The 112th Congress:

Getting Tough on Terrorism

By
Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo
Katharine C. Gorka

Introduction
Conservative Republicans and Tea Party candidates have arrived in Washington in force,

and the hope and expectation is that they will have a big impact on fiscal and economic policy.

While less talked about, many also hope the 112th Congress will change the way terrorism is

investigated and prosecuted and even the way it is discussed. If the recent hearing on radicalism

among American Muslims, chaired by Rep. Peter King (R-NY), is any indication, the new

Congress is certainly planning to take a more activist and aggressive approach with regard to

Islamist terrorism, but it is equally clear that they will have significant hurdles to overcome.

Changes in Public Perception

Public pressure for a change in the government’s response to Islamist terrorism has been

growing steadily over the past 14 months. While there had been a number of attacks and

attempted attacks by Islamists on American soil after 9/11, it was the attack of Major Nidal

Malik Hasan on Ft. Hood, on November 5, 2009, that most significantly altered public

perceptions both of Islamist terrorism and the governmental response to it. Americans were

disturbed by the fact that Hasan was so blatant in his Islamist sympathies, even briefing them to
1
his colleagues, yet that these sympathies and other clear warning signs were ignored by

government agencies out of a sense of political correctness. The feeling of outrage was further

exacerbated by the fact that the Department of Defense’s official report, Protecting the Force:

Lessons from Fort Hood, released in January 2010, did not once use the words Islam, Islamist,

Islamic terrorism, or jihad.

The failure to prevent the attack on Ft. Hood was followed by the failure of intelligence,

law enforcement, and transportation security agencies to prevent the near detonation of a bomb

by Umar Faroul Abdulmutallab less than two months later, on Christmas Day 2009, again in

spite of ample evidence that should have alerted authorities to the imminent threat. His own

father had informed the CIA of the potential risk posed by his son, but even this information was

mishandled. On May 2, 2010, another Islamist terrorist attack was a very near miss when Faisal

Shahzad attempted to detonate a bomb in Times Square, but again the bigger failure was not of

would-be terrorists’ bomb-making skills but of the government’s ability to correctly process and

act on evidence of a threat.

Following Shahzad’s failed attack, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg elicited

widespread criticism when he suggested that Shahzad had likely acted out of dissatisfaction with

Obama’s healthcare proposal, and it was nearly two full days after the attack before Attorney

General Eric Holder would use the word terrorism to describe it. This was soon followed by

Holder’s infamous performance before the House Judiciary Committee on May 13, when he

jumped through semantic hoops to avoid Rep. Lamar Smith’s repeated question: could radical

Islam have been a factor in these three recent attacks--Ft. Hood, the Christmas Day bomb

attempt, and the Times Square bomb attempt? Holder’s evasiveness did not sit well with the

American public.

2
The Ground Zero Mosque and the Proposed Qur’an-Burning
Less than one month after the failed Times Square bombing, feelings were further

inflamed on May 25th when the Lower Manhattan Community Board gave a green light for the

building of an Islamic community center near Ground Zero. Where the earlier events were

widely talked about, it was the proposal for the Ground Zero mosque that truly took the debate

national. As Americans looked into the proposed plans for the center, they started asking

questions: Would it be a mosque or a community center? Was it for bridge building or

victorious gloating? What exactly is Islamic da’wa? It introduced a much wider swath of

Americans to some of the deeper issues relating to Islam and Islamic history, such as the

tradition of building mosques to commemorate major victories.

Just as this intellectual awakening was underway, Pastor Terry Jones took the debate

global by threatening to burn a Koran on September 11, 2010. While the vast majority of

Americans condemned his proposed act, many were also angered, because they saw the threats

of violence and reprisal by the global Muslim community as a violation of America’s much-

hallowed freedom of expression. Americans had had to tolerate the burning of the American flag

and the desecration of the cross over the years. And while they did not like it, they accepted it as

a necessary price to pay to protect that sacred right. So why should the Koran be treated any

differently, they asked.

