests in East Asia. In 1908, U.S Secretary of State Elihu Root and Japanese Ambassador Takahira Kogoro formed an agreement in which Japan promised to respect U.S. territorial possessions in the Pacific, its Open Door policy in China, and the limitation of immigration to the United States as outlined in the Gentlemen's Agreement. The Government of Japan redirected its labor emigrants to its holdings in Manchuria, maintaining that these were not a part of China. For its part, the United States recognized Japanese control of Taiwan and the Pescadores, and the Japanese special interest in Manchuria. By reiterating each country's position in the region, the Root-Takahira Agreement served to lessen the threat of a misunderstanding or war between the two nations.

This series of agreements still did not resolve all of the outstanding issues. U.S. treatment of Japanese residents continued to cause tension between the two nations. The Alien Land Act of 1913, for example, barred Japanese from owning or leasing land for longer than three years and adversely affected U.S.-Japanese relations in the years leading up to World War I.

The United States has experienced this kind of sentiment before. The reviews were mixed. And some of the finer points were worked out through some ferocious fighting during World War II. To this day, historians consider three questions about the necessity of:

• the U.S.-Japanese naval arms race;
• the Battle of Guadalcanal;
• the decision to drop the bombs.

Did the Japanese fight so doggedly simply because of martial elan and professional esprit de corps alone or was there a wide spread perception that the Americans hated them and would slaughter them all?

[Richard]

Robert S. Mueller, III
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation

Before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

September 30, 2009
Part 1 of 2

Good morning, Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, and members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the terrorist threats facing our nation and the efforts of the FBI to protect the United States from future terrorist attacks.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the FBI’s priorities shifted dramatically as we charted a new course, with national security at the forefront of our mission. The eight years since have seen significant changes at the FBI, and we have made progress. Today, the FBI is a stronger organization, combining greater capabilities with a longstanding commitment to the security of the United States, while at the same time upholding the Constitution and protecting civil liberties.

The nature of the terrorist threat facing the United States has also changed over these last eight years. A significant evolution in the problem of terrorism is the threat posed by those who believe in al Qaeda’s ideology, since it was in part created 20 years ago to spread a revolutionary idea. Today, while we still face threats from al Qaeda, and many of its affiliated groups, we also face a challenge in dealing with homegrown extremists in the United States who while not formally part of these terrorist organizations, believe in their ideologies and wish to harm the United States in furtherance of it. This requires us to develop an understanding of a diffuse and evolving threat environment and to leverage our unique authorities as both a national security service and a law enforcement organization.

Al Qaeda

Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, we have frequently received credible reports that al Qaeda remains committed to attacking the United States and U.S. interests abroad. Al Qaeda’s primary threat continues to come from the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, but we are seeing persistent activity elsewhere, from Europe to the Horn of Africa and Yemen. Of particular concern to the FBI are individuals who can travel with fewer restrictions to these areas of extremist activity and then enter the United States under less scrutiny.

Fortunately, the success of US military and intelligence operations combined with the work of our allies around the world has diminished al Qaeda’s core external operational capabilities. The elimination of key al Qaeda figures, decline in its capacity to train recruits safely, disruptions in travel routes, reduction of terrorist financing, and the dwindling of safe havens have all reduced the ability of al Qaeda to attack the homeland. The FBI continues to monitor, collect intelligence, and investigate al Qaeda’s reach into the United States.

Affiliated Groups

Some affiliated groups that traditionally had only local agendas have formally joined ranks with al Qaeda and expanded their operational focus regionally, or even globally, which may include attacks inside the United States. Strong networks have formed that encompass the shifting desire of followers to engage more directly with al- Qaeda and al Qaeda’s vision of violent jihad.

