Category Archives: Terrorism

Dubious Scorecards of Violence By Ideology

02 Thursday Oct 2025

Posted by in Political Violence, Terrorism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There have been many claims about the relative frequency of violent terrorist acts committed by the left and right sides of the political spectrum. Leftists like to focus on fatalities because they believe the data favor them as less violent. Broader measures of violence tell a different story. However, the comparisons are terribly flawed owing to the difficulty of 1) knowing that ideology was definitely the motive in a particular case; and 2) classifying the ideology of a violent actor. Law enforcement statistics are obviously subject to those kinds of classification problems, and so are most studies that purport to measure ideological violence accurately. In short, the comparisons are a mess.

Ideological Homicide

The following are counts of total ideologically-motivated homicides since 1990 according to a 2024 DOJ National Institute of Justice report. Excluding the 9/11/2021 Twin Towers attack, there were 520 total fatalities; 227 were attributed to the far right and 42 to the far left. That report is now available only as an archive on the Wayback Machine. The on-line PDF disappeared just after Charlie Kirk’s murder in September, which seems a little too coincidental. Nevertheless, as we’ll see, the report’s findings were absurd.

Matt Margolis reviews a recent CATO study by Alex Nowrasteh on politically-motivated violence. Here are the totals by year:

Margolis discusses a couple of major (and questionable) decisions made by the author or his sources:

—The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 (168 deaths) was committed by Timothy McVeigh, an individual of ambiguous “anti-government” political persuasion who supported abortion rights. Those deaths were attributed to the right.

—The 2020 riots following George Floyd’s death resulted in 19 deaths. Of course, Antifa (which we’re confidently told doesn’t exist) and Black Lives Matter (BLM) were heavily involved, so this was clearly leftist violence. Those deaths aren’t counted,

These two adjustments alone would swing the attribution of deaths to a majority of leftist killers. Margolis then credits Amber Duke for identifying several additional misclassifications that occurred between 2015 and 9/10/2025 (the day prior to Kirk’s murder), during which there were 57 “politically-inspired” killers. She documents nine cases (26 fatalities and a number of serious injuries) of questionable political attribution. Several of these cases involved motives that are arguably nonpolitical, including severe psychological disorders, and at least one killer could have been motivated by a desire to promote a leftist politician (Tim Walz). I would probably accept a couple of these incidents as right-adjacent if not right-wing motivated, but the point is that ambiguities frequently compromise these ideological classifications.

Duke notes the head-scratching exclusion of a couple of incidents attributable to leftist passions: the BLM-affiliated Waukesha killer who plowed into a Christmas parade in his truck, killing six; a killing perpetrated by multiple BLM protestors; and a bomber at an IVF clinic that killed one person. Again, in the nine cases identified by Duke, the perps were either questionably classified ideologically or not classified at all. Correcting all of these errors swings the tally to 20 left-wing and 19 right-wing killers from 2015-9/10/2025.

Oddly, Duke takes no issue with the non-classification of the Pulse Nightclub shooting in 2016 (treated separately as Islamic terror). The killer was said to have had “issues” with gays, but apparently he was gay! And there were reports that he was motivated by opposition to U.S. foreign policy, which usually codes as left.

The ADL Weighs In

Duke also directs us to a critique by Ryan James Girdusky of some agitprop produced by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Of course, the ADL has a left-wing bias that comes through loud and clear in this report. As Duke summarizes,

“… they lump white nationalist inter-gang killings, domestic violence, and other non-ideologically motivated murders into its ‘right-wing political violence’ category.“

And here is David Harsanyi:

“The [ADL] list includes murders that occurred during attempted prison escapes, sex crimes, robberies, and family squabbles, none of which have anything to do with furthering the tenets of white supremacy or any cause. In one of the incidents, the police have yet to find a motive for the homicide.“

In case you still harbor any doubt about the ADL’s bias, their report actually excludes six deaths connected with the Zizians, a murderous trans cult. They also ascribe no political motive for Luigi Mangioni’s assassination of United Health Care CEO Brian Thompson because:

“… hostility towards the healthcare system or health insurance companies is not in itself an ideology and because a good portion of the anger on Mangione’s part may have stemmed from purely personal reasons .…”

The list, however, includes “right-wing” murders that occurred during attempted prison escapes, sex crimes, robberies, and family squabbles, none of which had anything to do with furthering the tenets of white supremacy or any cause. In one of these incidents, the police have yet to find a motive for the homicide.