Growing Awareness of the Homegrown Islamic Terrorism Threat

Thus, through 2010, there was a steadily growing awareness of the threat of domestic

terrorism, frustration with the double standards being demanded by vocal Muslim leaders (and

granted to them by many political leaders and policymakers), and with Washington’s seeming

3
willful blindness to the problem. Surprisingly, given this atmosphere, standing up to Islam did

not become a secure campaign platform going in to the November 2010 elections. A handful of

candidates were outspoken on the issue, most notably Allen West, a retired Army Colonel who

had served in Iraq and who successfully ran for Congress in Florida’s 22nd District. West said,

“America must confront the radical Islamic non-state, non-uniform belligerent who transits

freely across borders, killing and promoting a 7th century ideology that is anathema to the values

of America and to Western Civilization.”1 West also criticized the way members of the United

States government talk about terrorism, stating, “Political correctness has no place in our

national security strategy.”2

But those who were outspoken on Islam were relatively few, and for most, it seemed to

be more of a liability than an asset. Dr. Marvin Scott was excoriated by the media for

condemning the current administration’s handling of terrorism. Scott, who ran against Muslim-

convert Andre Carson (D – IN, 7th district), called for terms such as “radical Muslim,” “Muslim

jihadist,” and “radical Islamic terrorist” to be used to describe the inherent threats facing the

U.S., replacing the innocuous and much criticized terms “man-made disaster” and “violent

extremism.” Dr. Scott was criticized for going after Carson’s religious beliefs and received only

negative coverage from popular media. Not surprisingly, he lost his race. A number of others

made the fight against radical Islam prominent in their campaigns, and yet none was able to carry

that message to a victory:

Rick A. Lazio, a former Congressman from Long Island, made opposition to the Ground Zero
mosque a centerpiece of his campaign in the run for Governor of New York.3 He testified against

1
Col. West speech at CPAC, February 12, 2001. http://bigpeace.com/smandel/2011/02/16/domesticforeign-affairs-
split-at-cpac-may-explain-allen-wests-popularity-and-a-gop-opportunity/ accessed 3/1/2011`
2
Ibid.
3
Michael Barbaro, “Lazio Finds an Issue in Furor Over Islamic Center,” The New York Times, August 22, 2010,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/nyregion/23lazio.html?pagewanted=all
4
the mosque at public hearings, denounced it in television commercials and created an online
petition demanding an investigation into the center and its organizers. Lazio lost in the primary.

Jay Townsend ran for one of New York’s Senate seats. In an address to the New York City
Landmarks Commission on July 13, he said he opposed the planned mosque "because it is
insensitive to the memory of those who lost their lives during the Sept. 11 terror attack."4 His
opponent, the Democratic incumbent Charles Schummer, said with regard to the proposed
mosque, "As I've said over the last several weeks, I'm not opposed to it, and I think that's the
appropriate thing for me to say." Townsend won only 33% of the vote against the 65% for
Schumer.

Lou Ann Zelenik, a Tea Party/Republican candidate for Congress in Tennessee’s 6th
Congressional District, is quoted as saying, “Let there be no mistake, Lou Ann stands with
everyone who is opposed to the idea of an Islamic training center being built in our community.
This "Islamic Center" is not part of a religious movement; it is a political movement designed to
fracture the moral and political foundation of Middle Tennessee... Until the American Muslim
community find it in their hearts to separate themselves from their evil, radical counterparts, to
condemn those who want to destroy our civilization and will fight against them, we are not
obligated to open our society to any of them.”5 She came in second in the primaries.