Some of these militant groups have physically re-located closer to core al Qaeda in Pakistan and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) with a refocused attack strategy against coalition troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan and against western interests in the region. Factions of militant groups have executed spectacular attacks within the borders of India to inflame tensions between Pakistan and India. Components more closely aligned with al Qaeda demonstrated their intent and capability to attack western interests through the November 2008 Mumbai attacks and the September 2008 Marriott Hotel truck bombing in Islamabad. Other groups have formed in the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa, while affiliates in Somalia, Central Asia, and Iraq are also of concern for their potential to broaden their targeting focus.

The increased role of militant factions in al Qaeda operational activities poses the FBI with two problems. First, al Qaeda has a new pipeline of individuals to continue filling its ranks with recruits who may develop into operational leaders to conduct future attacks against the homeland and western interests abroad. Second, the involvement of these militant groups presents us with greater difficulties in identifying the enemy. Motivated U.S. persons who reach militant training camps in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other conflict zones have a potential doorway to involvement in core al Qaeda operational activities.

Homegrown Radicalization

Since 2001, the emergence of individuals and groups inspired by al Qaeda rhetoric but sometimes lacking the capabilities to launch a spectacular, large-scale attack poses a growing homeland challenge. The threat from homegrown violent extremists remains a top terrorism concern for the FBI, but quantifying the threat and assessing the capabilities of these individuals is difficult. While the intent and capability of homegrown extremists varies widely, several FBI terrorism subjects, with no known nexus to overseas extremist networks or groups, have taken steps to move from violent rhetoric to action.

I do not remember a time when these types of loose networks were not a part of my morning briefing. In May 2009, U.S. citizen James Cromitie and three other individuals were arrested for plotting to detonate explosives near a Jewish community center and synagogue. As alleged in the indictment/complaint, they also planned to attack military planes at the New York Air National Guard Base with an anti-aircraft missile system. Cromitie had reportedly been upset about the war in Afghanistan and had expressed interest in doing “something to America.” In December 2008, five individuals, inspired by al Qaeda, were convicted on conspiracy and weapons charges for plotting to conduct a small arms attack against soldiers stationed at the Fort Dix Army Base in New Jersey. Members of the group conducted surveillance, obtained a map of the base, participated in firearms training, and acquired weapons in preparation for the attack.

Trends in Radicalization

Overseas Travel

The role of returning foreign fighters to the United States changes the nature of the threat to the homeland. Individuals inside the United States with foreign fighter experience and a network of extremist contacts overseas can encounter and encourage other like-minded individuals with a strong desire to engage in violence but lack the skills and resources to do so. We have learned that it can take years before individuals with foreign fighter experience begin to develop a radicalization network.

In July 2009, the FBI disrupted a conspiracy by a U.S. citizen and others in the Raleigh, North Carolina-area to recruit and help young men travel overseas in order to participate in extremist activities. As articulated in the indictment, Daniel Boyd received military-style training in terrorist camps during the 1989 through 1992 timeframe for the purpose of engaging in violent jihad. Following this training, he allegedly fought in Afghanistan and then returned to the United States. Part of the conspiracy involved radicalizing mostly young Muslims or converts to Islam to believe in the idea that violent jihad was a personal obligation on the part of every good Muslim. The conspiracy also consisted of training in weapons, financing, and assistance in arranging overseas travel and contacts so that others could participate in violence.

We know individuals have been recruited to travel to Somalia to fight or train on behalf of al-Shabaab. While there are no current indicators that any of the individuals who went to Somalia have been selected, trained, or tasked by al-Shabaab or other extremists to conduct attacks inside the United States, the FBI remains concerned about this possibility.

Individuals who attend overseas madrassas or religious institutions located in terrorist safe havens, such as in the northern regions of Yemen and Pakistan, are at risk of being radicalized or recruited by terrorist organizations. The growing number of individuals in the United States with connections to these types of institutions also provides an indirect means for those inspired by extremist rhetoric—but who lack the necessary contacts to increase their participation in violent actions—to become more engaged.