Harsanyi offers further criticism of the FBI’s classifications and the Global Terrorism Database. Of the latter, he notes:

“It counted the Las Vegas mass shooter who murdered 59 people in 2017 as a right-wing ‘anti-government extremist.’ In truth, we have no clue what the shooter’s motivations were, unless the GTD has inside information from the FBI. Of the 32 other incidents the organization labeled right-wing terrorism that year, 12 were merely ‘suspected’ of being on the Right (mostly because they had white skin).“

More Systemic Misclassification

The CATO and ADL reports, as well as government statistics, are uniform in treating violence by Islamic extremists as a category apart from violence on the left and right. The Islamist category dominates the data on terrorist homicides due to 9/11 (87% of terrorist fatalities since 1975; excluding 9/11, Islamist attacks account for 23%). Separate treatment is based on alleged religious motives behind these acts. However, Islamic causes have garnered increasing support from the Left in the years since 9/11 and the War in Iraq. That became more palpable during the Obama years. It has culminated in a surge of aggressive anti-Zionism and support for not just a Palestinian state, but one extending from the river to the sea, which is code for genocide in Israel. Apparently, Hamas’ murderous raid into Israel on 10/7/2023 was a major touch point for this activism.

At present, there isn’t much ambiguity surrounding the leftist-Islamic alignment, despite what should seem like obvious points of tension. These include Islamic subjugation of women and harsh treatment of homosexuals. But in the West, leftists identify with the presumed victimhood status of Islamic populations. Certain cases of violence by Islamic actors in the U.S. can reasonably be counted now as leftist terror attacks. However, the reports aren’t tallied that way, which helps to foster the impression that the right instigates a larger share of violent and homicidal attacks.

Also problematic: “anti-government” actors have almost always been classified as right-wing. This is highly misleading. Both left-and right-wing anti-government violence tend to vary with which side is in power.

Non-Lethal But Could Be Lethal

Despite its severe shortcomings, the CATO report at least gives lip service to non-lethal violence … or what, for the grace of God, might have turned out to be non-lethal. This encompasses foiled efforts to harm, injuries of all sorts, arson, smashed windows, stolen merchandise, other property damage, and even threats to individuals or institutions, which tend to inflict emotional distress and other costs. Too much commentary hints at praise for the left’s “restraint” in perpetrating non-lethal violence! Protests accompanied by riots are described as “mostly peaceful”.

There is no question about the recent surge in left-wing violence, especially in 2025. Over the past few years, there have been several assassination attempts against high-profile individuals on the right, including Donald Trump and Charlie Kirk. Trans activists have perpetrated other killings. There have been multiple attacks on ICE agents and other law enforcement officers. We’ve witnessed persecution, intimidation, and attacks against Jews on college campuses and elsewhere. Riots have erupted in Portland, LA, New York, Atlanta, and other cities. The trend is not new, but the levels of unrest have been disquieting.

They Say, “Don’t Overreact”

Another factor is prosecutorial leniency. Violent leftist actions tend to be concentrated in urban areas where prosecutors are likely to share the actors’ ideology and give them a pass. This does nothing to discourage destructive behavior. As a civil libertarian, however, Nowrasteh warns in his CATO report:

“The big fear from politically motivated terrorism is that the pursuit of justice will overreach, result in new laws and policies that overreact to the small threat, and end up killing far more people while diminishing all our freedoms.“

I too have strong libertarian leanings, but the balance of risks should favor action to protect individuals and their property from threats of violent action, maintain public order, while not prejudging the intent of disturbances as “peaceful”.

Views on Violence

Official statistics and other reports on political violence by the left and right are unreliable. They tend to overstate right-wing inspired violence and understate left-wing inspired violence. The recent swing toward leftist acts of terror has been difficult to hide, however.

I’ll close by noting that the mainstream right and left seem to have considerably different attitudes toward politically-motivated violence. In my observation, when some fringe right-wing maniac, white supremacist, or militia group perpetrates violence (or so much as stages a public demonstration), the mainstream right tends to react with revulsion. When fringe leftists do the same, the mainstream left tends to rationalize and even support the uglies.

The Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) has noted the rise of “assassination culture”. Surveys show that violence against political opposition has more support from the left than the right. Social media has become a breeding ground upon which these sentiments can turn into action. From the last link:

“NCRI’s analysis, based on troves of social media data, reveals how fringe internet culture has helped build what the group calls ‘permission structures’ for violence. These are social environments—online or offline—where violent acts are no longer condemned but tacitly accepted, if not outright encouraged.“

This is what Christopher Rufo calls the “left-wing terror memeplex”, and it’s often less tacit than right out loud! It’s almost enough to make a sham of the explicit exceptions to protected speech defined by the First Amendment.

