Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Hundreds of Americans Have Fought for ISIS

Hundreds of Americans Have Fought for ISIS

Says House Intel Chair: “Some of them have drifted back to the U.S.”

During an appearance on FOX News Sunday, Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan was asked how many Americans have joined ISIS. His answer was nothing short of stunning.

Ian Tuttle of National Review has the details:

House Intel Chair: ‘Hundreds’ of Americans Have Fought with ISIS; Some Have Returned to U.S

How many Americans are fighting with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria? “It’s in the hundreds,” says Representative Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

There are “hundreds” of Americans “that have at least one time traveled, participated, and trained with them. Some of them have drifted back [to the U.S.], some of them have gone to Europe,” Rogers says.

Here’s the video:

Intelligence leaders from both sides of the aisle are becoming concerned:

Hill intelligence leaders urge Obama to form ISIS strategy, ahead of NATO summit

The leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees criticized President Obama on Sunday for failing to decide yet on whether to hit Islamic State targets in Syria and urged him ahead of this week’s key NATO summit to take decisive action before the militant group attacks on U.S. soil.

“His foreign policy is in absolute free fall,” Michigan GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told “Fox News Sunday.”

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a separate interview that Obama is perhaps “too cautious” in his approach to combating Islamic State.

“This is a group of people who are extraordinarily dangerous,” she said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And they’ll kill with abandon.”

Feinstein’s comments came 12 days after Islamic State released a video of a warrior beheading American journalist James Foley.

The NATO Summit is Thursday and Friday in Wales.

Forget Hillary’s reset button. When do we hit the panic button?

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

“The good news is that we actually have a unprecedented military capacity, and since 9/11 have built up a security apparatus that makes us in the here and now pretty safe. We have to be vigilant, but this doesn’t immediately threaten the homeland. What it does do, though, is it gives a sense, once again, for future generations, is the world going to be upended in ways that affect our kids and our grandkids.”

Of course, Obama, who has blamed much on his predecessor, did not name Bush and Cheney.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/engel-growth-of-isil-was-incredibly-predictable/

And it points out that military advisers are “apoplectic” about the idea there is no strategy for dealing with ISIS.

Of course there is. You kill them. Wherever you find them.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | September 1, 2014 at 12:57 pm

    Carpet bombing of their “conquered territories” sends a nasty, nasty message.

    We know where they are. We know which roads they travel. We know where their positions are when they’re fighting.

    Bomb ’em.

      “Bombing” is just a form of bombardment.

      Bombardment is NEVER good enough. It never has been, even with nuclear weapons. I can’t be 100% effective.

      You will always need people on the ground.

      Plus, you can’t carpet-bomb Iraq. The idea is silly. These guys are highly mobile, and they are very smart.

Waitasec. ISIS this new thing Obama didn’t see coming, heard on the news.

How is it that “hundreds” of Americans have known for so long that they’ve not only been fighting for them but also have “drifted back” into the U.S.? They should be drifted further along right into Guantanamo.

(How many non-Americans who have fought for ISIS are drifting back through open Mexican border?)

Doug Wright Old Grouchy | September 1, 2014 at 11:39 am

The American Muslim community is getting very close to needing to choose whether it will welcome back those Jihadis who have returned or stand up for America instead! Of course, there are consequences for any such choice.

    Heck, the Congress should forbid anyone fighting for or supporting terrorists from re-entering the US and they should automatically lose their Citizenship, Passports and all assets should be put in trust to pay their family’s expenses re-locating to an Islamic Sharia country of their choice.

      That is impossible. US citizenship is a right, not a privilege, and Congress has no authority to take it away. What you are proposing is outright criminal.

        Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | September 1, 2014 at 1:05 pm

        There isn’t a right you cannot have taken from you, including that to continued life.

        Where do you get this stuff…???

          Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | September 1, 2014 at 9:05 pm

          I’m getting it from the constitution. Citizenship can never be involuntarily lost, no matter what a person has done.

          Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | September 1, 2014 at 9:09 pm

          Rags, what does the word “inalienable” mean to you? An inalienable right is one that cannot be lost, no matter what. The right to life can be forfeited. The right to freedom of speech cannot. Nor can that to the free exercise of religion. And nor can that to US citizenship.

          Another Ed in reply to Ragspierre. | September 2, 2014 at 1:02 am

          An “inalienable” right that “shall not be infringed”, just like rights enumerated in the Bill or Rights?

          Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | September 2, 2014 at 8:01 am

          Exactly like that, Another Ed. After all, the fourteenth amendment is at least as important as the bill of rights; it’s what makes the bill of rights apply to the states.

        naturlized can be stripped for these actions.

          Milhouse in reply to dmacleo. | September 1, 2014 at 9:04 pm

          No, it cannot.

          DanInMN in reply to dmacleo. | September 2, 2014 at 11:44 am

          Naturalized citizens can be “denaturalized”: http://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/can-your-u-s-citizenship-be-revoked-.html

          In lieu of that, the death penalty for US citizens who have fought for AQ or ISIS might possibly stand up to scrutiny. We can’t strip them of citizenship but we can certainly execute them for aiding the enemy.

          Milhouse in reply to dmacleo. | September 3, 2014 at 3:59 am

          The substance of the linked article does not actually say what its header and lede paragraph claim it says. Once a person has been lawfully naturalized, they cannot be “denaturalized”.

          The first of the four “grounds” it gives is obvious: If it’s discovered that a person was never naturalized in the first place, then no “denaturalization” is necessary, just as if it’s discovered that someone wasn’t really born in the USA no “debirth” process is necessary. Naturalization obtained under false pretenses is void; thus, people who thought they were naturalized citizens have lost their citizenship because it was proved that they lied on their application.

          What the other three “grounds” are really saying is that naturalization is a process that takes 10 years, and that those in the process are only provisionally citizens. Congress authorizes them to act as citizens, and if they don’t mess up within 10 years they are finally naturalized and can do whatever they like, but within those 10 years the process can be stopped.

          Milhouse in reply to dmacleo. | September 3, 2014 at 4:04 am

          In lieu of that, the death penalty for US citizens who have fought for AQ or ISIS might possibly stand up to scrutiny. We can’t strip them of citizenship but we can certainly execute them for aiding the enemy.

          Of course we can. What sort of scrutiny do you imagine it would have to stand up to? Treason is clearly a capital offense, but the constitutional requirements for proving it may prove difficult. No problem, though. Aiding the enemy doesn’t have to be charged as treason, it can be charged as a lesser offense that still carries the death penalty, and isn’t subject to those constituional constraints.

        Doug Wright Old Grouchy in reply to Milhouse. | September 1, 2014 at 2:41 pm

        A “Mumbai” type event in this country will result in a need for American Muslim’s to decide which side they’re on. This wouldn’t be a happy time for anyone yet were American Muslims to provide even tacit support for IS terrorists, a likely result might be the end of tolerance here for the Islam religion.

        Recall that wartime hysteria can turn against a group in a flash; regrets might come much latter on; pity!

        Uncle Samuel in reply to Milhouse. | September 1, 2014 at 5:45 pm

        No, people have been expelled from their countries, declared persona non gratis and/or executed for such shenanigans.

        Citizenship is a privilege, one to be cherished and respected, and there is no absolute immunity from its loss.

          Milhouse in reply to Uncle Samuel. | September 1, 2014 at 9:07 pm

          You can make up stuff all you like, but you’re still wrong. The law is the law, and the constitution is the constitution, and they are clear: US citizenship is an inherent, unalienable right. A US citizen may be executed, of course, if he is convicted in a trial conducted under the fifth and sixth amendments, but he may not be expelled, or declared non grata, no matter what.

They aren’t Americans. They are counterfeits, traitors, imposters, not Americans, citizens or patriots.