Role of the Internet and Social Networking

The Internet also remains a powerful conduit for radicalization efforts. Al Qaeda effectively uses the Internet to spread its message through statements for consumption by anyone with access to an Internet connection. The ability to exert global influence through cyberspace further contributes to the amorphous nature of the threat facing the homeland by affording individuals access and anonymity within a self-reinforcing extremist environment. Individuals can also find like-minded extremists using chat rooms and social networking sites, enhancing their ability to develop global networks of extremist contacts.

In August 2009, an Atlanta jury heard about a cluster of extremists who had formed a loose on-line network connecting individuals in North America, Europe, and South Asia. U.S. citizen Ehsanual Sadequee was found guilty of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists after he and another American, Syed Ahmed, made contact in chat rooms with like-minded individuals and proceeded to plan attacks, conduct surveillance of potential target sites within the United States, and pursue overseas training.

(cont'd)

[Richard]

Robert S. Mueller, III
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation

Before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

September 30, 2009
Part 2 of 2

Addressing the Threat

The FBI’s national security mission is to lead and coordinate intelligence efforts that drive actions to protect the United States from the increasingly diffuse terrorism threat that has evolved since 2001. Our goals are to develop a comprehensive understanding of the threats and penetrate national and transnational networks that have a desire and capability to harm us. To be successful, we must understand the threat, continue to integrate our intelligence and law enforcement capabilities in every FBI operational program, and expand our contribution to the Intelligence Community knowledge base.

The FBI’s plan is to understand the threats not only to disrupt plots but to dismantle networks so they no longer pose a threat. We want an intelligence picture of a network that is complete enough for us to avoid leaving any pieces of the network operating after we take action. Moving from simply understanding a case to mapping loose networks of associates can take months or years. Targeted intelligence-gathering takes time, and requires patience, precision, and dedication. The process is labor-intensive and often does not provide a clear picture quickly, but it is at the core of understanding the threats facing the homeland. Yet even the best intelligence will not provide complete certainty, given the evolving nature of the threats facing the homeland.

In January 2009, the FBI released a classified intelligence assessment on national security and criminal threats to the homeland. This assessment provided the FBI’s strategic perspective on national security and criminal threats related to core FBI priorities, trends, patterns, and themes. In addition to our work inside the FBI, we integrated our intelligence program with other agencies under the Director of National Intelligence, with appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties. Operationally, FBI agents work with a range of counterparts across the Intelligence Community. Information regarding analysis and operations is shared routinely and continuously, and up to the highest levels of decision-makers in various agencies. Once we gain an understanding of the threats facing us through intelligence, the FBI’s law enforcement authorities allow us to move against individuals and networks. We are not an intelligence service that collects, but does not act; nor are we a law enforcement service that acts without knowledge.

Today’s FBI combines the capability to understand the breadth and scope of threats with the capability to dismantle those same threats. A significant step in this evolution is the Strategic Execution Team (SET), which we established in 2007 to help us assess our intelligence programs and standardize them throughout the FBI. The SET, made up of analysts and agents, developed a series of recommendations for accelerating the integration of our intelligence and investigative work. The SET improvements ensure that we capitalize on our intelligence collection capabilities and develop national collection plans to fill gaps in our knowledge base.

Our Field Intelligence Groups (FIGs) were also restructured in every field office across the country to ensure each is able to identify, assess, and attack emerging threats. Following SET’s recommendations, the FIGs now conform to one model, based on best practices from the field, and adapted to the size and complexity of each office. Each FIG has well-defined requirements for intelligence gathering, analysis, use, and production. Managers are accountable for ensuring that intelligence production is of high quality, timely, and relevant not only to their communities, but to the larger intelligence and law enforcement communities. As a result of these changes, the analysts and agents in the FIGs collect intelligence more completely, analyze it more quickly, share it more widely with others who need the information, and take action on it more effectively. The FIGs can better coordinate with each other, Headquarters, law enforcement, and intelligence partners. With this integrated model, we can turn information and intelligence into knowledge and action.