Vijay Kumar ran for Congress in Tennessee’s 5th District (Nashville and environs) against
Democratic incumbent Jim Cooper. Born in Hyderabad, India, Kumar also lived in Iran under
the Ayatollah, and in part bases his opposition to Islam on his personal experience with it:
“During my travels, I came to realize that Islam is unlike any of the other world religions for a
variety of reasons…Islam was conceived as a world empire to govern all mankind. It teaches that
all the world, and everyone and everything in it, already belongs to Islam–some people just
haven’t been made to understand that. Until they have, according to Islam, they are considered
“infidels” and inferiors.”6 Kumar ran a large billboard that read, “DEFEAT UNIVERSAL
JIHAD NOW!” He won only 7% of the vote in the Republican Primary.

Rick Barber was a Tea-Party-backed House candidate for Alabama’s 2nd district. He gained
national notoriety for his YouTube video, “Gather Your Armies,” in which he sits with Samuel
Adams and George Washington in a pub and complains about the IRS, claiming Americans are
being taxed without representation. Though it gained less attention, he also made a video on
Islam, in which he narrates:
On September eleventh, 2001, America was attacked. We weren't attacked by a nation,
we weren't attacked by terror, we were attacked by Islamic jihadists--in the name of Islam
nearly 3000 Americans have been murdered in New York, Washington D.C., and
Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Jihad threatens our freedom, our families and our way of life.
Under the name of Islam, American soldiers and civilians have been tortured and
murdered. Islamic jihadism poses a clear and present danger to American freedom and to
the very existence of the state of Israel, yet the Obama Administration wants to call 9/11
a man caused disaster. Now Muslims wan to build a Mosque just two blocks from where
4
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/01/what-is-jay-townsends-religion/
5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Ann_Zelenik
6
http://sharmajee.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/meet-vijay-kumar-would-be-anti-sharia-congressman-republican-tn-5/
5
 the World Trade Center once stood. When is the grand opening of this Ground Zero
Mosque? September eleventh, 2011. This is unacceptable-- there is a difference between
tolerance and surrender.7
Barber lost with 39% of the vote to candidate Martha Roby.

Vincent Forras is a September 11th first responder who ran for senator in Connecticut against
billionaire Linda McMahon, who made her fortune developing World Wrestling Entertainment
with her husband. Forras lost to McMahon in the primary, and soon after initiated a $350
million lawsuit against Park51 and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the original imam of the proposed
mosque.

Susan Kone ran on a Conservative-Republican party ticket against 18-year Democratic

incumbent Jerry Nadler for the seat in New York’s 8th Congressional district, home of the
proposed Ground Zero mosque. One of her campaign ads was titled, “No Mosque at Ground
Zero.” Nadler, on the other hand, was a vocal supporter of the mosque. Kone lost with 25% of
the vote against Nadler’s 75%.

Obstacles to Changing Washington’s Approach to Islamic Terrorism

The very mixed record of candidates who ran on an anti-Islamist platform in the

November 2010 election is just one indication of how serious the obstacles are to any significant

change in the way the U.S. addresses Islamic terrorism. One can suggest three principle reasons

why this might be so: First, many feel cautious about tackling the “Islam” in Islamic terrorism,

knowing that if the issue is mishandled, we may undermine the principles that make America a

singular proponent of freedom of belief and equal treatment under the law. (Indeed many cite

this commitment to religious freedom as the rationale for supporting the Ground Zero mosque

and opposing strategies such as profiling.) However, this caution must be coupled with the

recognition that if we do not properly identify and counter the threat, we risk America’s

destruction by terrorism. Second, the administration has made clear its position that terrorism is

not to be linked with Islam. Therefore, anyone trying to challenge that admonition will be

swimming against the official current--or worse, they will be out of a job.8 And third, anyone
7
http://islamexposed.blogspot.com/2010/05/rick-barbers-stand-up-campaign-spot.html
8
Recent cases include Fred Grandy, former radio show host on WMAL, and Stephen Coughlin, former legal expert
at the Department of Defense, both dismissed for their stance on Islam.
6
brave enough to suggest that Islam might be more than just a religion, or that any number of

would-be attackers have used it to justify violence against the United States, risks lawsuits and

demonization by Muslim organizations, particularly by CAIR (the Council on American Islamic

Relations), which has demonstrated its eagerness to initiate litigation against both real and

imagined critics of Islam.

