Terrorists Crossing the Border: Genuine Threat or Hard-Right Ploy to End Immigration?

Day of Islam

By Paul L. Williams, Prometheus Books, 2007

The left is notorious for its queasiness about national security. It's as if it's afraid to bring the issue up for fear that hawks will use it as a license to wage even more war. Let sleeping dogs lie, progressives think, as they rattle on about diplomacy to the exclusion of a rational discussion about the use of force.

Another area they tend to steer clear of for fear of encouraging the right's worst tendencies is illegal immigration. But that only compounds the problem that begins with their neglect of defense. Turns out a component of national security is nested within illegal immigration, like drugs in the gut of a mule.

Fears that illegal immigrants may be terrorists are usually voiced by the likes of Limbaugh, Dobbs, and Tancredo. Thus, progressives assume that, like the administration stokes the public's fear of fanatical Islam in order to roll back civil liberties, the hard right morphs immigration into terrorism to further another end. (Presumably, keeping the nation's complexion more latte than caffé.)

But just because the issue comes from right field doesn't mean it's automatically apocryphal. Acting as if that's true reduces progressives to the same childish contrarianism that's characteristic of the right at its worst. (Like, before 9/11, the Bush administration relegating terrorism to the trash heap because it was tainted by attentiveness to it on President Clinton's part.)

In fact, ignoring the threat of terrorism breaching our borders puts us in harm's way twice over. First, it provides the hard right with more ammunition to claim progressives are soft on defense. Second, if the threat exists, it places us in that much more danger as terrorists continue to stream across.

Worse, the threat is exponentially increased when you consider what terrorists and those helping them may be smuggling -- nuclear materials. In 2004, political scientist and one-time Defense Department staffer Graham Allison put the threat on the map with his book Nuclear Terrorism.

In the recent Annual Threat Estimate, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell said that "al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups are attempting to acquire. . . radiological, and nuclear weapons and materials." Also, Hillary Clinton seeks to create the position of Senior Advisor to the President for the Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism. Conceivably, she'd single out Allison himself for the post.

Someone she won't choose is the poor man's Graham Allison -- Paul L. Williams. You've heard of the "Left Behind" series. Williams's recent book on nuclear terrorism, Day of Islam, is the third in what might be called the "Nothing Left Behind" trilogy.

A few pages into Day of Islam though, a progressive can be forgiven for thinking, "This is just a pretext to justify harsh treatment of illegal immigrants."

But, despite his affiliation with the hard-right organization, America's Truth Forum, Williams is one conservative who has more on his mind than halting illegal immigration for its own sake. His focus is on Osama bin Laden's attempts to procure enriched uranium and "nuclear suitcase" bombs, which he either has sneaked, is sneaking, or is trying to sneak into the US.

In fact, William's writing -- and this is almost unheard of among the heavy-handed right -- is free of overt partisanship. In other words, to him the business of halting nuclear terrorism is an equal opportunity employer.

Williams has put his money where his mouth is, too. For instance, he compiled an extensive dossier on the safe harbor for Islamic terrorists created by Canada's relaxed, UK-like immigration policies.

Then he singled out Toronto's McMaster University for failing to root out terrorists in its midst and allowing nuclear materials to be stolen from its nuclear research reactor. Williams is now saddled with a libel suit the school slapped on him.

But isn't he hyping the threat of nuclear terrorism to sell books? Let's go to the videotape -- or, in this case, the footnotes. Williams's thesis lives or dies by the credibility of his sources.

Wait, wouldn't they be classified? Turns out, like nuclear plans on the Internet, much of the evidence for nuclear terrorism is in the public domain.

Some of Williams's footnotes are from fringe hard-right sites like Debka-Net-Weekly.com, FrontPageMag.com, and WorldNetDaily.com. While it's certainly within the realm of possibility that they're trustworthy at times, their credibility is as compromised with progressives as Michael Moore is to them.

But most of Williams's sources are newspapers and magazines in the mainstream media. Not to mention a report on the presence of fanatical Muslim groups in South America's tri-border area (Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay) prepared by the Library of Congress in 2003. Incidentally, many of his references are even older.

If their age makes his thesis seem stale, we refer you to the old saw about al Qaeda's infinite patience. In fact the synergy of Williams's disparate sources infuses his thesis with considerable power -- the power to frighten us out of our wits, that is.