To End War and Poverty in the Middle East

09 Friday Aug 2024

Posted by in Middle East, Terrorism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The timing of this post might be awkward given the escalation of threats by Iran and its client militia groups toward Israel. But I’m posting it anyway because this blog is a way for me to get things off my chest. Read on…

In the West there is fairly broad agreement that the Palestinian people should have a sovereign state of their own. There is much less agreement over the geographic boundaries of such a state and the sequence of events that must take place in order for it to be established. Among Palestinians there is some support for a two-state solution, but it is far from a majority.

The UN Partition Plan

The following map might be helpful in what follows. It shows the proposed boundaries of an Israeli state and an Arab state under the Partition Plan adopted by UN Resolution in 1947. The Resolution called for replacing a League of Nations mandate for British administration of the region requiring the establishment of a Jewish homeland. Likewise, the Arab state was intended to accommodate Palestinian nationalists. Together the two states were expected to comprise an economic union.

What is striking is the discontinuity of the lands assigned to each state, and this surely contributed to almost immediate border challenges. More on that below.

The Gaza Strip is the region along the shore of the Mediterranean on the lower left, which was designated as Palestinian. The Golan Heights is the Israeli region on the upper right. The West Bank is the Palestinian region in the middle. Jerusalem and its vicinity was designated as an international zone to be administered by the UN.

Border Battles

Today, the geography of a prospective Palestinian state would certainly include the Gaza Strip. There doesn’t seem to be any great dispute there, but the West Bank is another story. In this context, it’s important to remember some key details about the history of this region since 1947. David Post writes at the Volokh Conspiracy that the Palestinian state was obliterated by other Arab states in 1948:

“The State of Palestine was strangled in its infancy, not by the Israelis, who accepted the U.N. partition plan, but by the neighboring Arab States—Egypt, Syria, and Jordan—who did not. The day after the British pulled their forces out, the Arab armies marched in, and the first Arab-Israeli War began.“

The hostilities were formally ended with the signing of three different Armistices in 1949:

“The boundaries fixed in those agreements gave to each of the four countries involved more-or-less the territory that their armies had managed to control as of the date that ceasefires had been declared. The West Bank became part of Jordan; Gaza became part of Egypt; the Golan Heights became part of Syria. Israel got—or kept—the rest. The Palestinians, who had no army of their own, got nothing.“

Here are the boundaries under the 1949 Armistices:

The three Arab states, which refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist, attacked again in 1967. In a matter of six days and on three fronts, the Israelis drove them back and took Gaza, the West Bank, and retook the Golan Heights. Post asks:

“Why is it that only starting then, now that Israel was in control of these areas, did the world rouse itself to Palestinian grievances, and demand that ‘Palestinian lands’ be given back to the Palestinians?“

It’s worth noting that these conflicts led to the displacement of a great many Palestinians, but Israel did not provoke the attacks.

Indigenous Populations

Enemies of Israel, including those in the West, go so far as to say the Israelis are not entitled to a homeland in the Levant. Even worse, they chant “from the river to the sea”, often ignorant that it is a thinly veiled call for genocide. But Jews have as great a claim to a homeland in the Levant as the Palestinians. Jacob Sullum wrote of this truth last October, in the wake of the Hamas butchery on October 7, 2023. Israeli Jews are characterized by enemies as “colonizers”. This, as Sullum says:

“… is a ‘simplistic morality tale’, that pits white European oppressors against ‘indigenous’ people, eliding Israel’s demographic roots and the ancient Jewish connection to the land. “

Sullum goes on to discuss research on the genetic origins of modern Jewish populations. For example, one paper found that the ancestors of Ashkenazi Jews, who account for almost a third of Jews in Israel, likely descended from a “diverse population in the Middle East.” And Sullum points out that Mizrahim Jews of Middle Eastern and North African origin represent almost 45% of Israeli Jews. Furthermore, another study found that Jews and Arabs in the Middle East both share high percentages of Y chromosomes with a single gene pool, which suggests a common origin. Therefore, both Palestinians and Israeli Jews have legitimate claims to a homeland in the Levant.

Israel and Gaza

Contrary to claims by Hamas supporters, there was no occupation of Gaza by Israel at the time of the October 7th massacre. Israel’s prior occupation of Gaza ended almost 20 years ago, in 2005. However, Israel has restricted the movement of goods in and out of the Gaza Strip since the 1990s. Israel and Egypt tightened the blockade on Gaza in 2007 after Hamas took control there, though it was eased in steps from 2010 – 2013. Given the uncompromising belligerence of Hamas and its proclivity for diverting resources to support aggression against Israel, it’s fair to say the blockade is, and has been, a legitimate instrument of defense, as long as Gaza is “governed” by Hamas.