Congress Takes on the Issue

Yet in spite of these obstacles, a handful of Members and their staffers have taken on the

issue. Rep. Sue Myrick (R – NC) has long been drawing attention to the growing domestic

threat. As Chair of the Anti-Terrorism Caucus, she has been at the forefront of the fight for a

change in the way terrorists are investigated and prosecuted. In a letter on radicalization to

President Obama, Myrick notes:

For many years we lulled ourselves with the idea that radicalization was not happening
inside the United Sates. We believed American Muslims were immune to radicalization
because, unlike the European counterparts, they are socially and economically well-
integrated into society. There had been warnings that these assumptions were false but we
paid them no mind. Today there is no doubt that radicalization is taking place inside
America. The strikingly accelerated rate of American Muslims arrested for involvement
in terrorist activities since May 2009 makes this fact self-evident. 9

The U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, chaired by Joseph

I. Lieberman (ID-CT), has also proactively tackled the issue. Its most significant project has

been an independent study of the Fort Hood attack, which sought to rectify the omissions of the

official Ft. Hood report. The House report concluded, “Although neither DoD nor the FBI had

specific information concerning the time, place or nature of the attack, they collectively had

sufficient information to have detected Hasan’s radicalization to violent Islamist extremism but

failed both to understand and to act on it.10

9
Raymond Ibrahim, “Can American Values Radicalize Muslims?” Pajamas Media, 10 February 2011.
10
A Ticking Time Bomb: Counterterrorism Lessons from the U.S. Government’s Failure to Prevent the Fort Hood
Attack, published by the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, February 3,
7
 Such a condemnation might prove heartening, if not for the fact that such structural

failings in the government’s ability to recognize and prosecute Islamic terrorism were recognized

nearly two decades ago. Andrew McCarthy, the federal prosecutor who helped investigate and

prosecute the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other planned attacks on New York

landmarks, wrote of those events nearly twenty years earlier:

It is not enough to say the federal government should have seen the World Trade Center
attack coming. We did see it coming—if not the target then, at the very least, the strong
potential for a bombing. We had, moreover, been in a decent position to stop it. But we
failed. And we failed precisely because the tools and assumptions of law enforcement are
not suitable for religiously motivated war.11

A disturbing echo reverberates between McCarthy’s assessment of the 1993 situation and the

House report on Fort Hood published this year. How is it that in 18 years we still have not

managed to correct this fatal flaw in our law enforcement and intelligence capabilities? And we

fail to do so repeatedly. Again and again over nearly two decades we have failed to recognize

and stop the enemy. The question that now sits squarely before the 112th Congress is how many

more failures will there have to be before we learn the lesson? Can we afford to permit political

correctness to define what we can say and know about the enemy?

What gives cause for hope in the 112th Congress is that members such as Myrick have

been joined by new members such as Allen West, who are keen to take on the issue. And

notably, with Peter King rising to the chairmanship of the powerful House Committee on

Homeland Security, a new wave of hearings will be held, such as the recent one, “The Extent of

Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community’s Response.” In

explaining his rationale for the hearings, King said:

2011, p. 7.
11
Andrew C. McCarthy, Willful Blindness (New York: Encounter Books, 2010) p. 10.
8
 Al Qaeda has realized the difficulty it faces in launching attacks against our homeland
from overseas. Thus it has adjusted its tactics and is now attempting to radicalize and
recruit from within our country. In the last two years alone more than 50 Americans have
been charged with terror related crimes.....In short, the homeland has become a major front
in the war with Islamic terrorism and it is our responsibility to fully examine this
significant change in al Qaeda tactics and strategy. 12

Thus it seems clear we can expect better things from the 112th Congress with regard to the

fight against Islamic terrorism and even political jihad, though it is less clear whether the

