'[Omitted]' Is the Sine Qua Non of America’s See-No-Islam National Security Policy
The originally redacted partial transcript of jihadist Omar Mateen’s 911 calls during his June 12 attack on an Orlando LGBT nightclub was perhaps the quintessential product of American national security policy.
In particular, its heavy use of “[Omitted]” singularly defined our cowardice, ignorance and willful blindness in response to the Islamic supremacist threat.
Importantly, the Department of Justice’s decision amid criticism to relent and unredact the partial transcript does not change the fact that the government’s first instinct was to obfuscate.
While many are just now wringing their hands at the Obama Justice Department’s transparently asinine and politically correct original decision to scrub Mateen’s own words, lost is that the most egregious original redaction of all perfectly illustrates a perfidious see-no-Islam stance that has characterized our homeland insecurity establishment for almost a decade:
OM: I pledge allegiance to [omitted] may God protect him [in Arabic], on behalf of [omitted].
Countering Violent Extremism, also known as “CVE,” which governs the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) counterjihadist counterextremist efforts, explicitly calls for covering our eyes to and blotting out words associated with the jihadists’ self-proclaimed animating Islamic supremacist ideology.
Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties published a report in January 2008 titled “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims” that has proved to be impactful in this context. The document calls for caution among federal authorities when it comes to (i) using terms such as “jihadist,” “Islamic terrorist,” “Islamist,” and “holy warrior,” and (ii) using theological terms themselves in the context of the global jihad.
Expert Recommendation 3 of the report, “Proceed carefully before using Arabic and religious terminology,” reads:
USG [U.S. Government] officials may want to avoid using theological terms, particularly those in Arabic, even if such usage is benign or overtly positive. Islamic law and terms come with a particular context, which may not always be apparent. It is one thing for a Muslim leader to use a particular term; an American official may simply not have the religious authority to be taken seriously, even when using terms appropriately.
Got it? The federal government should not use the lexicon of jihadists seeking to destroy our nation because it lacks religious standing.