Homeland Security Chief: ‘No Idea’ Who Scrubbed Islam from Counterterror Materials

Jeh Johnson is the same guy that did this:

Fearing a civil liberties backlash and "bad public relations" for the Obama administration, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused in early 2014 to end the secret U.S. policy that prohibited immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of all foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas, according to a former senior department official.

abcnews.go.com...

That's the year that Tashfeen Malik entered the US on a Visa even though on her social media messages she showed support for terrorist groups.

But, because of Jeh Johnson, immigration officials were not allowed to review them. Something is very wrong in our country.

a reply to: queenofswords

Something is very wrong in our country.

Something is very wr0ng with Americans.

We allow this crap to continue.

So ... no Constitutional concerns about the Government publishing information that singled out the religion of Islam for special attention, rather than terrorist groups, radicalized individuals, rogue nations supporting terrorism?

Notably, some of these meetings were between Mueller and American Muslim groups ... these citizens deserve to have their religion targeted by the US Government?

Is that what I'm hearing here?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Islam is not merely a religion it is an ideology.

Islam is an anti-american, anti- woman, anti-gay, anti-constitution milotant ideology that has declared war on and has attacked Americans and other nations worldwide.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Gryphon66

Islam is not merely a religion it is an ideology.

Islam is an anti-american, anti- woman, anti-gay, anti-constitution milotant ideology that has declared war on and has attacked Americans and other nations worldwide.

Semantics.

Islam is first and foremost a religion, and as such has not "declared war" on the United States (mostly because there is no centralized body or unified front as you are implying).

If I were to make a similar description of the American Religious Right (and I could fairly easily) ... you'd be all over me and rightly so.

The First Amendment is clear.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Gryphon66

Islam is not merely a religion it is an ideology.

Islam is an anti-american, anti- woman, anti-gay, anti-constitution milotant ideology that has declared war on and has attacked Americans and other nations worldwide.

Semantics.

Islam is first and foremost a religion, and as such has not "declared war" on the United States (mostly because there is no centralized body or unified front as you are implying).

If I were to make a similar description of the American Religious Right (and I could fairly easily) ... you'd be all over me and rightly so.

The First Amendment is clear.

Whoa. Head in the sand or what? There is a declared war against ALL non muslims in black and white, written down in their so called 'holy [war] book'. And some of them are right now ACTIVELY killing innocents in the name of said book. < So far I call that war, don't you?
I don't even care if ALL muslims are in on it or not. After all everyone talks about German Nazis and Germans did this and that, when in fact only a handful did. Are Germans less human than muslims and can all be painted with one brush?

Secondly Yes, islam is an ideology and not a religion. Just because you call it a religion doesn't make it one. A religion is supposed to be spiritual and peaceful and broaden your inner understanding about the world and your place in it. Such as Buddhism [which funnily enough is NOT called a religion because there is no invisible sky daddy involved]. Shinto is also very peaceful and logic. Islam is based on a warrior's writings, and it's main aim [check for yourself] is to make the whole world islamic [if I am against it or not].

Just because you haven't read the koran and you obviously don't know much about the history [extensive war history] of islam doesn't mean you can just make stuff up and it magically comes true.

Islam is at the very moment at war with not only America but all the rest of the infidel world.

a reply to: Hecate666

Head in the sand because I believe in the Constitution? No, I don't think so.

You don't like their holy book, don't read it. I detest most of them myself. Please don't draw up insane verses from the Quran as proof we should trample the Constitution in the dirt. No, I don't call the actions of a small percentage of a religions followers "a war" because it's not.

You lose all of the moral high-ground you're trying so hard to ascend to by stating you don't care if Muslims at large are "in on it."

Any religion that is practiced can be described as an ideology. What rot! Just because "I" call it a religion? LOL.

That's just stilly. I don't have time for such irrational claptrap. If your argument had any merit, you wouldn't be so desperately attacking your imaginations about who and what I am.

Actually, I have read the Quran in an English translation, but that's neither here nor there in this. I've read the Bible as well. Scary, irrational stuff all round.

Know what else I've read? The US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

If you really want to trample that into the dirt, just so you can go after your perceived "enemies" ... then your enemies have already won.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: xuenchen

'I have no idea'

Is this the prerequisite for a job in the US government?

it also includes 'I can't recall'.
Applies to bank CEOs as well.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Yeah, radical Islam is being prevented from the free expression of their flavor of this particular religion by us not being able to call it what it is.

We should allow the jihadis the freedom to express themselves fully in our society by rolling over and letting them ride roughshod over our laws because...religion.

This is the tack that the enablers within our own government are taking now.

The Wahabists and Salafists are merely expressing their religion when they perform these violent actions in the name of the prophet, don't you know?

Come on folks, we are infringing upon their right of religious expression if we call radical Islam out for the cancer that it is.

Aren't we better than that as a country?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Not a fan of the Constitution I see.

Explain to us how our Government can officially condemn an entire religion and not trample the First Amendment.

Spare us your version of the inspiring, flag-waving, treachery that passes as patriotism now.

How does your govenrment go after a RELIGION rather than radicalized individuals, terrorist organizations and rogue states?

a reply to: Gryphon66

How does a government go after an enemy (followers of radical Islam in this instance) if it cannot train it's investigative and enforcement branches with specific terminology related to radical Islam.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all who follow radical Islam should be under more intense scrutiny.