Administration will change tactics, in spite of significant changes in the threat assessment of

senior counter-terrorism and law enforcement officials. FBI Director Robert Mueller told the

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, "Groups affiliated with al-

Qaeda are now actively targeting the United States and looking to use Americans or Westerners

who are able to remain undetected by heightened security measures."13 In December, Attorney

General Eric Holder said what keeps him awake at night is the current trend of cases in which

American citizens have radicalized and committed acts of terrorism:

The threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here, to worrying
about people in the United States, American citizens -- raised here, born here, and who for
whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms
against the nation in which they were born.14
Holder went on to say that of the 126 people charged in cases related to terrorism in the past 24

months, 50 had been American citizens. Yet he still will not use the word “Islamic terrorism.”

Janet Napolitano was once equally skittish about the “T” word. She preferred the term

“man-caused disasters,” on the grounds that “we want to move away from the politics of fear

toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”15 Without a doubt it is an

12
“King Letter to Ranking Member Thompson Reaffirming Islamic Radicalization Hearings,” The House
Committee on Homeland Security, February 8, 2011. http://homeland.house.gov/letter/king-letter-ranking-member-
thompson-reaffirming-islamic-radicalization-hearings
13
“US Congress Warned of Home-Grown Terrorism Threat,” BBC News, September 22, 2010.
14
Interview with Eric Holder, ABC Good Morning America, December 20, 2010.
15
Cordula Meyer, “Away from the Politics of Fear,” Der Spiegel, March 16, 2009.
9
improvement in our capacity to fight this enemy that in a recent statement to lawmakers,

Napolitano used the word terrorism 62 times in her opening statement alone. However, it does

not bode well that she did not once use it paired with the term Islamic or Islamist. Indeed the

only time she used the word Islam was to put distance between Islam and terrorism: in describing

the ideology that drives al Qaeda she called it their “widely rejected version of Islam.”16 But if

so widely rejected, one has to ask, why then does she preface her comments by saying that the

threat facing us is at its most heightened state since the 9/11 attacks? And that al Qaeda’s

“widely rejected version of Islam” has in fact spread to other “foreign-based groups that are

inspired by al-Qaeda ideology”? Sec. Napolitano’s ability to accurately assess the enemy and

the threat to America is clearly compromised by some demand, whether internal or external, not

to insult Islam. But to call this enemy a terrorist is merely to describe a tactic. It says nothing of

the enemy himself: what motivates him, what draws him to the cause, what makes him see us as

the enemy or what his desired end state is. Nor does it even address his broader strategy. If

Napolitano or Obama or Holder is only going to allow the enemy to be described by the tactics

he uses, the United States will never be able to defeat him.

16
Testimony of Secretary Janet Napolitano Before the United States House of Representatives Committee on
Homeland Security, “Understanding the Homeland Threat Landscape—Considerations for the 112th Congress,
February 9, 2011.
10
The Task that Lies Ahead

While the United States may have weakened Al Qaeda in the decade since 9/11, it has in

no way weakened the threat from Islamist terrorism. Al Qaeda’s war against local secular

regimes and against the United States for supporting those regimes has only escalated. Indeed,

one can look at the wave of “revolutions” throughout the Middle East as a major victory for Al

Qaeda and associated movements. While it is not al Qaeda itself who will come to power in

Egypt or Bahrain or Yemen or Tunisia, those countries will certainly see more Islamic regimes

take control, which is all al Qaeda has ever wanted. This will further embolden America’s

would-be enemies to take the fight to our shores, or to recruit those already on American soil to

fight for them. This is America’s preeminent national security challenge. Faisal Shahzad, the

Times Square bomber, made clear the seriousness of the challenge. A 30-year old MBA, father

of two young children, Shahzad was the son of wealthy Pakistani parents. He emigrated to