Last year, less than a week after the October 7th massacre and hostage taking, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) began ground operations in Gaza in an effort to root out Hamas fighters, destroy their war-making infrastructure, and rescue hostages held by Hamas in Gaza. Of course, that fight goes on.

Hamas has fought against Israel’s retaliatory action in ways that have propaganda value, especially given the naïveté of much of the Western press. Its fighters are often embedded among civilians within residential areas and facilities like schools and hospitals. The use of human shields is a war crime for which Hamas bears full responsibility, and Hamas has made it clear that their aim is to kill Israelis, civilian and military alike. Hamas has made a practice of exaggerating Palestinian death counts, a distortion that has been more obvious to statisticians than journalists.

The Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip will be tough to end without a complete surrender by Hamas and release of the hastages. Even then, the current IDF occupation is unlikely to end until efforts are well underway to flesh out the details of a new Palestinian government, if not statehood.

The West Bank

Perhaps even more thorny for an eventual two-state solution is that Israel occupies the West Bank and has established settlements that Palestinians strongly oppose. Jordan might also have designs on retaking West Bank territory, which would once again leave Palestinians as the odd people out. Israel took the land in its own defense during the Six-Day War in 1967 and kept it as a security buffer:

“… Israel insisted that it should not, and would not, simply return to the pre-war situation — the dangerous combination of precarious armistice lines and aggressive neighbors that had prevailed for 19 years. …

The idea that Israeli security depended on continued control over parts of the West Bank was held not only by Israeli officials, but also by the American Joint Chiefs of Staff. … Referring to the West Bank, they argued that Israel required a new boundary that would ‘widen the narrow portion of Israel’ and help protect Tel Aviv.“

Israel splits aspects of governance with the Palestinian Authority in parts of the West Bank, but most of the security apparatus is run by Israel.

The continued West Bank occupation is as fraught with controversy as ever. Today there is bitter resentment over new Israeli settlements and the construction of the “Separation Wall” just inside the western border of the West Bank. The situation is made all the more intractable by Hamas’ presence there amid ongoing attacks against Israeli interests.

Withdrawing from the West Bank would create a huge vulnerability for Israel, so one can hardly expect it to cede control of the entire territory. Yet it is hard to imagine an economically viable Palestinian state confined to the Gaza Strip. In fact, some feel that more than the West Bank should be in play for creating a contiguous corridor to Gaza, which would help promote a new Palestinian state’s economic viability.

Iran

Obviously Hamas is not the only threat to Israel’s security. To the north in Lebanon, Hezbollah is a well-armed adversary. And like Hamas, it receives considerable support from Iran. It’s difficult to imagine that Iran could maintain this support, not to mention its nuclear ambitions, without the flow of oil revenue made possible by U.S. acquiescence. Reaching a peaceful resolution to the conflicts between Israel and its neighbors will be very difficult without somehow neutralizing the Iranian threat. Regime change there would be key to this effort.

What Must Happen

The obstacles to establishing a peaceful, two-state solution for Palestinians and Israelis are so steep that the prospect seems almost unimaginable. A complete defeat of both Hamas and Hezbollah would be critical, and the Palestinian Authority or any other successor regime must be counted on to negotiate in good faith and with the legitimate support of the Palestinian people. Likewise, Israel must be willing to negotiate meaningful concessions, at least in terms of its occupied territories in the West Bank.

For a successful resolution, the role of other Arab states can’t be emphasized enough. These states should apply pressure to Israel’s neighbors like Syria and Jordan to rein-in their own territorial ambitions. In a positive sign, there is now growing pressure on Iran from other Arab states to end its belligerence.

A reconstituted Abraham Accords framework could strengthen diplomatic and economic ties across the region, promoting cross-investment, trade, and cultural exchange. The framework should include a mechanism to encourage aid from the Arab states and Israel to help Palestinians build a new, peaceful, and prosperous state.

Finally, a peaceful two-state solution hinges on continued U.S. support for Israel and a new Palestinian homeland. Unfortunately, in recent years we’ve witnessed a drift toward anti-Zionism (and even anti-Semitism) among Democrats. This sort of foolishness on the far Left knows no bounds. If the anti-Zionist position comes to be accepted by the mainstream of the party, it could severely compromise Israel’s leverage in negotiations.