Williams begins with the story of bin Laden's initial attempts to obtain nuclear material, as told in a New York court room shortly before 9/11. Jamal Ahmed al-Fadel claims to have brokered the sale of uranium to bin Laden back in 1993, when both were in Sudan.

But, according to Williams, his revelations failed to arouse the curiosity of either the UN, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or any US government agency. It "didn't even manage," he writes, "to garner a footnote in The 9/11 Commission Report."

But Day of Islam reaches its frightening crescendo with another little-known member of al Qaeda: Adnan el-Shukrijuma. Another, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, whose name is seldom seen without the modifier "9/11-mastermind," provided testimony -- however qualified by the usual torture disclaimer -- about him.

KSM, as he's called (a little familiar for a mass murderer, no?), testified Adnan was designated field commander of the "nuclear hell storm" (seven attacks for seven cities) that al Qaeda intended to unleash on America. Funny how al Qaeda always spaces out on the retaliation part, e.g., Afghanistan's post-9/11 bombing.

Allegedly among those who stole nuclear material from McMaster University, Adnan was last seen in Mexico, where he may have been working with a gang that falls under the umbrella of Central America's notorious Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). In 2005, the director of a Justice Department task force labeled the likelihood of a link between MS-13 and al Qaeda as "improbable." But lawmakers north and south of the border weren't buying it.

Day of Islam incorporates material from the previous two books of the author's trilogy. But if anything bears repeating, alerting the world to nuclear terrorism does. Williams fights the extreme form of jihad that nuclear terrorism constitutes with his own brand of extreme jeremiad.

Meanwhile, are the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI on the case? In light of how willing they were to refrain from investigating Sibel Edmonds's allegations about leaking nuclear secrets, it's hard to feel confident they'll save us from nuclear terrorism.

Remember GWOT -- the war that sounds like something hocked up from your throat? It was supposed to have been Bush & Co.'s long suit. But it's been compromised to within an inch of its life by their perceived need to overlook the transgressions of supposed allies Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey in deference to their delicate sensibilities.

Nuclear terrorism embodies three tragedies in one. First, the act itself. Second, the public's inability to face it. Third, progressives, who should know better, turning a deaf ear to the threat just because the hard right is out front on it.

While it's critical that the issues of terrorism and immigration, now joined at the hip, be sundered, the solutions to both bear marked similarities.

As a first step to defusing the rage of terrorists, we need to trade with their countries of origin and provide them with aid for education. Then, more Middle-Easterners can enjoy the same prosperity as their fellow countrymen who have emigrated to the US with mercantile, rather than murderous, intent.

To decrease the impulse to immigrate, we need to encourage countries like Mexico to be more hospitable to its people. Repealing free-trade pacts that have done little more than make Wal-Mart the number-one employer in Mexico would be a start. As would abolishing farm subsidies to US agribusiness that, despite the cost of shipping, enable it to undercut the prices of Mexican farmers.

Initiatives like these may be characterized as appeasement, especially by the neocons -- if Churchill's their champ, Chamberlain's their chump. But they're realpolitik, however anathema that concept is to the Daydream Believers, as the neocons are called in the title of Fred Kaplan's new book.

The principles of Islam require al Qaeda to give advance warning, however obliquely, of an attack. If nuclear, unless we can find somebody to waterboard the details out of, we won't have a choice but to appease its leadership. That's assuming, best-case scenario, it will listen to reason.

Whatever our political affiliation, we owe it to ourselves -- not to mention all life on earth -- to heed Paul Williams. Nuclear terrorism, as well as proliferation, needs to be granted pride of place among all issues.

After all, compared to our extinction and the resulting destruction of our society, issues like global warming, dwindling energy reserves, and human rights seem like minor obstacles.

Comments

[JeffersonianDemocrat]

Illegal immigrants commit a lot of the crimes where I live. Look at the most-wanted posters ,if you live on a border state, and see for yourself. :-D Que se vayan ya por favor! No los necesitamos para nada. Bueno, a menos que no te guste limpiar tu propia casa. ;)

[ladybroadoak]

Yeah, until such time as the good ole USA wants to return to good ole diplomacy and as long as it does't want to work at ending nuclear proliferation and as long as politicians are making money secretly off uranium and as long as the press covers it all up and as long as impeachment is "off the table" and aa long as our INSANE energy program continues, I don't think the left is going to be as afraid of "terrorists" as they are of their own government. Congress got an 11% approval rating, worse than BuZh. We have military keynesian destroying the country with no relief in sight. We have no leadership apparent at all. The greens are off chasing whales, the antiwar people can't get off their ass and get arrest warrants or file complaints with the ICC. More people watch American Idol than the debates. FACT, the rogue nation that was given nukes is (drum roll) Kazakhstan by the illustrous Clintons. Google:

