This column was originally published on May 9, 2007

Six Muslims were arrested this week for allegedly plotting to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey, with the expressed intent to “kill as many American soldiers as possible.”

It was yet another attack that was foiled on U.S. soil, and credit must be be doled out where it is due.

The FBI, despite all its baggage (and there is quite a lot) did a commendable job of injecting its informants into the inner circle of these terrorists, and they pulled the plug on the undercover operation at the right time.  There seems to be ample evidence for conviction.

The electronic store clerk's decision to tip off authorities regarding the suspects' suspicious activity was an act of extreme bravery, for he put his personal safety well behind the good of the country.  How many people can ever say that they directly saved the life of another human being, let alone many?  By doing the right thing, he is most deserving of “hero” status.

Perhaps most deserving of credit President Bush.  While he has done many things wrong, and is justifiably criticized for his mistakes, too often he is not credited when things go right under his leadership.  This is such a case.

Any leader will tell you that the buck stops with him, for good or ill.  Under President Bush's watch, the United States has not been attacked since September 11, 2001.  That's five and a half years---and that's a record for which he can be extremely proud.  There isn't any doubt that terrorist cells have been operating within America's borders for years, and continue to do so today, as evidenced by this latest episode.  There have been numerous terror organizations and plots that have been uncovered and stopped, as reported in the media.  But there most certainly have been other victories, which, for security reasons, have not been made public.  That is a fact of life in the intelligence community---you get criticized when something goes awry, but can't always garner public accolades when operations are successful.

George Bush has overhauled the intelligence community and formed the Department of Homeland Security, both monumental undertakings. Since this is his Justice Department, and his CIA, he must be given credit for successes such as diffusing the Fort Dix plot.

It is unfortunate when partisan politics and ego and get in the way of doing the right thing.  Far too few acknowledge the President's role in saving lives, and that is simply unacceptable. 

However, this Fort Dix story is not just about terrorism.  It is also about an issue that closely correlates with the war on terror, and one that, if implemented, would be the single most effective measure to increase America's security immediately and exponentially.

It is about illegal immigration.

Three of the six arrested were in America illegally, and had been for quite some time.  Yet they enjoyed virtually all of the benefits of citizenship, including quality education and jobs, without actually being citizens.  Benefits, by the way, that were paid for by the taxpayers.

Kind of ironic, isn't it?  We support and pamper illegal aliens, who in many cases are here with  explicit knowledge of the Government, who then turn around and try to murder American soldiers.

Something doesn't quite add up.

If America had a wall on its entire southern border---one that was actually built, not just “funded” but in limbo--- the people's wrath might be tempered.  If the Justice Department went after the real criminals on the border---and not United States Border Patrol agents doing their job--- perhaps anger would be mitigated.  Americans don't expect perfection, but they do expect their government to try. 

Maybe if just a fraction of the money our Government spends coddling known illegals was used to beef up the security personnel and equipment on all our borders, then illegal immigration wouldn't be such a hot-button issue.

If law enforcement was allowed to profile in search of terrorists....wait, scratch that last one.  Someone just told me that the Dix Six were blond-haired, blue-eyed Swedish Catholics.  I will get back to you after I verify the veracity of that information.

The President, as Commander-in-Chief, must take the good with the bad.  While he should be applauded for his efforts at Fort Dix, you have to wonder if such a plot would have ever taken place if our borders had been sealed and adequately staffed, especially if such efforts had begun on September 12, 2001.  We're not constructing a complex skyscraper, mind you.  It's a wall ---with barbed wire, cameras, and other technological gadgets thrown in, yes---but still just a wall.  Take it from somebody whose toolbox is the phonebook:  it's not that difficult or expensive to build.

The failure of the President and the Congress to act on such basic, commonsense issues is inexcusable. 

The government assures us we are safer by ripping grandma out of the airport line and taking away her nail clippers, but that is an illusion.  We rationalize our safety when told to take our shoes off, yet the vast majority of airline freight---present on almost every commercial flight--- is never x-rayed.  And our port security?  It's a joke.

The point is that until our Government gets serious about protecting our shores by tackling illegal immigration head-on, we are no safer.  Terrorists will continue to walk across the border with a Tecate in one hand and a bomb in the other. 

As has become our custom, we are fighting this war with a self-imposed hand tied behind our back.

It doesn't take stars on your shoulder to realize that's no way to win a war.

An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

After ten long years, the wait is finally over. 

Osama bin Laden --- Public Enemy Number One --- had eluded capture for over a decade, casting doubt that justice would ever be served.  It was only natural to think he either died anonymously or blended so well into his surroundings that his fate would never be realized, and that America’s most painful wound would never fully heal.