If they're investigating some right wing loon ball, are they going to start looking in inner city Chicago? And use gangland phraseology to phrase the discussion?

If they are looking at the Bloods or the Crips are they going to begin looking in rural America and use the colloquialisms that are understood in rural America?

Investigations target specific groups for particular reasons. And when those groups are targeted, the best use of language comes when it is applicable.

Anything else is milquetoast.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

A government addresses the facts of terrorism without suggesting that a religion is at fault.

"All who follow radical Islam?" So, you're in favor of the Government surveilling American citizens based on their religion?

Just say that. There are many who are willing to disregard our Constitution for any number of reasons.

Toss your red herring somewhere else. This doesn't have anything to do with Bloods, or Crips or Right Wing Nutjobs.

Demonstrate how the Government can target a religion without ignoring the First Amendment.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Demonstrate how the government focusing on those who are following this one small aspect of Islam (the radical aspect) automatically means that they are condemning all other followers of that religion.

Does the Bundy ranch incident mean that all cattle farmers are targets?

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Gryphon66

Demonstrate how the government focusing on those who are following this one small aspect of Islam (the radical aspect) automatically means that they are condemning all other followers of that religion.

Does the Bundy ranch incident mean that all cattle farmers are targets?

The complaint in this thread is the "scrubbing" of the word "Islam" from official counter-terrorism training materials. Efforts made by the Government to focus on the real issues and real groups (radicalized individuals, terrorist organizations, rogue states) rather than carelessly on a religion followed by nearly two billion people and over three million American citizens.

Show us the counter-terrorism documents that refer carelessly to ranchers being suspect, and your silly example might have some small merit. If not, you're wasting time.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Documents obtained by the Judicial Watch FOIA request revealed that among the reasons given by the FBI’s SME for purging “offensive” training documents were:

“Article is highly inflammatory and inaccurately argues the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization.”

“Page 13 inaccurately states that AQ [al Qaeda] is responsible for the bombing of the Khobar Towers and that AQ is ‘clearly linked’ to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.”

“The overall tenor of the presentation is too informal in the current political context.”

“The Qur’an is not the teachings of the Prophet, but the revealed word of God.”

“Remove references to mosques specifically as a radicalization incubator.”

“Remove sweeping generality of ‘Those who fit the terrorist profile best (for the present at least) are young male immigrants of Middle Eastern appearance’”

“author seems to conflate ‘Islamic militancy’ with ‘terrorism’ and needs to define the difference and use it in their analysis”

In its May 22, 2013, article on some of the Judicial Watch revelations, The Washington Examiner reported, “While the Muslim Brotherhood is not on the U.S. State Department’s official list of international terrorist organizations, some of its offshoots, including the Palestinian group Hamas, are.” Ironically, FBI Director Mueller, who ordered the purge of “offensive” material – including the exoneration of the Muslim Brotherhood – has described the organization as a group that supports terrorism in the US and overseas.

“The FBI is rewriting history in order to help al Qaeda. This shows that the law enforcement agency is in need of serious top-to-bottom reform. As we recently learned from the Boston Marathon terrorist attack, the country is less safe when we allow radical Muslim organizations to tell the FBI how to train its agents and do its job,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The FBI’s purge of so called ‘offensive’ material is political correctness run amok, and it puts the nation at risk. The Obama administration needs to stop putting the tender sensibilities of radical Islamists above the safety of the American people.”

The enemy organizations have representatives that are dictating to us how we are to train our organizations which are responsible for fighting them.

That's like saying that the fox gets to dictate how the hen house will be built.

But you go ahead and keep saying that by focusing on the particular element of radicalization within the Islamic community is the same thing as going after those in that community who are not involved with the terrorism.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

We're not talking about enemy organizations.

We're talking about the First Amendment.

You have yet to demonstrate how you conceive that the United States Government can target a specific religion in either legislation or in the execution of our laws.

Do that and we have something to talk about.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You have yet to demonstrate how you conceive that the United States Government can target a specific religion in either legislation or in the execution of our laws.

Um, maybe by having training modules that focus on the radical aspect (not the entire religion, mind you) of Islam? What's so bad about that?

I'm sure they have training modules that pertain to right wing nutbars, or I hope they do; McVey comes to mind.

The ATF has a bike gang task force, do you think they use terminology related to biker gangs in particular or do they use euphemisms so as not to offend that subculture?

Whatever aspect our enemy (as a civilized society) takes, then that is what should be addressed.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

You can't answer a simple question.

You want to twist the Constitution of the United States to fit your own personal fears.

The matter is clear: no religion is the target of United State laws or law enforcement.

a reply to: Gryphon66

And just where in the bloody hell am I calling for the United States Government to target an entire religion?

You're the one that keeps making that assertion, I have continually emphasized that the focus should be only on the radical element within that religion.

You've been advocating that the entire religion (even the radical element within that religion) should be completely off limits to scrutiny.

Read my words, understand their meaning. If you can.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Then you have no problem with training materials referring to radicalized indivduals, terrorist organizations and rogue states. No references attached to a religion are needed, as the religion is not the problem?

Fine. That's my point.