Thread: The Diminished Credibility of the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity

The Diminished Credibility of the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff plays down report of imminent al Qaeda attack

Mon Jul 2, 2007 5:10PM EDT
By John O'Callaghan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on Monday played down a report al Qaeda was planning a big attack on the United States, saying there was no credible information about an imminent threat.

As British police investigated two failed car bombs in London and a fiery attack on Glasgow's airport by a fuel-filled vehicle, U.S. officials tightened security at transport hubs without raising the country's overall alert level. "We do not currently have any specific threat information that is credible about a particular attack on the United States," Chertoff told Fox News.

ABC News, quoting a senior U.S. official, said on Sunday a secret law enforcement report prepared for the Department of Homeland Security warned that al Qaeda planned to carry out a "spectacular" attack this summer. "This is reminiscent of the warnings and intelligence we were getting in the summer of 2001," ABC quoted the unidentified official as saying.

The United States has been on heightened alert since the September 11, 2001, attacks by al Qaeda using hijacked airliners. Britain is also a target for Islamic militants for its role as Washington's ally in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

FURTHER ATTACKS

"Al Qaeda and its affiliates do intend to carry out further attacks against the United States and the West," Chertoff said. "We also know that they tend to want to do attacks that are spectacular or high-profile, so it's not surprising to have analysts comment on the fact that this kind of an attack is a very definite possibility," he said.

"But again I want to say that's more general analysis that is not based on a specific piece of information about a particular attack."

Chertoff had made similar comments in interviews on Sunday about the possibility of a specific security threat to the United States.

British authorities have linked the three incidents late last week to al Qaeda and detained seven people as part of an investigation that police say is likely to yield more arrests.

"I wouldn't rule al Qaeda out," Chertoff said. "We have seen, however, different kinds of attacks. Sometimes there are al Qaeda-affiliated groups that use different methods than what we might call core al Qaeda."

The lesson from the British plots, he said, was the two London attacks were foiled partly because people saw something suspicious and alerted the authorities. "We are in very close contact with British authorities and have been since this whole episode began a few days ago," Chertoff said.

Chertoff told Fox News there had been an incident involving a pipe bomb early on Monday at the Walt Disney World Resort outside Orlando, Florida.

But local authorities said the explosive device, which detonated in a large trash bin about 12:30 a.m. EDT (0430 GMT), was small and did not appear aimed at causing injuries or any extensive property damage. "It was a very crude device," said Jim Solomon, a spokesman for the Orange County Sheriff's Office. "There's nothing right now to suggest that this in any way was related to a terrorist act."

Disney recently launched a crackdown on people loitering in shopping and restaurant areas outside the theme parks, and it came under fire last month for ejecting four players who were among Florida State University's top football prospects.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...rpc=22&sp=true


Actions have consequences. One of the negative consequences of the Department of Homeland Security’s push for shamnesty is its shrinking credibility. From the dog-and-pony show raids before shamnesty hit the Senate floor to the smearing of opponents during the legislative debate to the inaction of “emergency” border security appropriations after the bill’s defeat, DHS and its chief Michael Chertoff have abandoned principled enforcement of immigration laws for cynical, open-borders politicking.

We won’t forget the frenetic smear campaign that Chertoff waged against principled opponents of the Bush-Kennedy immigration disaster. We won’t forget that while global jihad marched on, Secretary Chertoff was more worried about the availability of cheap lettuce pickers than about terrorist operatives slipping past our air, land, and sea borders.

Now, in the wake of last week’s two attempted terrorist car bombings in London and Glasgow, Chertoff is all over the airwaves reassuring us that he’s got everything under control in the U.S. He appeared on weekend talk shows to encourage the American people to “be vigilant and report any suspicious activities to authorities.”

Uh-huh. This from the public official who maligned vigilant immigration enforcement proponents as ignorant bigots who want to execute illegal aliens. This from the public official who has dismissed strict enforcement of our immigration laws as infeasible. This from the public official who lavished praise on security-undermining Teddy Kennedy as “awesome.”

In a last-ditch effort to save shamnesty, the White House dangled a $4.4 billion emergency border security buyout tied to the deal. Why isn’t Chertoff asking for that money now?

The heroic opponents of the Bush-Kennedy bill in the Senate hammered away at the crisis of confidence the American people have in the ability of the feds to secure our borders. There’s no better illustration of that the fatally diminished credibility of the Department of Homeland Insecurity in these dangerous times.

June 29, 2007 8:00 AM
Immigration Reform, for Real

For months, the establishment dismissed those of us opposed to amnesty as a tiny minority of the public and the Congress. On Thursday, that “tiny minority” outnumbered the pro-amnesty forces in the Senate, dealing a humiliating and well-deserved defeat to President Bush. The same White House that insisted that there was no realistic alternative to “comprehensive immigration reform” had better recalibrate its realism now. There always were better alternatives, and the president and his party have no way out of the immigration morass he has created unless they pursue them.

Nor does the country. The public is rightly dismayed at our incapacity to exercise a key attribute of sovereignty: control of the borders. For decades, our elected officials have passed immigration laws that they lack the political will to enforce. Among the fallacies of “comprehensive reform” was the notion that this situation could be fixed instantaneously. It cannot. But by rejecting a solution that would make the problem worse, we may have taken the first of many steps toward a better immigration system.

The next step ought to be President Bush’s. As divisive as this debate has been, it did reveal a consensus on the need to enforce current laws. The president should accept that consensus and act on it. If necessary, he should request additional authority and resources for the purpose.

Under current law, the border can be secured and the administration can crack down on scofflaw employers. Contractors can be required to enroll in the government’s employee-verification system as a condition of doing business with the federal government. The Social Security Administration identifies tens of thousands of W-2 forms with false or stolen Social Security numbers. The IRS can fine employers who file a significant number of such forms.

In arguing for the comprehensive reform, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff said that his department needed data from the Social Security Administration to enforce the law on employers. There never was any need to hold that simple reform hostage to amnesty, and the president should ask Congress to enact it now. He should also clarify that state and local law-enforcement agencies have the constitutional authority to make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws.

Bush could also learn from some of the amendments offered during the recent debate. Court-ordered restrictions on deportation should, where possible, be eased. “Sanctuary cities” ought to be penalized. So should visitors who overstay their visas.

The president’s error has been to regard controlling immigration and welcoming newcomers as polar opposites. But a sensible control of immigration would provide both an economic basis for new immigrants to succeed and a political basis for them to be greeted warmly. And in any case, Republicans who seek their own political health no longer have a choice in the matter.

Those who profit from porous borders took a risk when they broached the topic of comprehensive reform: that the public, long inattentive to the causes of our failing policy, might start taking a closer look. It is going to be much harder for the political class to follow its accustomed course. If the president charts a new one, he will have the support of the public and even some Democrats. If Congress balks, he will have in his hands a winning issue. That would be a nice change of pace, wouldn’t it?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...NjNjI2ZDdhZmU=