    Wrong. They’re as American as you are. The constitution says so.

      TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Milhouse. | September 1, 2014 at 12:51 pm

      Yeah, they’re American on paper (some probably have green cards, too), but not right here [pats chest], where it counts.

      America has always had people whose beliefs, misguided as they are, that have betrayed her either in spirit or in the flesh. In this case, devotion to the cause of radical Islam, which seeks to destroy America and the west, makes their betrayal more than political or ideological. This is a culture war. The loser does not survive.

      ISIS “warriors” have committed a crime taking up arms for a power who is an enemy to America. They need to be found and brought to justice. Sadly, though, we probably won’t know who they are until they bring jihad to their home country.

      When that happens, Øbama will no doubt, threaten them very, very harshly, blame Bush, blame “weak gun laws”, and hit the links for 18-holes before it gets dark.

      Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | September 1, 2014 at 1:03 pm

      You keep saying that. Tell us where.

      Americans taken in piracy were executed summarily, as were other pirates.

      Yes or no, please.

        Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | September 1, 2014 at 9:11 pm

        I don’t understand why you keep harping on executions. The constitution doesn’t bar the death penalty. There is no constitutional right not to be executed, if you’ve been properly convicted of a capital crime. There is a constitutional right to US citizenship. This is black-letter law, not subject to dispute.

          Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | September 1, 2014 at 9:22 pm

          According to you, the Constitution can make you dead, but not a NOT citizen.

          If it’s “black letter law” WHERE THE FLUCK ARE THE BLACK LETTERS…????

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 1, 2014 at 9:30 pm

          The fourteenth amendment.

          All constitutional rights are inalienable, unless the constitution says otherwise. There is no right to life in the constitution; on the contrary, it specifically refers to capital punishment. The thirteenth amendment specifically allows slavery as a penalty for crime (subject to the eighth, of course). But there’s nothing allowing a court to strip someone’s first amendment rights, so the law is that prisoners are entitled to them. And the same applies to the 14th-amendment right to citizenship.

          Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | September 1, 2014 at 11:54 pm

          Although a person’s enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it could subject him or her to the provisions of Section 349(a)(3) of the INA [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which provides for loss of U.S. nationality if a U.S national voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. nationality enters or serves in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer.

          So. Not so “black letter” at all. Kinda grey, seems to me.

          Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | September 2, 2014 at 12:09 am

          Also, I’m afraid your other “rationale” regarding the Bill Of Rights is just loopy.

          Prisoners are pretty commonly denied 1st Amendment rights. Try getting a cell phone to one. Heh!

          Felons are MOST OFTEN denied Second Amendment rights.

          Fourth Amendment rights are just barely there for a parolee or probationer. They aren’t there at all for a prisoner.

          See…???

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 2, 2014 at 8:14 am

          Although a person’s enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it could subject him or her to the provisions of Section 349(a)(3) of the INA [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which provides for loss of U.S. nationality if a U.S national voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. nationality […]

          . Note carefully those last words before I broke off the quote. “And with the intention of relinquishing U.S. nationality.” That is they key phrase; without that intention Congress is powerless to cancel the person’s citizenship.

          So yes, black letter law.

          Also, I’m afraid your other “rationale” regarding the Bill Of Rights is just loopy.

          Prisoners are pretty commonly denied 1st Amendment rights. Try getting a cell phone to one. Heh!

          There is no first amendment right to a cell phone. If there were, then prisoners would be entitled to them, and the courts would force prisons to allow them. Prisoners don’t have to be supplied with the means of communicating to those outside the prison, but prisons may not grant such means to those expressing views the administration likes, and deny them to those expressing views it doesn’t like. They must either grant or deny them to all.

          Felons are MOST OFTEN denied Second Amendment rights.

          So far, the courts have not regarded the 2nd amendment as inalienable. Perhaps that will change in the future.

          Fourth Amendment rights are just barely there for a parolee or probationer. They aren’t there at all for a prisoner.