But all that changed after a gutsy operation inside Pakistan led to his demise.  The massive celebrations around the nation left tears of joy in the eyes of millions, as unity once again took hold across America.  Notch a huge win for the good guys.

But at risk of putting a damper on the euphoria, it is clear that U.S. still is not wholly committed to winning the War on Terror. A glaring example is the debate over whether waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” should be used on terrorists hell-bent on destroying us.

There are conflicting reports as to whether the waterboarding of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided information about an al-Queda courier, who ultimately led the U.S. to bin Laden’s Pakistani hideout.

One question: who cares?  Common sense tells us that waterboarding works, and has no doubt saved lives by obtaining intelligence that would have otherwise not been uncovered.  Whether that method was directly responsible for extracting the courier information may never be known, but debating that point misses the big picture entirely.

We are at war.  And when at war, you pull out all stops until victory is achieved --- Vietnam was supposed to teach us that. When you fight not to lose, the enemy becomes emboldened. 

Where we are right now is a perfect example of the adage “we have met the enemy, and it is us.”
We have allowed our security to be unnecessarily compromised, and, despite bin Laden’s death, the threat against the Western world remains high.

And it’s all done in the name of political correctness.

The blame cannot be directed just at President Obama, who officially discontinued waterboarding in 2009.  Under the Bush Administration, both the CIA and the military had effectively ended the practice years earlier.  And it was Republican John McCain who offered an Amendment prohibiting the U.S. from engaging in humiliating or degrading treatment of captured terrorists.

By way of explanation, waterboarding is when water is poured over the face of an enemy combatant, simulating the feeling of drowning.  If you're waiting for the rest of the description, you'll be sorely disappointed, because that's it.  Don't misunderstand---it's very effective, but derives its success due to psychological stress rather than physical harm.  No one gets hurt, and no one dies. 

But somehow that’s degrading, so despite its effectiveness, we stopped it outright. Does anyone really believe that if we politely ask our detainees for sensitive information, like their financial network, comrades' whereabouts, and the battle-plans to kill Americans, they will just tell us?

If the goal is to ensure that terrorists feel comfortable, then we were right to ban waterboarding.  But if we want to be seriously engaged in a global war against those who aggressively advocate our destruction, we must reconsider how we handle detainees, (who, incidentally, are afforded fantastic medical care, food reflective of their ethnicity, and prayer time).

Maybe we should ask the survivors and victims’ families of the 9/11 massacre, the Madrid train attacks, the London subway bombings, and a host of other atrocities if they care whether a prisoner, with possible knowledge of an impending attack (potentially nuclear, chemical or biological), has some water poured on his face, or feels humiliated.

Cutting through the PC, does the average American, or European for that matter, really believe such interrogation methods should be banned, putting the prisoner's well-being ahead of their own?  Are they really willing to jeopardize their children's future because a combatant's “dignity” is affected?

When Americans are captured, the enemy doesn’t feel compelled to reciprocate that dignity. Need a quick refresher?  Just look at the videos of Americans --- civilians and military --- being decapitated, dragged through the streets, burned, dismembered and hung from bridges.

Because we coddle prisoners, refuse to profile, won’t construct a border wall and tie our troops' hands behind their backs because of PC politics, we have become a paper tiger.  And the sigh of despair you hear?  That's the silent majority of Europeans who live on the front lines, too scared to publicly support anti-PC measures because their cultures have become the embodiment of appeasement.  They used to nod in admiration that at least one country still had the guts to take it to the enemy. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

We should use every means necessary to extract information that could save lives, and waterboarding is clearly one of them.  Just as Americans call for domestic drilling only after gas hits $4 per gallon, there will undoubtedly be loud calls to bring back enhanced interrogation techniques --- after the next attack.

But by then, it will be too late.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative
reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Pakistan's leader, General Pervez Musharraf, has just declared a state of emergency.  In doing so, he suspended the constitution, ousted the country's top judge, baned public meetings and rounded up opposition leaders.  Parliamentary elections were also halted for the foreseeable future.  Democracy, if that's what you pretend to call Pakistan's system of government, has taken a backseat to authoritarian rule.

And guess who, once again, is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong?

The United States is leading the charge in condemning Pakistan for its actions, calling it a setback for democracy.  Apparently, we don't support Musharraf's “extra-constitutional means” by which he governs, so now we are thinking about cutting off billions of aid  to one of our staunchest allies in the War on Terror.

When will we ever learn that this is precisely why we are hated in many parts of the world?  We continually impose our values on everyone else, and do so in such a morally superior way that it generates results opposite of our intentions. Our actions are, at best, politically naive, and, at worst, downright dangerous.