Frank Giustra Bill Clinton

Sibel is still muzzled (and swiftboated) - why not investigate that? There are Chinese and Korean spies althrough out Australia and all thorough the US Why not give them a few good whacks? We either sink or swim as occupants on this planet earth space ship without ANY RACISM or sexism or ..
Start attacking NUKES, and the arms dealers that sell them, the Congress that buys them, and the idiots like the Clintons who facilitate their manufacture. Leave immigrants alone. To a NDN Person, we are ALL illegal. Did you ask them if you could live here??
WE have NATO saying "First strike" coming directly out of Cheney's office and you want to blame the LEFT? The buck stops at the Oval Office and in Cheney's Mosler safes.
What did YOU do for impeachment today to end the real crimes?
Are YOU willing to do the RIGHT THING no matter what it takes?
That is the question of the day.
What did you do to understand what globalism has done to the Mayans who come to California? Anything at all? Anything??

[Liberal2]

Mr. Wellen, please tell us when the "hard right" submitted a bill to close the agency responsible for nhaturalization, or where you read they wanted to? Because if they haven't, then you're a damn demogogic liar of the Pus Limbaugh sort. People who cross into the US without a visa are criminals. Lemme ask you, if you found a family living in your attic...would they be undocumented residents in your mind.

What is your position on the question whether China and India should send us 10% of their poor and unemployed? That would only be 200,000,000 people. If Mexico can send 10%, why not China and India...or are you a hard right bigot?

[IsaacKuo]

"Nuclear terrorism, as well as proliferation, needs to be granted pride of place among all issues.

After all, compared to our extinction and the resulting destruction of our society, issues like global warming, dwindling energy reserves, and human rights seem like minor obstacles."

Frankly, no. Global thermonuclear war between NATO and the USSR might have caused our extinction and destruction of our society. But nuclear terrorism? No.

If you really want to look at it in cold numbers, it's nuclear terrorism which is the minor obstacle. Nukes are scary, but a terrorist nuke isn't even a city-killer, much less a society killer. It would be another 9/11, sure, but it would have far less impact to society and far less destructive in lives and cost than the Iraq war. Has the Iraq war destroyed our society? No. Neither will nuclear terrorism.

There are some threats which really are so potentially horrible that they would trump all other concerns. The discovery of a huge killer asteroid could be one of those. But nuclear terrorism? No.

[research]

Russ, You are losing you spirit to fear. It's leading you down a dark path. Nukes are scary. Loose Nukes, more so. You have read about the tons of "missing" fissile material, scary. You see that anybody can cross the boarder, you know the are plenty of people willing to die to bring one to the USA. Obviously, the world has done a good jobs of tracking bombs and material for the 50 years since Hiroshima.

I have grown up with Nukes always ready to vaporize me and my world. We must, of course, do everything possible WITHOUT LOSING OUR LIBERTIES to prevent nuke disasters.

For me, it is simply another existential danger, like comets, earthquakes, war, random violence, poison food, or heart attacks. There is only so much of my life I am willing to give up to make my life safer from threats that may never materialize. Should I live in a bunker? Shall I live as a slave to a secret government? Shall I live in a walled society with armed checkpoints?

NO.

[SamThornton]

If terrorist organizations such as al-Qa'ida had the means to acquire and deliver a nuclear device, it most assuredly would have happened by now.

Consider the practical difficulties in merely making a legitimate contact with an individual or group who could actually deliver the goods. Does one look them up in the Yellow Pages? How does one vet a putative seller?

I'd be willing to bet a nickle that al-Qa'ida has had its fingers and toes burnt more than once by con artists and counterintelligence stings that approach them with offers.

I'd be willing to bet a dime that, had there ever been even a slight chance of a terrorist cell detected making the attempt, their arrests would have been shouted from the highest rooftops by the current Administration. Witness their ballyhooing the arrests of rank amateurs with no chance of success in other terrorist "plots" they've unveiled. Witness also the now discredited assertion that Jose Padilla had a credible plot to deliver a dirty bomb.

Reasonable police measures should obviously be taken to negate the possibility of someone opening a nuclear bazaar, but beyond that, the credible threat doesn't rise to the level of believability.