Summary

A resolution that would ultimately bring peace to the Middle East seems remote in the midst of the current hostilities. It would require a dramatic softening of views among nearly all parties to solve the impasse over nation-state homelands for both Jews and Palestinians. In no particular order, the following are all necessary:

  • Israel’s neighboring states must not covet territory originally intended for the Palestinians, or for that matter the state of Israel.
  • Iran must butt out one way or another (in the language of high diplomacy), which would do much to neutralize militant factions like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
  • Other Arab states must come to the table along with the Israelis to negotiate economic and political accords, including aid to the Palestinian people.
  • The U.S. must resist internal calls from the Left to withdraw support for Israel.
  • More immediately, Israel must do its best to root out and defeat Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
  • The Palestinian people must decide they want peace and a prosperous civilization.
  • Israel must show a willingness to negotiate concessions to Palestinians in the West Bank, and to aid in the rebuilding of Gaza.

Taken together that’s a very tall order! The U.S. can and should do its part to support Israel and the Palestinian people, penalize Iran, and help to bring all parties to the negotiating table. A refashioning of the Abraham Accords could contribute to peace in the region, including a stable, prosperous, and well-governed Palestinian homeland.

Rioters Inflict Racial Injustice

02 Tuesday Jun 2020

Posted by in Free Speech, racism, Terrorism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

My fervent hope is that the reaction of horror to George Floyd’s murder is universal. However, my perspective on the violence that’s erupted over the week since is also one of disgust. The perpetrators are using Floyd’s death as an opportunity to unleash attacks that undermine civil society and often hurt people of color more than anyone.

The peaceful protests against police brutality and racism in cities across the country are earnest calls for reform, and they also represent fine tributes to all victims of racism. But a different dynamic takes hold when peaceful protesters are infiltrated by violent elements. Agitators use the cover of the protests and typically begin to dominate the scene as darkness falls, though sometimes it happens in broad daylight. The violence, arson, looting, and shooting are perpetrated by a combination of those whose political motivations go well beyond needed reforms to the justice system and other opportunists who are primarily interested in loot, or just a riotous a good time. There are also some otherwise non-violent protesters emboldened by the agitators to cheer on these acts of violence.

As others have said, the rioting does not serve to honor George Floyd in any way, and it does nothing to end racism or racial victimization. By cheering on these malefactors you lose any legitimate claim as an enemy of racism. The rioting, if anything, brings harm to the black community. Black lives are lost in the strife, such as the retired police captain in St. Louis who was shot Monday night defending his friend’s pawn shop. Blacks are also losing their livelihoods as a consequence of the destruction.

The left-wing, anarchist agitators are modern blackshirts masquerading as anti-fascists. Their interest, and delusion, is the violent overthrow of our government. They are largely white millennials, mostly male, and largely unemployed as a result of the ill-advised coronavirus lockdowns imposed in many states. Antifa has been prominent in these attacks, often running under Black Lives Matter flags, and the radical wing of BLM participates as well.

These pigs have been coddled by leftist state and local government officials in many cities, who send outmanned police forces to try to keep the damage in check while releasing those arrested the next day. President Trump was absolutely right on Monday to call out the national guard and raise the possibility of deploying military forces where state and local officials are incapable or unwilling to bring these situations under control.

And here’s the thing: all it takes is a few agitators, along with their enthusiastic but less ideological recruits, to destroy communities. There have been larger numbers in big cities, perhaps a few thousand hard-core shit disturbers. Slowly but surely, perhaps due to Trump’s prodding, state and local politicians are awakening and enabling law enforcement to effectively quell the unrest. The agitators, who are fairly well organized, are being infiltrated by moles who will undermine their operations and perhaps aid in prosecuting higher-level organizers and funders at the federal level. In the end, the force of anarchists is fairly small and the local support they manage to stir is fleeting.

While we recoil at the harm inflicted by the riots, another perspective is offered by the equity markets, which have been relatively unfazed through the turmoil. The values of firms in the security business have risen, but otherwise, as one investment strategist says:

“‘Right now it’s limited enough that it’s not perceived as having a meaningful economic impact,’ said Willie Delwiche, investment strategist at Baird. ‘The risk to the market right now is excessive optimism,’ and headlines from protests could simply be dampening that optimism a bit, he added.”

The riots are destructive of lives and economic value, and while we mourn those caught up in these tragedies, the situation does not portend a total social collapse. The overall impact on the U.S. economy expected by markets is not of a magnitude suggesting great instability. This too shall pass, though not easily for the small businesses and employees being ruined by the double jolt of lockdowns and riots.

