Marco Rubio, the Florida senator who is running for president, was among those who voted against the USA Freedom Act. "Just four days before the terrorist attack in California this week, the USA Freedom Act limited our access to critical information about potential threats," said Rubio's campaign in a statement provided to THE WEEKLY STANDARD. "Because too many in Washington have failed to grasp the nature of this enemy, we have less access to intelligence information now than we did just days ago. In the wake of Wednesday's attack on innocent Americans doing nothing more than going about their daily lives, we must act swiftly to reverse the limitations imposed on these critical intelligence programs. Radical jihadists are trying to kill as many Americans as they can. Our law enforcement and intelligence professionals need access to this information. Failing to give them the tools they need to keep Americans safe is dangerous and irresponsible."It's just a bit odd to connect an attack your policy didn't detect with the efficacy of that policy in preventing such an attack.
Rubio is better spoken than Josh Earnest, but the Senator sounds just like the Press Secretary when the latter was asked for an example of a mass shooting "more gun control" would have prevented.
Our law enforcement and intelligence professionals had the authority Senator Rubio is complaining they lost before the San Bernadino attack. Were they not using it, was it overwhelmingly vast or just useless? Or all three?
Of course, there was intelligence which could have stopped the attack, but law enforcement and intelligence professionals were prevented from using it by the Obama Administration's exquisite tribalist sensitivities, not by Senators who voted in favor of the Fourth Amendment.
The male shooter in San Bernadino was aligned with a Mosque known to promote radical Islam, but an investigation that would have raised that flag was shut down by Homeland Security on the request of the State Department’s Office of Civil Rights. Killing this investigation can only be viewed as a public relations exercise in political correctness. No profiling!
The female shooter had publicly indicated she supported ISIS long before she was Federally "vetted" on three separate occasions. Federal policy prevented a search of her Facebook account that would have revealed this. On the admittedly flimsy assumption that support for ISIS is disqualifying, she would have been denied the opportunity to shoot anyone in San Bernadino.
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.Since multiple sources for determinative information which would have put these two under surveillance was ignored - because the approbation of the American elite left was more important to the Obama Administration than protecting Americans - we're supposed to bend the Fourth Amendment to Senator Rubio's will? Over an incident where the program he's pushing failed?
"During that time period immigration officials were not allowed to use or review social media as part of the screening process," John Cohen, a former acting under-secretary at DHS for intelligence and analysis. Cohen is now a national security consultant for ABC News.
Senator Rubio, if he wants to prevent future terror attacks, might consider directing his fire at the people who failed us with their PC attitude to vetting immigrants. Of course, Rubio has demonstrated he shares a bit of that attitude. He seems not to realize that Immigration Policy is the intersection of Foreign Policy with Domestic Policy. Rubio advances the surveillance state in order to maintain the illusion the two sets of policy are unrelated.
His complaint about the USA Freedom Act boils down to this: We need this intrusion into your life to keep you safe from our incompetence in using the obvious intelligence sources we already have.
Related: Quite a long article, but with a good bit of explanatory power about Cruz and Rubio on foreign and immigration policy. And why they're attacking each other in precisely the way they are. This addresses some very substantive issues.
YMMV, but I do recommend it. It may assist you in a choice we'll face if we can ever get rid of the blowhard rug-head.
And let's finish by examining the Weekly Standard's intro to the piece in the first link:
Thanks to a law recently passed by Congress and signed into law, federal law enforcement are unable to access phone records of the terrorists who killed or injured dozens of people in San Bernardino this week.Wrong. All that's necessary is a subpoena to get the needed records. I'm sure they got one almost instantly. I call Marco Rubio shilling on the Standard.