As the FBI has evolved structurally to meet modern challenges, we have also advanced our technological and scientific ability to conduct investigations. To meet the global nature of the threat, a number of current initiatives allow us to capture and share actionable intelligence. The Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center is addressing the threat of improvised explosive devices through technical and forensic exploitation. The information and intelligence derived from this analysis is used to provide intelligence for both military force protection and homeland security. The Next Generation Identification Biometric Database will allow modern biometric data, combined with traditional fingerprints, to assist in the identification of individuals. In 2006, the FBI established a Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Directorate which includes a strong forensic program for all aspects of WMD and traditional forensic expertise. The FBI Laboratory Division is central in our support to interagency efforts and members of the Intelligence Community in nuclear forensics and other scientific endeavors.

Partnerships and Outreach

The role of our law enforcement partners is critical to protecting our nation and its citizens. Our Joint Terrorism Task Forces are in more than 100 locations nationwide. These multi-agency task forces are comprised of local, state, and federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies that share information and conduct operations to prevent and dismantle terrorist plots. The FBI is also committed to participation in all leading statewide fusion centers, select Multi-Agency Intelligence Centers, and the Antiterrorism Advisory Councils in federal judicial districts.

In 2009, the FBI began operating a threat tracking system for state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to share information with a potential nexus to terrorism. This tracking system, called eGuardian, provides a central location for law enforcement suspicious activity reporting in an unclassified environment. By engaging in close partnerships with our state and local colleagues we are better positioned to share and receive intelligence, thus optimizing our ability to respond to emerging threats at the federal, state, and local levels.

In response to three ideologically-driven murders in the United States, in which the perpetrators demonstrated Lone Offender characteristics and had previous FBI contact, the FBI initiated the Lone Offender Task Force in 2009 In partnership with other government agencies and comprised of approximately 25 personnel from FBI Headquarters and field offices, this initiative takes an introspective and proactive approach: a comprehensive review of open investigations where lone offender behavioral traits potentially apply and the development of new intelligence related to previously closed subjects who may meet some of the Lone Offender characteristics. By developing measures to identify the Lone Offender, we hope to proactively disrupt future threats.

Intelligence-driven investigations also require a unity of effort with our partners overseas. Global cooperation is necessary to combat terrorism, and through more than 60 Legal Attaché offices around the world, the FBI has strengthened relationships with our international partners and expanded our global reach. The FBI’s assistance in investigating the November 2008 Mumbai attacks not only helped a key ally in the investigation and prosecution of a terror attack but also provided the FBI with greater insight and understanding of international terror networks that pose a threat to the United States.

Finally, the FBI understands that protecting America requires the cooperation and understanding of the public. The FBI has an extensive outreach program to Muslim, South Asian, and Sikh communities to address concerns and develop trust about the FBI and federal efforts to protect the homeland. In December 2008, the FBI Office of Public Affairs deployed Specialized Community Outreach Teams to work with local FBI field offices, federal partners, municipal governments, and non-profit organizations to engage the Somali diaspora. The FBI works closely with the Department of Homeland Security, the National Counterterrorism Center, and other Intelligence Community partners on community engagement efforts.

Conclusion

Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins, I would like to conclude by thanking you and this Committee for your service and support. The FBI is in a better position to understand the threats facing the Homeland than we were even a year ago. We must never stop evolving, but we can say today our analysis is deeper, our operations more sophisticated, and our knowledge more three-dimensional, and we have eight years of experience to back us up. While the threat of terrorism has become more diffuse and will continue to evolve, the FBI has changed accordingly and will continue to change to defeat the threats of the future. On behalf of the men and women of the FBI, I look forward to working with you in the years to come as we work together to enhance the capabilities needed to protect the United States.

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress...ller093009.htm

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by jw74

We are the idiots. This is a recurring generational problem of not demanding more from our elected officials.