Besides the outright harm to the black community by the riots, there are other disturbing elements that must be confronted. I keep hearing “White silence = violence”. No, “white silence” is neither responsible for the actions of George Floyd’s killer nor the riots in the streets. What must one say to avoid personal responsibility for the aberrant behavior of Derrick Chauvin and the rioters? What I hear are ignorant excuses and accusations: the violence is inexcusable and it is no one’s fault but the participants, whatever their circumstances.

People of good faith oppose the brutality inflicted by bad cops and a system that tolerates them. It is surely time for some reforms, as the following suggests:

And there are still other promising criminal justice reforms to consider. We need to end the drug war, which is particularly harmful to minority communities.

I bemoan the poor circumstances and education that have burdened many of the disaffected protesters, and even the rioters. I advocate for policies that I believe promote improved education and family stability. I have advocated for a safety net. I have shared my distaste for the unnecessary COVID-19 lockdowns that forced so many of these individuals out of their jobs for several months. But from some quarters, the demands have no end. Not until I bow down on my hands and knees to apologize for the sins of generations past. Who cares if they weren’t my ancestors? I’m white! The next demand is reparation payments to today’s generations of blacks. Don’t complain that impoverished whites won’t share in the gains, though there are more than twice as many of them. They simply failed to capitalize on the opportunity afforded by their privilege. I’m sorry for the sarcasm….

Please mourn George Floyd’s horrible death and support the protests against the brutality that killed him, but do not pretend for a moment that the violence is in any way justified, or that it will create a healthier society. Don’t root for that shit. And don’t cast aspirations at your fellow men and women as if the color of their skin is responsible for the social ills you’ve taken up as a cause. It does nothing to further solutions.

Beastly Hillary Benghazi Baggage

10 Sunday Jul 2016

Posted by in Diplomacy, Terrorism

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

HillaryDifference

The Clinton Can-o’-Worms is just as slimy and writhing as ever. We’ve heard about Hillary’s misadventures for decades: defending the rapist of a 12-year-old girl and later gloating (on tape) about the light sentence she’d helped arrange; dismissal from the staff of the House Judiciary Committee for lying during the Watergate case, and the shady Whitewater land deal. The most recent trio of scandals include 1) questionable decisions and misleading public statements in the Benghazi affair; 2) exposing national security to compromise via her private servers; and perhaps the biggest of the biggies: 3) suspicious relationships between the Clinton Foundation and foreign governments with whom she dealt as Secretary of State for four years. I’ll discuss Benghazi in this post, but I’ll return to Clinton’s grossly negligent email handling and the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play activity in the next few days.

The Benghazi attack in 2011 was at least in part a reaction to arms shipments that Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens was attempting to arrange. This is believed to have involved weapons belonging to Libyan rebels, some of them jihadists, and to the deposed Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi. Apparently, Stevens mission was to work to get those arms into the hands of Syrian rebels, many of whom turned out to be jihadists as well, of course. Apparently there were Libyans who wanted to see those arms stay at home. Stevens and three other Americans lost their lives in the attack. It turns out that Stevens had asked repeatedly for additional security in Benghazi, but the requests ware denied by Clinton’s State Department. When the attack went down, requests for aid in the form of air support and even a tactical team were denied, despite the fact that “assets” were within reach. “Stand down” was the order of the day, in keeping with the Obama Administrations “no boots on the ground” policy.

It is now clear that the attack was planned, but Mrs. Clinton, who knew the facts, told the American public that the attack was precipitated by an amateur video critical of radical Islamists. Why the misleading statements? The Benghazi mission was politically sensitive, of course. In addition, an objective during the presidential election season was to play down terrorism, to propagate the myth that the terrorists were “on the run” under Obama. There is no doubt that Clinton lied to the American people in this case, but apparently her supporters think that’s unimportant in a leader.

A recent defense of Clinton and the administration has it that aid should never have been expected for the Americans in Benghazi during the 13 hours of the siege. After all, according to this reasoning, Ambassador Stevens and the other personnel knew it was a risky mission. Well, so much for “leave no man behind“, which has a long and honorable tradition in the military. Soldiers on patrol often accept great risk, yet no one would suggest their acceptance of risk as an excuse to refuse them aid when in dire need.

While it is true that the host country is presumed to be responsible for providing the first line of security for foreign diplomats, that was not realistic in Libya at the time. The guards and contractors attached to the mission in Benghazi were obviously inadequate to defend the staff under the circumstances. Military assets are in place to respond under just such a contingency. Given the nature of Stevens’ mission, which was apparently to transfer arms to parties intended to serve as sub rosa U.S. military proxies in Syria, the military should have been allowed to honor the “leave no man behind” imperative. Unfortunately, the administration’s political objectives, and the terrorists, won the day in Benghazi. Hillary Clinton was complicit in this.

