If you were to ask me how many terrorism-related suspects border security turned away in the past two years, I’d ballpark it in the thousands, if not higher. A friend of mine said millions (rhetorically, just saying he knew it was high). The reality? Since 2004, only one.

US-VISIT, an acronym for United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology, has denied entry to an estimated 1,644 foreign nationals by matching digital photos and fingerprint scans with records from criminal and terrorism databases.

Most turned away are criminals or immigration law violators. Apart from the single 2005 case, there have been no reported arrests of terrorism suspects as a result of US-VISIT, which has processed tens of millions of people since it began screening visa applicants in January 2004.

Okay, now there is an important distinction to make here. Denied entry to 1,644 people out of TENS OF MILLIONS, and arrested one person because of terrorist ties. The article has a little backpedal, though.

But [acting director of US-VISIT Robert] Mocny could not say how many entry denials allegedly involved terrorism, and officials said the US-VISIT system did not keep a running tally of people turned away due to suspected terrorism links.

Hopping back to the previous block, we have a total of 1,644 denials of entry. “Most” of them were standard criminals of some kind. Even saying that at the very worst, the very largest statistical block of those denied were terrorist suspects (one less than half), that’s 821 possible terrorists turned away since 2004.

This is what kills me about the terrorism debate. We’re told that terrorists are all over the nation and if we don’t take drastic measures we’re all going to be killed any time now. But the numbers just don’t support that. A while ago I wrote about the increasing number of terrorist attacks annually. While accurate, that’s globally. Take a look at the Terrorism Knowledge Base and poke around for a while.

It took some working (for some reason 9/11 isn’t listed in the “fatalities” reports, so I went year by year), but I found the following numbers.

Loverly.

Now what I want you all to sit and reflect on is the fact that, by our government’s own figures, a whopping 11 people have died in 92 attacks since 1999. Who committed those attacks? Arabs? Nope. Most are various radical groups right in the United States such as the firebombing Earth Liberation Front. In fact in my looks I found no Arabs who attacked within the US other than on 9/11 (this is, of course, not counting the attacks that no one took credit for).

Think about that. I counted 2000 and 1999 in the interest of showing that terrorism didn’t suddenly drop off after 2001 thanks to Bush’s strength. But the numbers show something absolutely fascinating: we are hardly in danger of being killed by terrorists, and the Iraq War hasn’t changed a damn thing.

We are just not in mortal danger of being killed by terrorists at any time. If the numbers are anything to go by, this year just over 1 person will die from an attack (I’m not sure how the fraction will work, but gimme a break). What will we die from? Well let’s snag some numbers from the CDC for that one. The results are pretty obvious: cancer, heart disease, general accidents. For my age group it’s homicides, suicides, and accidents. Terrorism? Well with its 1 or 2 deaths per year average, that’s likely very low on the list.

Now, no one is saying that terrorism isn’t a concern. It’s a scary thing and after 9/11 I agree we need to make sure we’re diligent. Of course, the obvious question we still don’t have an answer to is how on earth 9/11 was allowed to slip through in the first place, but now isn’t the time for that, it’s not my point. My point is that for all of the fearmongering, there has been little substance upon which to base that fear aside from September 11th.

Does the government stop plots? Undoubtedly. Probably hundreds. But given the “calibre” of attacks we hear about after their foiling, none of them are remotely close to being an actual threat. But let’s wake up to reality folks. You are, quite literally, in as much danger of being killed by a stingray this year as dying from terrorists. Yes, I ignored 9/11 because that was such an anomaly that it throws the general trend way off. It would be like having Bill Gates in a room and then calculating the average annual income.

Things to keep in mind the next time someone tries to convince you that the Big Bad Terrorists are leering outside your window, ready to pounce at any moment now.

Despite how much the Bush Clan crows about their unending support for Al-Maliki, behind the scenes they seem far less optimistic, as a recently leaked memo from Stephen Hadley demonstrates.

We returned from Iraq convinced we need to determine if Prime Minister Maliki is both willing and able to rise above the sectarian agendas being promoted by others. Do we and Prime Minister Maliki share the same vision for Iraq?
If so, is he able to curb those who seek Shia hegemony or the reassertion of Sunni power? The answers to these questions are key in determining whether we have the right strategy in Iraq.

A lot of the following text suggests that trust in Maliki’s intentions is not very high. Accusations are lobbed around that he’s more interested in putting the Shiites in power than having a real unified country.

So if that’s the case, or if it’s not really the case but it’s looking that way, what is the solution? Fortunately, Hadley has a few ideas:

Shake up his cabinet by appointing nonsectarian, capable technocrats in key service (and security) ministries;

Announce an overhaul of his own personal staff so that “it reflects the face of Iraq”;

Demand that all government workers (in ministries, the Council of Representatives and his own offices) publicly renounce all violence for the pursuit of political goals as a condition for keeping their positions;

Plus some other awesome suggestions. What a great idea. The best way to impress a democracy upon the people of Iraq, obviously, is to have a foreign power come in and force the government to conform to our standards.

If I didn’t know better, I’d think the Bush Clan cares less about the Iraqi people deciding the fate of the Iraqi people and more about America deciding the fate of the Iraqi people. I’m going to re-quote this one bit:

Do we and Prime Minister Maliki share the same vision for Iraq?

So what if we don’t? Maliki is the Prime Minister of Iraq. Whatever his vision of Iraq is, is the way it should pan out. To suggest that it matters AT ALL what America thinks of his vision is to undermine our supposed reason for invasion in the first place.

What do these people plan on doing? Putting new governments in over and over again until we get one we like?