America, returned briefly to Pakistan to receive training in bomb-making at a terrorist camp in

Waziristan, and then, with his new found skills, attempted to detonate a weapon of mass

destruction in Times Square. In his statement before the United States District Court prior to

sentencing, Shahzad made the following statement:

…The crusading U.S. and NATO forces who have occupied the Muslim lands under the
pretext of democracy and freedom for the last nine years and are saying with their mouths
that they are fighting terrorism, I say to them, we don’t accept your democracy nor your
freedom, because we already have Sharia law and freedom. Furthermore, brace
yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun. Consider me only a first
droplet of the flood that will follow me. And only this time it’s not imperial Japan or
Germany, Vietnam or Russian communism. This time it’s the war against people who
believe in the book of Allah and follow the commandments, so this is a war against
Allah. So let’s see how you can defeat your Creator, which you can never do. Therefore
the defeat of U.S. is imminent and will happen in the near future, inshallah, which will
only give rise to much awaited Muslim caliphate, which is the only true world order.17

17
“Read the Faisal Shahzad Transcript,” New York Post, Oct 5, 2010.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/read_the_faisal_shahzad_transcript_zDoUXlGEMoqZMwzsIRrlkM
11
This is the ideology driving the enemy, this is the worldview that inspires well educated,

prosperous Americans, fathers, young professionals, to embark on violent jihad. Law

enforcement, national security and intelligence agencies cannot begin to meet this enemy if they

continue to be shackled by the constraints of political correctness, and yet the Obama

administration seems no closer to changing its failed strategy. Congress, therefore, must deliver

on its early promise to change the way America addresses terrorism that claims its roots in Islam.

Congress must continue what they started in the first hearing on radicalization—talking in a civil

yet straightforward way about the nature of the threat. Peter King, and his colleagues on the

Republican side of the aisle, deserve credit both for their civility and their perseverence. They

persisted in digging down on the topic of the hearing in spite of the histrionics, the insults and

the accusations of racism and Islamophobia from their Democratic colleagues and the media.

They must continue to do so as they forge ahead with future hearings. Above all, they must

bring us to the point where we can talk sensibly and realistically about the Islamist threat. As

David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, recently said, “We have got to get to the root of the

problem, and we need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of these terrorist attacks lie. 

That is the existence of an ideology, Islamist extremism.”18

Conclusion
While we would be woefully wrong to identify all Muslims as terrorists, we would be

equally wrong not to identify some terrorists as Muslims. We must clearly analyze and define

the nature of the adversarial Islamist ideology in order to effectively counter it, both at home and

abroad. Until we can recognize, acknowledge and talk about the ideology that drives the enemy,

America’s law enforcement, defense, and intelligence communities will not have the proper tools
18
David Cameron in his February 5, 2011, speech in Munich on radicalization and Islamic extremism, The
Telegraph, February 5, 2011.

12
to stop Americans from being killed. It is up to the 112th Congress to put those tools back into

their hands.

Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, Chairman of The Westminster Institute, received his Ph.D. in Islamic
Studies from the University of London, and he is a leading expert on jihadist ideology and
radical Islam, advising governments around the globe. He is the author of numerous books,
including Global Jihad: The Future in the Face of Militant Islam, Understanding Shari’a
Finance: The Muslim Challenge to Western Economics, and Faith, Power, and Territory:  A
Handbook of British Islam. He has served as Cultural Advisor to ISAF, Kabul, Afghanistan and
to GOC, Basra, Iraq. 

Katharine Cornell Gorka is the Executive Director of The Westminster Institute, a think-tank
based in McLean, Virginia, whose mission is to promote individual dignity and freedom for
people throughout the world by sponsoring high-quality independent research by scholars and
policy analysts, with a particular focus on the threat posed by extremism and radical ideologies.
Prior to joining The Westminster Institute, Mrs. Gorka was director of the Institute for
Transitional Democracy and International Security based in Budapest, Hungary.

13