Gun Bans Are “Stupid, Unconstitutional, and Unpopular”

08 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Gun Control, Terrorism

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Poster_Obama_Children_Guns

The terrorist attack this week in San Bernadino is not a rational argument for gun control. The anti-gun left has fixated on the tragedy for the wrong reason: to push their agenda to compromise gun rights. This topic was not prominent in the commentary after the recent massacre in Paris. That might be because France has strict gun laws that did not stop the terrorists. Similarly, the guns used in the San Bernardino attack were acquired legally despite the fact that California law requires background checks and bans so-called “assault weapons”.

President Obama’s ridiculous claim that mass shootings are an experience known only in the U.S. is obviously false (and see here). In fact, the barrage of misinformation regarding growth in mass shootings in the U.S. is based on severely distorted definitions.

Furthermore, there is no causal evidence that imposing stronger gun prohibitions reduces homicides and violent crime rates, and much evidence to the contrary. See this interesting 2007 study in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” And NYU Law Professor James Jacobs’ adds his thoughts on the inefficacy of gun control.

A compelling reason to reject the anti-gun narrative is that gun violence has been declining for years, despite continuing increases in gun ownership. That makes sense given the value of gun ownership as a crime deterrent. Even relatively conservative estimates of defensive gun uses (DGUs) put their number above, even far above, statistics on gun crime, and deterrence is an additional benefit over and above actual DGUs. Gun prohibition is often counterproductive because it forecloses the opportunity for deterrence and DGUs, much as signs announcing “gun-free zones” offer effective advertising for soft targets.

International comparisons of homicide rates and gun death rates which purport to show that the U.S. ranks poorly are distorted along several lines, but one glaring reason is that European governments exclude terrorist killings while the U.S. does not. Furthermore, reports of U.S. murder rates relative to other “developed” or “advanced” countries often involve arbitrary definitions that tend to distort the comparisons.

Australia has been adopted as something of a poster child on social media for the purported success of their gun “ban” (which was not really a ban at all). The results have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, “success” is a poor choice of words. Here are a few notes on Australian homicide rates after the gun “ban”. The video here is also illuminating, and the following link has more information on the “Australian Gun Ban Conceit“.

Finally, as the New York Times and other outlets have inadvertently demonstrated, the anti-gun argument rests on a poor understanding of constitutional principles. The Times states that “No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.” That is a testament in support of tyranny, and it is false under any conception of natural rights. The statement is either a complete misunderstanding of the intent of the U.S. Constitution or an open call to rip it to shreds. The Constitution is clear in establishing limits on government power and in leaving nearly all individual rights presumed and unenumerated. However, it clearly establishes the right to bear arms because the nation’s founders considered the right of self-defense against aggression so fundamental, including defense against aggression by a tyrannical state.

Note: the title of this post includes a post from Glenn Reynolds.

In Praise of Refugee Aid and Precautions

23 Monday Nov 2015

Posted by in Immigration, Terrorism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

118792_600

Libertarians differ from conservatives on the Syrian refugee issue and on immigration policy in general. I’m in favor of liberalized immigration because it confers powerful economic advantages. That does not imply, however, a willingness to sacrifice border security and control over the flow of immigrants. Border security is critical to the notion of U.S. sovereignty, and though I am loath to do so, I will credit Donald Trump for asking two pertinent questions: “Do we have a country? Or do we not have a country?” This is all the more important in an age when terror on the scale of a 9/11, Paris, or terrorist use of WMDs is a threat.

One of the few legitimate functions of government is national security, and the U.S. Constitution sought to assure that security would be provided without compromising the liberties of individual citizens. I’d like outsiders to feel welcome to join us and partake of those liberties, but only subject to precautions related to security. Given current threats, it is reasonable to insist on deliberation and caution in admitting new immigrants and refugees. That should include a careful vetting process and possibly post-entry safeguards such as mandatory touch-points with immigration and security officials.

Recent commentary on both sides of the Syrian refugee debate has featured conservatives waxing enthusiastic over police-state security measures and cavalier dismissal of security concerns by the Left, including a moment of apparent delusion from The Daily Kos when it weighed-in on refugees and certain principles of religious ethics, probably not that outlet’s strong suit. The Left’s usual approach to commentary on social media amounts to an exercise in “virtue signaling” (HT: Glenn Reynolds) without much critical thought, and this is no exception.

