Government Has Been Systematically and Completely Forbidding Intelligence Agents to Look Into Islamic Sentiments Since Before 9/11, And It's Only Gotten Worse Under Obama
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428540/tashfeen-malik-social-media-ignored-dhsRead the whole article but......
It is not enough to say that these signs of the Islamist mindset were missed by security and intelligence agencies. Our government chose to miss them.
As a matter of policy, the Department of Homeland Security -- the bureaucratic behemoth created after 9/11 to enhance protection of our country - -avoids looking at, much less scrutinizing, the publicly available social-media commentary of aliens who seek visas to enter the United States, including from Islamic countries that are jihadist strongholds. You read that correctly.
Now that the story of shocking recklessness is out, the administration is scrambling for cover. The policy, officials stammer, was not really written down and was, in any event more like a loose guideline than a real rule. That is simply false.
The guidance was mandatory, and it even ignited a furious intramural clash at DHS.
In the end, Secretary Jeh Johnson personally refused to countermand the guidance, siding with DHS's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (the radicalism of which is on a par with the Justice Department’s infamous Civil Rights Division) over Homeland Security agents who were worried about, you know, security. Press reports suggest that the guidance was “secret”: adopted out of concerns about antagonizing civil-rights activists in the wake of the hysteria over surveillance provoked by Edward Snowden. Alternatively, the Obama administration floats the suggestion that scrutinizing the social-media commentary of visa applicants would be (a) too difficult because people like Malik use pseudonyms and privacy protocols, and (b) too time-consuming because there are millions of applications. Visa applicants are aliens. They have no right to enter the U.S. and no civil rights under the U.S. Constitution. Each of these rationalizations is bogus