[TIME]

No doubt America has violent enemies. Thousands died on 9/11.

Being a free society, we are vulnerable to attack. Our loose boarders are easy to cross, and weapons are easily attained.

In fact, one has to wonder just how determined, or supplied our enemy is. Why has there not been a second attack?

I find it hard to believe that this administration (with its mistake ridden prosecution of the Iraq war) has made another attack impossible with only its heavy handed domestic surveillance tactics.

It's reasonable to think that we may have to give up some of our rights (to privacy) to protect ourselves; but to put such high priorities (secrecy, willing to lie under oath, secret legislative deals, etc.....)on listening to Americas phone calls, checking out what we take out of our libraries, or reading rants on the web, is just another mistake by this President on how best to fight terrorism.

Republicans are still using the hate filled rhetoric of calling anyone with a different idea on how to handle these problems; persons who would surrender to the enemy, don't care about American security, or traitors.

Instead of fighting the ideology of the right wing policies on immigration, or the Iraq war; I would point out the factual flaws and mistakes of the implementation of those policies, to show they are heading in the wrong direction.

Immigration is the life blood of this country that constantly refreshes our culture and society. We need new immigrants.

Our system has never been able to handle the flow of immigrants, at least not to perfect enumeration. Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc.... even with barbaric controls, could not stop the flow of people determined to enter, or leave.

Should we build a wall? Like a Berlin wall?

Robert Frost once wrote; "good fences, make good neighbors." If we ignore, or are able to block out the problem, then there is no problem?

We have to face the problem and let our common sense as a people, be our guide as to which solution we choose to use.

[Mormondude]

To answer your question, of course national security is bundled up with border security and immigration.

Immigration affects many issues, from our culture, to our language, to our ability to be generous with public benefits, to employment or lack thereof. That's why immigration reform is so essential.

The one area that everyone -seems- to agree on is that we need to secure the border. Of course, the left says all the right words about securing the border, but when it comes time to count votes they oppose it every time. They are holding border security hostage in order to pass other bells and whistles as part of the package deal.

I think this is one reason we absolutely need a line item veto.

If everyone agrees that we need to secure the border, then do it! Stop adding poison pills and earmarks and all sorts of other garbage to it. Put a clean bill through, and fund the thing.

Honestly, it makes no sense for Democrats to oppose border security. Passing that issue in a standalone bill would take away one major argument from Republicans. In fact, that's pretty much the only argument that Republicans across the political spectrum agree on. Just listen to McCain or Huckabee talk about immigration. They always say we need to secure the border and leave it at that.

Of course, those who know a little bit about the subject already know that a border security bill was passed, and Democrats have refused to fund it. Again, stupid, and it makes Dems look that much less interested in securing our country. In a 3 trillion dollar budget, it's unbelievable that they can't fund a border fence.

[1will]

The Right does not want to end immigration. Actually I would say the Left would rather end immigration. I'm referring to Liberal citizens obviously instead of pundits and politicians. Every minority Democrat I know is convinced the government gives all immigrants a store when they enter the country. They also apparently don't have to pay any taxes.
Conservatives would like to end illegal immigration. Conservatives are mature enough to know that yes, eventually terrorists will enter the US through our Southern Border and bring materials suitable for a dirty bomb, chemical or biological attack. They only have to get lucky once while our country must remain vigilant forever. Sealing or at least attempting to seal our border a better solution than relying on the goodwill of the Jihadists.
Conservatives are also mature enough to know that we don't have 0% unemployment and these illegals crossing our border are taking jobs that Americans want. Illegals now do about 12% of construction jobs in the US. This is not picking fruit or cleaning floors.
Righties know that illegals drive down wages. While they don't generally go to work in white collar management positions these illegals do work in construction, meat packing plants and other jobs that Americans have been doing forever without their aid.
Conservatives know that illegals often use stolen SSN numbers to be able to work. If you had to straighten out your history after identity theft you would not be so apathetical about illegal aliens.
Illegal aliens also drain government resources. Their children attend our schools and illegals also use our emergency rooms without paying. Look up the crisis in California's hospitals.
Conservatives don't have a problem with immigration. We do have a problem with illegal immigration. There is a difference.
It's always interesting to me that the lefties pretend it's Right Wing racism when someone opposes illegal immigration yet with the exception of Mexicans, liberal pundits and politicians most Democrats also oppose illegal immigration.