          Prisoners don’t own their cells, so they have no more right not to have the owner search it than a house guest has not to have her host search the room he has assigned her. Also, the fourth amendment only protects against unreasonable searches; searching prisoners and their cells is perfectly reasonable.

          Parole is a gift, and it can be conditioned on waiving any rights. If the prisoner doesn’t like it, he’s free to remain in prison, where legally he belongs.

          Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | September 2, 2014 at 11:35 am

          OK, milhouse, you bad wiring is getting irritating .

          A jihadist would be construed to have “voluntarily relinquished” their rights as a citizen by their conduct.

          If a court has to define something as “inalienable”, you poor confused thing, then it ISN’T INALIENABLE”, but something you hold subject to being told you DON’T.

          And, no, prisoners only have such 1st Amendment “rights” as the penal systems and courts have granted them. A prisoner in solitary MAY gibber, but nobody will hear him/her.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 3, 2014 at 4:12 am

          A jihadist would be construed to have “voluntarily relinquished” their rights as a citizen by their conduct.

          No matter how long you hammer at this lie, it remains a lie. As I pointed out in the very statute you quoted, citizenship cannot be lost without the intent to relinquish it. That intent is absolutely required, and nothing will substitute for it. No conduct can cause citizenship, once lawfully obtained, to be involuntarily lost.

          Nothing can be “construed” as a voluntariy relinquishment in the face of the person’s contemporaneous statement that he didn’t intend to do so; all he needs to do is send an email to the state department saying “I’m going off to fight for Allah, and BTW I’m keeping my citizenship kthxbai”. Or he can simply travel on his US passport while serving in the jihad, thus demonstrating that he continues to regard himself as a US citizen.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Milhouse. | September 1, 2014 at 1:30 pm

      They are terrorists -and- traitors.

Find these traitors. Kill them.

How many converted in Prison? From the stuff that I have read, that is a hotbed for conversion. They go to prison, convert, then come out looking for a Jihad to attend to to show their piety.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to MrGarabaldi. | September 1, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    More like to show their contempt for the American system of laws and justice. If they want to be exempt from US law, they do not deserve to keep their citizenship.

    That includes the one we all know has shown nothing but contempt for Constitution and balance of powers.

    And for the sissy britches Congress that is not doing their job protecting our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the cowardly, agenda-driven judges.

    Pfft.

Meh. If an American goes abroad to fight against American troops in Afghanistan — sign me up to indict and convict the bastards for treason. And then strip them of citizenship.

But going abroad to fight for one foreign group against another… that’s not treason, however much we may despise the side they chose to fight for.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to clintack. | September 1, 2014 at 5:52 pm

    Heck yeah it is treason when the group’s self-declared caliph declares he intends to bring destruction and hell upon the USA and if those of his terrorist group are gathered yards from our Southern Border just waiting to attack.

    Get real.

    These people have declared their intentions.
    Our alleged President and Congress only do nothing.

    Milhouse in reply to clintack. | September 1, 2014 at 9:14 pm

    You can convict them of treason, if they did an overt act in front of two witnesses. But you can’t strip them of citizenship, ever.

Forget the “citizenship” argument. Declare any enemy combatant with US citizenship “outside the law” as in “outlaw” with the old time rules that anyone supporting them are also cast “outside the law”…. it is the duty of citizens to do these “people” harm. Fight non-21st century enemies with non-21st century tactics.

    Milhouse in reply to alaskabob. | September 1, 2014 at 9:26 pm

    There is no such legal status as “outlaw”. We are not Vikings, and our legal system does not recognise such a concept.

Doug Wright Old Grouchy | September 1, 2014 at 11:20 pm

Many people here are missing the point! With Americans involved with the Jihadis, it’s quite likely that some will take action here. A Mumbai type event here would rattle our cage like nothing seen before, especially if home grown Jihadis were involved.