Well I'd argue that at least currently more is being demanded, and yet less is being offered from our elected officials. If you look at the bailout as an example, 70% of the populace was against it according to the polls IIRC, and they did it anyway. Then look at healthcare the populace is up in arms against the public option, yet our elected officials are still pushing for it. I guess actually demanding more would be to vote out everyone who voted for the bailout goat rope as well as anyone who votes for this universal healthcare nonsense. I voted against my senators/congresscritters who voted for the bailout in 2008 and I'll do so again for any who are left in 2010. Maybe the rest of the country will do the same, we can only hope.

To clarify, people are immigrated, goods are imported.

Sigaba it's called cynical sarcasm, I apologize if you didn't get that from my post, while yes people do immigrate, the 2nd order effect of that immigration is that we are importing anti-American sentiment. Why fix the borders if we're going to allow/encourage people from cultures who have openly called for the destruction of our way of life into this country? It would seem to me that we've got plenty of people here already who hate this country, do we really need to bring in more?

[Richard]

No shoes, no shirt, no visa.

Richard

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Defender968

Sigaba it's called cynical sarcasm, I apologize if you didn't get that from my post[.]

Defender968, the first round of Doubleshot is on me. The pink font protocol for sarcasm of all stripes is courtesy of nmap.

Originally Posted by Defender968

Why fix the borders if we're going to allow/encourage people from cultures who have openly called for the destruction of our way of life into this country? It would seem to me that we've got plenty of people here already who hate this country, do we really need to bring in more?

How does one determine the state of mind of people coming into the U.S.? Who decides what is an acceptable view of America and what isn't?

Given the controversial history of U.S. immigration policy (formal and otherwise), is it a good idea to pursue a solution through more quotas, litmus tests, and the political use of this or that theory?

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Defender968, the first round of Doubleshot is on me. The pink font protocol for sarcasm of all stripes is courtesy of nmap.

I'll definitely use the pink next time.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

How does one determine the state of mind of people coming into the U.S.? Who decides what is an acceptable view of America and what isn't?

Very good questions, the first answer IMO is you really can't tell the state of mind of anyone, unless that individual is actively stating they want to destroy the US, the west, Israel, or any other country/religion. However do you really want to roll the dice with countries whose primary sources for education are radical Islamic madras’s? Do we want to allow people with that education or no education at all come to our country, what purpose does that serve and is it worth the risk? I understand historically the bring me your tired, your poor, your hungry history of our country, but that was a different time when we needed more people in this country and before kids were strapping on explosive vests and walking into hotels and schools.

On the second part I'm not going to get into the views of America, I'm concerned with bringing in known or likely threats to the security and safety of this nation and it's citizens, every time we allow someone from Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen etc and the list goes on and on we all collectively take a risk that I personally don't think is worth it. How do we discriminate, well how many Indian doctors blew themselves up in crowded markets last year? How about Swiss dentists? French Bankers? Now how many Iraqi's blew themselves up last year? Ok which should we let in, seems pretty simple to me.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Given the controversial history of U.S. immigration policy (formal and otherwise), is it a good idea to pursue a solution through more quotas, litmus tests, and the political use of this or that theory?

Given the option of either, allowing anyone from regions who hate us to immigrate with no guarantee they won't be blowing themselves up in our local malls, or not allowing anyone from those regions to immigrate, I personally would chose the latter. Given how much radical Islam has infiltrated some of those countries why would we even want to take the chance, especially given the lack of skills/education in those regions? We should be targeting skills that we need in this country like doctors, nurses, or scientists, I don't think there are too many of those coming out of Somalia or Afghanistan. If the people from those countries don't like it, then they can solve the problems in their own countries and not come here.

[Richard]

Ok which should we let in, seems pretty simple to me.

Astounding.

You forgot to use the pink text - I hope - otherwise you left off a few of the races of the ffolkes normally included under such 'pretty simple' thinking.

Richard