Refugees or asylum-seekers may need expedited initial handling for their own safety and protection. The tumultuous experience of fleeing a hostile regime without adequate planning, and possibly involving the loss of loved ones and possessions, suggests a need for greater assistance for refugees than for typical immigrants. The expense of a large influx of refugees is likely to be high. A solution used successfully by Canada involves private sponsorship of refugees, and there are apparently a large number of Americans willing to serve as sponsors. It is possible to vet the sponsors, of course, and might provide more reliable follow-up with the refugees themselves.

Certain classes of immigrants may be considered high-risk, though refugees have not been high-risk historically. This is one of several points made by Davis Bier at the Foundation for Economic Education in “Six Reasons To Welcome Refugees“. Bier provides a good perspective, but I don’t accept all of his assertions. He says (italicized):

  • The Paris attackers were not refugees: No, but at least one of them seems to have taken advantage of the European refugee process.
  • U.S. refugees don’t become terrorists: You can certainly vouch for this in the past tense, but it’s less certain going forward. The complete lack of documentation of many Syrian refugees complicates the vetting process.
  • Other migration channels are easier to exploit: Probably true, if the claimed thoroughness of the refugee vetting process is to be believed. Also, the resettlement from temporary camps can take two years or more, but that kind of delay is not required.
  • ISIS sees Syrian refugees as traitors: This reinforces the need to protect refugees, but it strikes me as irrelevant to the question of terrorist infiltration. A better question is whether ISIS is capable of passing-off one of their own as a refugee.
  • Turning away allies will make us less safe: It certainly won’t win us friends.
  • We should demonstrate moral courage: Helping legitimate refugees is certainly an honorable thing to do. The author points to American resistance to accepting Jewish refugees prior to World War II for fear they might be German spies. This is addressed in more detail below.

A different perspective is given in “There Are Serious, Unbigoted Reasons to Be Wary of a Flood of Syrian Refugees“, by Ian Tuttle in National Review. He asserts that the comparison of current Syrian refugees to Jewish refugees prior to WWII is inappropriate, and I largely agree. The infiltration of German spies into the Jewish refugee population was a perceived threat, but no one thought the Jews represented a risk of terror on our shores. There is nothing incompatible about feeling regret for the attitude many took toward the Jewish refugees of that era while exercising caution in the face of new risks.

Tuttle cites a recent Pew Research poll of Muslims in various countries finding that 4% to 14% of respondents approve of ISIS. Can you imagine a similar level of support for terrorism in the U.S.? This is an unfortunate social malignancy that should give us pause. Another Pew Research poll of Muslims in various countries found that the minority who believe that suicide bombing was justified ranges from 3% to 45%. It is therefore difficult to argue with Tuttle when he says:

“A non-trivial minority of refugees who support a murderous, metastatic caliphate is a reason for serious concern.“

Tuttle notes that Syrian refugees will not arrive on our shores directly from Syria.  Thus, the urgency of accepting those refugees comes into question. It is curious that such wealthy middle eastern countries as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have not accepted refugees from Syria.

Given the immediacy of terrorist threats, the lack of even basic documents for many Syrian refugees, and the Obama Administration’s record of failure in the Middle East, it is reasonable to question their assurances as to the adequacy of the refugee vetting process. Indeed, as this article warns:

“The director of the National Counterterrorism Center admitted that terrorist groups are very interested in using refugee programs to slip operatives into Europe and the United States. … 

The director of Homeland Security had no answer when asked if the “vetting” process amounted to anything more than asking refugees to fill out an application, asking them a few questions in a verbal interview, and assuming they answer honestly….

FBI Director James Comey famously admitted last month that the U.S. government has no real way to conduct background checks on refugees.”

A substantial majority of American voters oppose the administration’s plan to accept Syrian refugees, at least under the current process. Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill requiring that:

“… the heads of the FBI, Homeland Security Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence certify that each refugee being admitted would not pose a threat.“

It would be nice to have our security agencies accept some accountability for, well,  national security. The House bill would put the ball in their court with respect to high-risk refugees.

I concur with the general position of Libertarians who support a more open U.S. immigration policy and acceptance of refugees. I also believe that private sponsorship of refugees should be legalized in the U.S. to reduce their fiscal impact. And I believe we should welcome Syrian refugees provided that they can be thoroughly vetted. In the parlance of economics, transacting with refugees may involve severely asymmetric information. It is not advisable to make risky “trades” when due diligence is impossible. Short-cuts in the vetting process do not help to assure a mutually beneficial outcome. We must therefore temper our humanitarian impulse. Under the present circumstances, including an acceptance of terrorism by a “nontrivial minority” of Muslins, it is reasonable to proceed with caution, and only with caution.