Last year saw many transformations to American institutions in the name of inclusion. Some of those effects began to be evident in law enforcement around the country, most notably, New York City.
New policy, outlined by NYPD Commissioner James P. O’Neill, was established in response to a federal class action lawsuit filed against the department in June.
Officers in New York will be granted a religious exemption from the department’s Equal Employment Opportunity Office. The accommodation will allow the officers to grow beards that extend up to half an inch from their face. They may also wear a blue turban with a hat instead of the traditional hat worn by officers.
Prior to the Muslim officer’s lawsuit, officers granted medical or religious exceptions were still only permitted to grow a beard no longer than one millimeter in length. The change is dramatic.
Commissioner O’Neill explained, “We’re making this change to make sure that we allow everybody in New York City that wants to apply and have the opportunity to work in the greatest police department in the nation, to make sure we give them that opportunity.”
Inclusion advocates noted at the time that these changes were enacted during a period of Muslims feeling particularly unsafe in America. They neglected to mention all the other religions and races that were being systematically attacked by terrorists from the same countries as these officers.
The steady increase of Muslims in law enforcement has raised some concerns. There have been multiple attacks by terrorists in these positions, exploiting security clearances and insider intelligence.
On September 17, 2016, a security guard for the Stockholm based Securitas AB Company, attacked 10 people in a Minnesota mall. Somali-American Dahi Adan wore his uniform as he stabbed and slashed the innocent shoppers before he was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer.
At least once during the attack, Adan spoke of Allah and was heard to ask victims if they were Muslim or not before he assaulted them. Following the incident, an ISIS affiliate claimed Adan was a “soldier of the Islamic State.”
An aspiring officer carried out a separate attack the same day in New York. Afghan-American Ahmad Rahami detonated a pressure-cooker bomb and left 31 people injured.
Rahami had a journal which police found after they shot him. The journal detailed Rahami’s beliefs that he was carrying out “jihad” against “nonbelievers” in their “backyard.”
The terrorist was working for his family restaurant at the time. He had majored in criminal justice at Middlesex County College in Edison, N.J. He left the college in 2012 without graduating.
Omar Mateen passed 2 different screenings during his employment for the security company GS4. He had psychological testing when he was recruited and the company performed a background check. He was rescreened in 2013. The company found no problems with Mateen, even though he had been dismissed as a security guard at a Florida courthouse. His firing occurred after he made death threats to a sheriff’s deputy while on duty.
“Omar became very agitated and made a comment that he could have al-Qaida kill my employee and his family,” St. Lucie County Sheriff Ken Mascara said. “If that wasn’t bad enough, he went on to say that the Fort Hood shooter was justified in his actions.”
Remarkably, the man was even on a FBI terror watch list when he was hired. None of that made a difference and Mateen was employed by the company when he opened fire at the Orlando nightclub, killing 49 people.
G4S Secure Solutions USA Inc., Mateen’s employer has a $234 million contract with the Department of Homeland Security. G4S also provides guards and other security services for “90% of U.S. nuclear facilities,” according to CounterJihad.
These are just a few examples of this disturbing trend. Some of these terrorists were unknown before their attacks. Some, such as Mateen, were all over the radar. Either way, they were given jobs that granted them a level of access that proved deadly.
What is the point of having watch lists and inter-state communication between agencies if nobody heeds the warnings? Whether GS4 didn’t do a proper screening or just didn’t pay attention, their neglect directly contributed to the deaths of those 49 people.
All over America, agencies are hiring, in some cases under threat of lawsuits, people who are unsuitable for the jobs. This is not a matter of discrimination, it is life or death.
Liberals can make all the claims they want, the proof is in these attacks, leaving so many wounded or dead. Agencies have the right and the responsibility to conduct more complete checks and hire the people they believe are capable. If they make a mistake, they need to be held accountable.
There are Muslim Americans who are more than competent to do these jobs. Law enforcement and security officials need to make decisions on a case-to-case basis. They should never be forced to hire anyone simply to make activists happy. Lives have been sacrificed to meet their demands and that needs to end.