Pentagon failed to vet Saudi military recruit who murdered three Americans in jihad massacre in Pensacola
“Despite security screening of these individuals, it became clear in the wake of the attack that the federal government failed to pick up on clear warning signs, such as the attacker’s anti-American social media posts.”
Clearly the screening process is inadequate, in large part because of the Pentagon’s denial and willful ignorance regarding the motivating ideology behind the jihad threat. Pentagon officials know it would be “Islamophobic” to take note of such social media posts. They don’t want to see a big CNN exposé on “Islamophobia in the Pentagon,” featuring Hamas-linked CAIR’s Nihad Awad and Ibrahim Hooper lamenting the persecution of Muslims in the U.S. Armed Forces. And so three people are dead in Pensacola.
“Pentagon Failed to Vet Saudi Military Recruit Who Killed 3 Americans,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, March 4, 2020:
The Pentagon failed to adequately screen a Saudi military recruit who carried out a deadly 2019 attack at a U.S. military installation in Pensacola, Fla., officials testified on Wednesday.
Garry Reid, director for defense intelligence at the Pentagon, said during a public congressional hearing that a failure to properly screen and share critical information about Saudi military recruits led to the attack, which killed three American service members and wounded eight others.
In addition to relying too heavily on State Department vetting procedures, the Pentagon found in its review of the incident that gaps in federal law enabled the Saudi terrorist to legally obtain a firearm in the United States, despite not being a citizen or having an immigrant visa.
The attack at Naval Air Station Pensacola triggered a nationwide crackdown on foreign nationals participating in U.S. military programs. Despite security screening of these individuals, it became clear in the wake of the attack that the federal government failed to pick up on clear warning signs, such as the attacker’s anti-American social media posts….
The government-wide security review also found that “policies for international military student possession of firearms varied at the installation level, and that at the federal level, there are ways to bypass firearms restrictions for non-immigrant visa holders.”
These loopholes should be closed to prevent another attack, officials said.
Following last year’s attack, all Saudi Arabian military students in the United States for training were screened “using new procedures we had recently put in place as part of our personnel vetting transformation initiative,” Reid said. Twenty-one Saudis were also ejected from the country for misconduct as the result of an FBI investigation.
Reid said the new vetting procedures “produced only a small number of returns that required additional analysis within the Department of Defense.” He added that none of the returns “triggered any remedial action or further investigation by federal authorities relative to the current population.”…
Sen. Joni Ernst (R., Iowa), a combat veteran and the subcommittee’s chair, said in the hearing that more must be done to ensure an attack of this nature does not take place again. While the foreign military exchange programs are vital to building closer global alliances, they cannot come at the risk of American service members’ lives, she said.
“The attacker … arrived in the United States in 2017 and harbored anti-U.S. sentiments, which he broadcasted on social media,” Ernst said. “All the while he was able to purchase a firearm, access U.S. military installations, and ultimately carry out a deadly attack against Americans. We must do more to protect our military personnel.”…
RELATED ARTICLES:
The Muslim Migrant Attack in St. Louis You Heard Nothing About
RELATED VIDEO: How terrorists are treated in Canada.
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.
Further proves simple polygraphs are outdated and not always reliable. Insider attacks are real and currently the implants are likely at all levels.
Additionally the banner of spreading ‘diversity’ has its cons.