Were American Muslims not stand up to the Jihadis and fight them, most likely they would pay a terrible price; the ghost of FDR would round’em up and lock’em up, just like what happened in 1942 in California.

All this talk about what’s legal or what’s permitted would be set aside after such an event and especially after such behavior by American Muslims. Maybe SCOTUS would get around to reviewing that action years later, maybe not.

We’re facing potentially devastating events in our near future and I do question whether Obama is willing to act like an American President to protect the USA and do doubt where his loyalties lie.

    No, the matter would be in federal court the next morning, and a writ of habeas corpus would be issued immediately.

      Doug Wright Old Grouchy in reply to Milhouse. | September 2, 2014 at 1:15 pm

      You say that you know the written law and that might be true. Yet, if a Mumbai type event were to happen, the outrage against the Islamists would be immense, to the point that your writ would not even be considered.

      Got one other minor point to you to consider, to weigh against “Black Letter Law;” Martial Law. Tamp that down in your pipe and feel that smoke irritating your lungs. Once that were lifted, if it were to be lifted, then your writ might have some value. Understand I’m not hoping for that kind of outcome, yet feel strongly that’s what would happen, especially with our President Obama, el Supremo.

        What do you mean, the writs would not be considered? If a judge issues the writ, the police and army have to release the prisoner. There are no excuses or exceptions. And martial law can only exist where fighting has shut down the courts. Wherever there is a court operating, martial law is illegal.

Milhouse, when you’re right, you’re right, and when you’re wrong it’s a doozy: you’re really wrong here, although I can see part of the reason for your confusion. A person can be stripped of citizenship if they take up arms against the United States; it is legally considered a “voluntary relinquishment” because they voluntarily decided to take up arms against the country. This is easily confirmed if you want to look.

Oh, and there is nothing whatsoever in the 14th Amendment that supports your position. You should reread it.

    Milhouse in reply to Walker Evans. | September 2, 2014 at 8:19 am

    Walker, you are 100% wrong. By all means, look it up. You will find that it is exactly as I have written. Voluntarily taking up arms against the country is a crime, but unless the person intended to relinquish their citizenship with that act, they didn’t relinquish it, and can’t be taken away involuntarily. This is not a close question. The law is crystal clear.

    And yes, it is explicit in the fourteenth amendment. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” All persons, without exception, no matter what they’ve done.

      Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | September 2, 2014 at 11:37 am

      Yes. It is not a close question. You are WRONG.

        gregjgrose in reply to Ragspierre. | September 2, 2014 at 11:43 am

        The trier of fact must in the end conclude that the citizen not only voluntarily committed the expatriating act prescribed in the statute, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship.

        IF that’s what Milhouse is saying, he’s got the Supremes on his side?

        VANCE v. TERRAZAS, etc., down-thread. Unless there’s another case more recent, etc., etc.?

BTW, is anyone else the teensiest bit nervous about the approaching anniversary of Mohamed Atta’s death?

VANCE v. TERRAZAS, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=444&invol=252

1. In establishing loss of citizenship, the Government must prove an intent to surrender United States citizenship, not just the voluntary commission of an expatriating act such as swearing allegiance to a foreign nation. Congress does not have any general power to take away an American citizen’s citizenship without his “assent,” which means an intent to relinquish citizenship, whether the intent is expressed in [444 U.S. 252, 253] words or is found as a fair inference from his conduct. The expatriating acts specified in 349 (a) cannot be treated as conclusive evidence of the indispensable voluntary assent of the citizen. The trier of fact must in the end conclude that the citizen not only voluntarily committed the expatriating act prescribed in the statute, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship. Cf. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 . Pp. 258-263.

FWIW

    Milhouse in reply to gregjgrose. | September 3, 2014 at 4:33 am

    Exactly. Also, Afroyim v Rusk.

    Note that the finding in Terrazas that “Congress does not have any general power to take away an American citizen’s citizenship without his assent” was unanimous.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend