« Terrorists Next Door | Main | On Politics and Hypocrisy »

More detail on the JFK Bomb Plot

The three men that Jay identified in his earlier piece were attempting to ignite a jet fuel "artery" that runs directly underneath a large neighborhood. From the AP:

Four Muslim men were foiled from carrying out a plot to destroy John F. Kennedy International Airport, kill thousands of people and trigger an economic catastrophe by blowing up a jet fuel artery that runs through populous residential neighborhoods, authorities said Saturday.

http://wizbangblog.com/mt-static/images/formatting-icons/bold.gif
Bold
Three men were arrested and one was being sought in Trinidad on Saturday. In an indictment charging the four men, one of them is quoted as saying the plot would "cause greater destruction than in the Sept. 11 attacks."

Was this what Adam Gadahn was referring to when he said that America will suffer a fate worse than 9/11 if we don't do what he says?

One of the suspects, Russell Defreitas, a U.S. citizen native to Guyana and retired JFK employee, said the airport was a symbol that would put "the whole country in mourning."


"It's like you can kill the man twice," said Defreitas, 63, who first hatched his plan more than a decade ago when he worked as a cargo handler for a service company, according to the indictment.

So this plan was created when Bill Clinton was president. But according to anti-war liberals, it is George Bush's war in Iraq that's fostering hatred toward American and creating terrorists. And John Edwards insists that there's no war on terror, that it's just a "bumper sticker slogan" that Bush created to scare the American people. Well the terrorists are still very much at war with us, Mr. Edwards. No matter how hard you try, wishing them away won't work.

The article continues:

"The devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable," U.S. Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf said at a news conference, calling it "one of the most chilling plots imaginable."


Authorities said they were motivated by a pattern of hatred toward the U.S., Israel and the West.

Defreitas was recorded saying he "wanted to do something to get those bastards."

Update: You can read the complaint here. Hat tip: Kathryn Jean Lopez

Update II: Andy McCarthy at The Corner notes that the New York Times print edition covered the JFK plot but not until page 37. On the Times' webpage, the story was placed "up front," but mixed in with several other stories like "Bush's Push on Immigration Tests his Base," "A Legal Debate in Guantanamo on Boy Fighters," and "In New India, an Old Industry Buoys Peasants." The most prominent article, however, is about why the Miss Universe pageant's Mexican audience booed Miss USA. Yep, the Times has its priorities in line, alright.

Update III: LGF is following Daily Kos' reaction to the JFK plot. In their typical paranoid, conspiratorial fashion, the Kos Kidz are absolutely certain this whole story is a lie.


Comments (74)

"So this plan was created w... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"So this plan was created when Bill Clinton was president. But according to anti-war liberals, our being in Iraq is what's creating terrorists."

This is a perfect (and typical) example of the thinking gap in neo-con thinking. The world is not black and white. Terrorists are not only coming from Iraq.

It's a complex problem and I'm thankful you are only a writer on a third tier weblog rather than in charge of something important, ie Monica Goodling.

We can only hope the threat... (Below threshold)
Semanticleo:

We can only hope the threat continues to come from
idiots like these.

""Anytime you hit Kennedy, it is the most hurtful thing to the United States. To hit John F. Kennedy, wow ... they love JFK -- he's like the man. If you hit that, this whole country will be in mourning. It's like you can kill the man twice."

Defreitas also appeared to think that blowing up a gas line at JFK would bring the US economy to its knees: "Even the Twin Towers can't touch it. This can destroy the economy of America for some time."

Kim, the redacted quotes you submitted are fleshed out by the quotes above. You must have had the same thought, but you wanted Clinton to be the issue. These guys must have the same parents as
the shoe-bomber.

Huh, look at that. It looks... (Below threshold)
jim:

Huh, look at that. It looks like law enforcement worked again. Imagine that.

Jim: "Huh, look at that.... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Jim: "Huh, look at that. It looks like law enforcement worked again. Imagine that."

Stay tuned, Jimbo, as the story unfolds you will find that most (if not all) of the "law enforcement" offends the crap out of you!!

You know, wiretaps, secret investigations, invasion of privacy, saving thousands of lives. Stuff like that.

The Religion of Peace strikes (or ATTEMPTS to) again!

OT...but kinda ON topic...<... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

OT...but kinda ON topic...

alQueda is getting its collective ASS kicked by Iraqis tired of their homicidal ways. And those Iraqis are ASKING us to help.

Jihadis losing here...Jihadis losing there...Jihadis losing EVERYWHERE! Very bad news for the Democrats! (kinda explains the silence from the MSM)

"'The devastation that ... (Below threshold)
Is our children learning?:

"'The devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable,' U.S. Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf said"

Somewhat of an overstatement considering that there likely are emergency shutoffs along the pipelines in the event of a fire or explosion. The notion that JFK in total along w/ major population centers would be destroyed is a reach.

Even though democrats say o... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Even though democrats say otherwise, it looks like there is a global war on terror.

Imagine that.

Well I'll rest easier "chil... (Below threshold)
TR19667:

Well I'll rest easier "child learning". Thanks

Now, all together you liberal assclowns, downplay downplay ignore spin downplay disavow ignore make shit up religion of peace downplay........blah blah blah

Is our children learning?: ... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Is our children learning?: "The notion that JFK in total along w/ major population centers would be destroyed is a reach."

Whew...thank YOU!! So only a few thousand people would have been in mortal peril? In that case, nothing to see here folks...move along please!

I just LOVE the way the Left downplays any and EVERY peril of any kind (except as posed by George Bush), but especially those involving, er, ah, um...you know people of a faith that is well otherwise the Religion of Peace. Ya know?

The three men that Jay i... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The three men that Jay identified in his earlier piece were attempting to ignite a jet fuel "artery"

Really? They "were attempting" to do this? What, were they caught under the fuel tanks striking matches?

Good job to law enforcement for catching these losers who thought blowing up a fuel tank would be bigger than 9/11, but...

The plot never got past the planning stages, authorities said.
But according to anti-wa... (Below threshold)
Brian:

But according to anti-war liberals, it is George Bush's war in Iraq that's fostering hatred toward American and creating terrorists. And John Edwards insists that there's no war on terror, that it's just a "bumper sticker slogan" that Bush created to scare the American people. Well the terrorists are still very much at war with us, Mr. Edwards. No matter how hard you try, wishing them away won't work.

But according to pro-war conservatives, if we fight them there, we won't have to fight them here. Well there are nutjobs everywhere, Mr. Bush. No matter how hard you try, pretending that fighting in Iraq will keep them away won't work.

Good job to law enfor... (Below threshold)

Good job to law enforcement for catching these losers who thought blowing up a fuel tank would be bigger than 9/11, but...

Yep, law enforcement using wiretaps!

(shocked gasp)

Where's the ACLU to defend these peace-loving Muslims from the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Wepubwicans?

Stay tuned, Jimbo, as th... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Stay tuned, Jimbo, as the story unfolds you will find that most (if not all) of the "law enforcement" offends the crap out of you!!

You know, wiretaps, secret investigations, invasion of privacy, saving thousands of lives. Stuff like that.

You don't know what you're talking about. The left whole-heartedly supports those things. With a warrant. Now let's stay tuned, and as the story unfolds we will see if most (if not all) of the "law enforcement" was done legally, which I'm sure will offend the crap out of you!!

Yep, law enforcement usi... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Yep, law enforcement using wiretaps!
(shocked gasp)

Hey, schmuck, wiretaps are legal and appropriate... with a warrant. Now, I know that you stuuuuuuuuupid Wepubwicans (or is it only you?) can't bring yourself to truthfully represent that position, but at least try not to make an ass out of yourself anymore.

Given the MILLIONS of possi... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Given the MILLIONS of possible leads uncovered on any given day, the neccessity of warrants in each & every case to pursue is unworkable. Especially when the contacts are originating or terminating OVERSEAS. You, and the rest of the Left, want restrictions on the issuing of those warrants to be SO burdensome that they are never sought!!

Point is that I am concerned with the survival of this country...and my family.

We're at WAR bucko...whether you want to admit it or not. And when the NY Times exposes LEGAL means of tracking the terrorists (remember the Financial record tracking) that SHUTS DOWN such methods you think that is JUST FINE, eh?

Way to not read the post jp... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Way to not read the post jp2.. well done.

sigh

Brian, but of course we all... (Below threshold)

Brian, but of course we all know that everyone in the Bushitler administration is an evil maniac out to take over the world, so they obviously lied in their affidavits to get the warrants for the wiretaps, right?

Don't laugh, I'll bet if I posted that at DU I'd get a round of agreement and applause.

Stay tuned, Jimbo, as th... (Below threshold)
jim:

Stay tuned, Jimbo, as the story unfolds you will find that most (if not all) of the "law enforcement" offends the crap out of you!!

You know, wiretaps, secret investigations, invasion of privacy, saving thousands of lives. Stuff like that.

Wiretaps, secret investigations don't bother me at all. It's when they're done without warrants and in violation of the Constitution, that's what bothers me.

Justrand, I hereby bet you 100 pushups that this plot was foiled without any warrantless wiretaps, torture, violation of habeus corpus, or any similar nonsense.

Given the MILLIONS of po... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Given the MILLIONS of possible leads uncovered on any given day, the neccessity of warrants in each & every case to pursue is unworkable.

Funny, no one ever had a problem with that before Bush. And the Bush administration themselves also said that wasn't a problem. You don't actually know what you're talking about, do you?

You, and the rest of the Left, want restrictions on the issuing of those warrants to be SO burdensome that they are never sought!!

No, we just want them sought legally, as every other president has done.

By the way, Bush says you're an idiot.

Brian, but of course we ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian, but of course we all know that everyone in the Bushitler administration is an evil maniac out to take over the world, so they obviously lied in their affidavits to get the warrants for the wiretaps, right?
Don't laugh

Oh, I'm not laughing. I'm shaking my head that instead of finally acknowledging that you were misrepresenting the position of the left, you just invented your own new strawman argument just so you can continue making fun of something.

jp2 says:Terrori... (Below threshold)
ThreePuttinDude:

jp2 says:
Terrorists are not only coming from Iraq

Why do you think we are so up in arms about this amnesty debate?
For just this very reason.

Some asshat liberal said th... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Some asshat liberal said that 'oil' pipelines don't explode, they burn. Do we now have aircraft flying on crude..? Jet fuel will explode if something is used to begin the explosion, just like heat will melt steel.
The liberals will die, and they will die by the thousands (it's just a matter of time), screaming that Bush, not a slime ball Islamist did it.
A recent leak by the democrats had it's desired effect in Iran. Ask the Americans that are now in jail there. Doesn't matter if they (Iranians) can't identify the real operatives, just jail anyone with an American passport.
Democrats killed over a hundred American Soldiers last month, deny all you want, they're blood is on your hands as well as Dusty Harry Reid's, Piglooshi'a and Mad Jack Murtha's.
More crime, corruption and pork in congress than any time in history. I guess Piglooshi hasn't got the hang of draining the swamp while up to her a** in gators, and her pardners in crime are all gators. Actually that is all they've accomplished, imbedded themselves in Crime, Corruption and Pork in their highly taunted first 100 days.

Was this what Adam Gadah... (Below threshold)

Was this what Adam Gadahn was referring to when he said that America will suffer a fate worse than 9/11 if we don't do what he says?

You must be kidding Kim. How many oil pipelines have we seen get blown up in Iraq? How many thousands of casualties did all of those attacks cause?

Trust me, these clowns aren't the Al Qaeda A-team. They're not the B-team either. A bunch of wannabes who certainly deserve to be behind bars, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking these guys are real Al-Qaeda.

As for Adam Gadahn, he made these same sort of threats over a year ago. The guy is a low-level Al Qaeda hack and two-bit hustler. They have him making these stupid videos that they know we will pay attention to because he used to be an American. Let's not build this loser up into anything more than he really is.


Jim:Huh, look ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim:

Huh, look at that. It looks like law enforcement worked again. Imagine that.

So did the NSA asshat.

But don't tell anyone it's a secret, or was until the NYT played Blabber Mouse.

C C G:Where's ... (Below threshold)
marc:

C C G:

Where's the ACLU to defend these peace-loving Muslims from the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Wepubwicans?

Sorry to say the ACLU are over here defending these terrorists.

Brian:Funny, n... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

Funny, no one ever had a problem with that before Bush. And the Bush administration themselves also said that wasn't a problem. You don't actually know what you're talking about, do you?

"Funny, no one ever had a problem with" George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt, Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Clinton all using various forms of warrantless searches and interception of communications.

But Bush? That "Evil Sum Bitch", head of the neocon cabal that aims to rule the world thru technology, when he does it the loonbats and nutjobs all check in to the nearest Cuban hospital with cardiac arrest.

P.S. Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick , 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

In considering legislation of this type, however, it is important to understand that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the President in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities.

These rules would defeat the purposes and objectives of foreign intelligence searches, which are very different from searches to gather evidence of a crime. Physical searches to gather foreign intelligence depend on secrecy. If the existence of these searches were known to the foreign power targets, they would alter their activities to render the information useless. Accordingly, a notice requirement, such as exists in the criminal law, would be fatal.

By the way, Bush and all the rest of the presidents listed above say you're an idiot Brian.

Larkin:You mus... (Below threshold)
marc:

Larkin:

You must be kidding Kim. How many oil pipelines have we seen get blown up in Iraq? How many thousands of casualties did all of those attacks cause?

And how many were in the center of a major population center?

They weren't they along with most if not all of Iraqs oil infrastructure is in the middle of the frickin' desert!

Not that I believe the hype behind the possible damage these guys could inflict, you Larkin, just chose a piss poor comparison.

Oh, the NSA... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oh, the NSA isn't law enforcement? What?

But don't tell anyone it's a secret, or was until the NYT played Blabber Mouse.

Oh yes. Wiretapping was a big secret. No one had any idea the feds might tap phones. Why, no one ever watched a single cop show or movie before the NYT article.

I believe there is a hat you might be wearing, colored in your fleshtone.

Ummmm... Do these people ha... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Ummmm... Do these people have ANY FREAKIN' CLUE as to how pipelines and such are engineered? And just how kerosene burns?

I could see a bigassed fire if they tried to blow a pipeline, but that's it. No THOUSANDS DEAD.

Why do you think we are ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Why do you think we are so up in arms about this amnesty debate?
For just this very reason.

Oh yes, clearly another group of Mexican terrorists. A legal US citizen named Defreitas, and two three dudes from Trinidad, who were arrested in Trinidad.

Incidentally - illegal aliens come here to work. So any pundit or politician who is telling you fences will have any effect on illegal immigration, is yanking your chain. People who need to feed their families will find a way around anything man can put up.

The ONLY thing that will stop illegal immigration is jail time for the US citizens who HIRE them. Period.

Jim:Incidental... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim:

Incidentally - illegal aliens come here to work. So any pundit or politician who is telling you fences will have any effect on illegal immigration, is yanking your chain.

From personal experience, 13 years in San Diego, I can atest to the value of the border fence along the Mexican/SanYsidro border.

Once the fence was up and complete the illegals that traipsed thru my backyard headed north ceased to exist.

Does that mean it ended the flow? No for the most part they moved east to cross. BUT, that's just the point isn't it.

Less open access means less area that needs enormous manpower to patrol. If that means the entire border needs a 20-30ft wall so be it, it's existence means it's far easier to control the border.

Anyone claiming a fence will stop all illegal immigration is a fool, but that together with massive fines to those that hire them will stop it cold.

Anyone that says any different be it "any pundit or politician" or sad misguided blog commentors like Jim are doing nothing but spewing talking points garnered from the open borders people.

I'm suspicious, when the re... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

I'm suspicious, when the report says, they were trying to come up with a way to install a bomb inside the pipeline, but failed to come up with a design to do this. For one, you wouldn't have to install it internally of the pipe, and two, where are the bombs ? What kind of bombs ?

JP-1, JP-4, -5, -8 are all... (Below threshold)
epador:

JP-1, JP-4, -5, -8 are all jet fuels
jp2 is a jet fool.

Yeah, that's another fact a... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

Yeah, that's another fact about fuel, it doesn't burn without oxygen. At the point of the explosion is the only place it'll burn, and a pressure drop in the piping will shut down the entire pipeline. I'm almost sure, the emergency valves are electrically operated within this safety procedure. Code Enforcement will see to this.

"Way to not read the post j... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"Way to not read the post jp2.. well done."

Huh?

It should also be noted that Kim edited/changed her post. This was not noted.

Care to quote both versions... (Below threshold)
marc:

Care to quote both versions jp2?

Frankly I think you're full of bovine excrement. I read it within minutes of the posting and see no alterations in it now.

So go ahead asshat, back up your charge.

jim, you are either ignoran... (Below threshold)
kim:

jim, you are either ignorant of what the NYT disclosed in the NSA case or you are being disingenuous in your 4:56 AM comment. Which is it?
===================

It amazes me how the libera... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

It amazes me how the liberal loonies are debating HOW much damage and death this might cause instead of the fact it was being planned. That is below pathetic. You liberals have no more argument left. Unless Bin Laden is involved, the liberals think they are just misguided jerks. They have no idea what this is about. None. ww

hattip to Marc for enlighte... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

hattip to Marc for enlightening Brian, et al, regarding the use of warrantless wiretaps in the past...and specifically Gorelick's testimony.

As for the plot by these Jihadi wannabes.

Folks, none of know how detailed the plot was, or how many (if any) technical hurdles they had cleared.

But I believe they had cleared enough that the Gummint felt now was the time to pull the plug. Lots of good technical questions above. NONE are show stoppers.

Without giving OTHER Jihadi wannabes too many "tips"...
- rupturing the pipe without any shutdown safeguards kicking in...pretty tough one, but not insurmountable I would guess. Depends on whether your plot requires pressurized fuel for maximum dispersal or not.
- Oxygen requirement...this is actually the twin hurdle of the pipe rupture. fuel itself does NOT burn. Physics teachers across the country used to (don't know if they still do) routinely astound their students by extinguishing a lit match in a batch of gasoline. The trick is to bring the match in so low to the gasoline that the oxygen to gasoline mix is incorrect. Then dip the match in gasoline and NOTHING HAPPENS! BUT, allow the fuel to disperse and mix with the air and, well...
- multiple simultaneous explosion to ignite the fuel/air mix. Easiest part.

and there are lots of other "hurdles". Point is that you could do LOTS of damage...and kill LOTS of people...and spread LOTS of panic, even if your plot didn't eclipse 9/11.

In the liberal assclown min... (Below threshold)
TR19667:

In the liberal assclown mind the difference between the A team and C team is one got caught.

Stupid and naive.

7 soldiers killed in Iraq y... (Below threshold)
groucho:

7 soldiers killed in Iraq yesterday. Looks like their deaths, along with the thousands of others, had very little effect on this latest plot, one that allegedly began 10 years ago. This just underscores the ridiculousness of the claim that we somehow need to fight them over there so they don't come over here. Don't look now, but I think they're already here. Maybe we should invade Guyana. Whoops, not enough troops.

Congratulations to those in law enforcement who are fighting terror the right way.

groucho: "7 soldiers kil... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

groucho: "7 soldiers killed in Iraq yesterday. Looks like their deaths, along with the thousands of others, had very little effect on this latest plot, one that allegedly began 10 years ago."

The cancer that is Radical Islam (a fuzzier distinction every day) springs from the Middle East. There are legitimate debates regarding how to combat that cancer. One method that USED to be embraced by the Left was to bring some form of Democracy to the Arab States there. Bill Clinton made it the OFFICIAL POLICY of the United States to topple Saddam...and (one hopes) give freedom a chance.

As it happens the signs in Iraq have actually been quite positive in last few weeks, and especially THIS week with the ass kicking that alQueda received there.

After Pearl Harbor we did NOT devote ourselves to preventing ANOTHER attack on Pearl Harbor. We went after the cancer that was Tojo's militaristic grip on Japan. Until THAT cancer was removed there could be no TRUE peace.

We can win EVERY "battle" here at home (Fort Dix, JFK, etc), but we will never have TRUE peace until the cancer that is Radical Islam is dealt with. It must be dealt with THERE. Sooner or later. Bush chose "sooner". I agree with him.

Ditto Justr, however the AQ... (Below threshold)
epador:

Ditto Justr, however the AQ folks are merely one player, and remarkable a peripheral puppet, of more severely entrenched and determined radical Islamic Fundamentalists who have a long vision to destroy and conquer the West. Letting us get bogged down in a fight with their proxies in Iraq is a predictable strategy. We need that foothold, however, so we fight that fight. There are other players in the world (China/NK, former USSR and even India) who would like to see us greatly weakened, and at least some of them have had their hands in encouraging the mess we're in. They're counting on the Left to make us pull out after we've made some dear payments in life and limb, so that we'll be afraid or unable to counter future moves against us.

epador, great post, and I a... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

epador, great post, and I agree completely.

though I think Russia and India know they can't ride the tiger too far...since their vulnerabilities exceed our own.

China dna the Norks, however, believe themselves totally immune to Radical Islam. And thus they see ZERO downside in encouraging it.

epador, I actually agree wi... (Below threshold)
groucho:

epador, I actually agree with much of your post as well, up until the worn canard that the pressure for us to leave Iraq, not only from the left but increasingly from across the entire spectrum, is somehow playing to the terrorism movement. It is our presence in Iraq, our military focus on an ill-defined strategic objective, that weakens us the most. I believe that it is pure hubris, coupled with an astounding lack of a reasoned plan, that keeps is mired in a fight we cannot win. When I listen to Bush I hear a man reduced to parroting the same worn platitudes, blindly stuck on a simplistic strategy that has been given ample time to work, and hasn't.

Let's say we achieve "victory" Iraq. What then? A puppet government controls a peaceful Iraq. (like THAT has a chance of ever happening!) So there we are, safely barricaded in our military bases and billion dollar embassy trying to keep the peace, doing what, exactly? If we somehow miraculously eradicate the "terrorists" there they are sure to melt away, reform, and plan to strike again from virtually any location around the globe. Magical thinking aside, what will we truly have accomplished if we win in Iraq?

That we are bogged down in Iraq is clear. At what point does staying that way weaken us and strengthen our enemies? That's a question that needs asking, and does not represent in any way a desire for US to lose or for the enemies to win.

jim, you are either igno... (Below threshold)
jim:

jim, you are either ignorant of what the NYT disclosed in the NSA case or you are being disingenuous in your 4:56 AM comment. Which is it?

Kim, I must be ignorant of exactly what rightwing spin you're referring to. Why don't you post a URL to what you feel the NYT said about the NSA that was treason or whatever.

Also, I'd love to hear how these terrorists were caught in a way that was NOT a matter of simple law enforcement, but in a way that required circumventing FISA.

...we will never have TR... (Below threshold)
jim:

...we will never have TRUE peace until the cancer that is Radical Islam is dealt with. It must be dealt with THERE. Sooner or later. Bush chose "sooner". I agree with him.

Yep, Bush choose "sooner". That's why he bungled the capture of Osama Bin Laden, invaded a country that had *nothing* to do with 9/11 or even radical Islam, and did exactly nothing about Saudi Arabia's constant and INCREASING support of Al Qaeda and radical Islam, but withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia - which was exactly what Osama Bin Laden wanted the US to do in the first place.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/30/wsaud30.xml

In other words, the Bush Admin capitulated to terrorists while we're still in a two-front struggle.

Way to go.

groucho: "mired in a fig... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

groucho: "mired in a fight we cannot win"
Hey, at least your more "hopeful" than Harry Reid who declares we've ALREADY LOST!!

Oddly, we ARE winning. And the new strategy in Anbar, and elsewhere, is the reason! But the Jihadis KNOW this is somebody's Waterloo. Theirs or ours. A stable Iraq that is neutral, and not trying to destroy us, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Israel provides a HUGE counterweight in that region.

The new strategy in Anbar is what should, I agree, have been tried long ago. Tribal chieftains and Sheiks have been THE power in that region for thousands of years. We're now leveraging them to eradicate alQueda...and it's working.

Jim, the decision by the NY... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Jim, the decision by the NY Times to disclose the NSA wiretapping severely hampered our ability to track KNOWN terrorists. The program, after it finally was FULLY disclosed was not aimed at conversations wholly internal within the United States. One end of the conversation had to be outside our borders, and involve someone "of interest".

The problem with FISA is that it is slow and cumbersome in today's electronic world.

By the time the paperwork is complete, a FISA judge located and they have time to rule the suspect in question will have changed phones and phone numbers half a dozen times. FISA requires that ALL monitoring cease until a ruling is made. And thus the thread is lost.

And then the NY Times followed up by disclosing the "Swift" program. This tracking of terrorist financial dealings was 100% legal...but the NY Times shut it down too (later offering a half-hearted apology).

The Times HATES Bush and will do anything to attempt to discredit him. The damage their efforts do to our country are NEVER considered!

The program, after it fi... (Below threshold)
jim:

The program, after it finally was FULLY disclosed was not aimed at conversations wholly internal within the United States. One end of the conversation had to be outside our borders, and involve someone "of interest".

Are you seriously suggesting that, before this article, it wasn't known that the US conducted surveillance outside the US? Or that it checked incoming calls?

Justrand, it has been known for years, decades even, that the US extensively monitors communications outside the US.

That's why this is covered in FISA in the first place.

The problem with FISA is that it is slow and cumbersome in today's electronic world.

By the time the paperwork is complete, a FISA judge located and they have time to rule the suspect in question will have changed phones and phone numbers half a dozen times.

Nope - the FISA allows a warrant to be executed retroactively, up to 72 hours AFTER surveillance has begun.

Try again.

And anyway, that's complete... (Below threshold)
jim:

And anyway, that's completely besides the point! Let's say somethings' wrong with FISA. If you're responsible, you fix it. You don't decide you're going to do your own thing, tell a few congressman you're doing it but they can't do anything about it, can't learn any more and can't tell anyone about it, and claim that's "oversight" once someone blows the whistle on you.

As we can see from the last few terrorist cases, Bush's circumvention of FISA has had absolutely zero positive effect on capturing terrorists. But hey, at least it's helped erode our Constitution.

Jim: "Bush's circumventi... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Jim: "Bush's circumvention of FISA has had absolutely zero positive effect on capturing terrorists"

And you know this because...? KOS said so?

Look, I do want reasonable restrictions and guidelines. And there have been attempts to tweak things to make FISA, and other oversight authorities more effective.

Bu the NY Times, and you, can't have it both ways. Either "everybody knew"...in which case there was no story for the NY Times to repeatedly splash on the FRONT Page above the fold, or everybody DIDN'T know...and they should have acquiesced to the request of the Administration to not print what they did. Same with the Swift program.

The reality is that in both cases the terrorists have changed tactics as a result of these revelations.

This just underscores th... (Below threshold)

This just underscores the ridiculousness of the claim that we somehow need to fight them over there so they don't come over here.

The ones that we kill over there can't come over here. Plain and simple.

Even an idiot lefty with his head so far up his backside that he needs air pumped in through his belly-button should be able to see that.

Jim:You don't ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim:

You don't decide you're going to do your own thing, tell a few congressman you're doing it but they can't do anything about it, can't learn any more and can't tell anyone about it, and claim that's "oversight" once someone blows the whistle on you.

If you believe that you're seriously deluded.

First of all, at least two FISA judges knew from the inception of the terrorist surveillance program and didn't raise any doubts about it legality.

If you think a "few congressman" equates to the intel committees of both houses of congress (you know the ones who are entrusted to make these decisions and use "oversight") feel free to do so.

If you happen to believe giving briefs to the same body of people every 45 days isn't oversight too bad get over it.

Did those same people run from a briefing and blab all? No, for a very good reason they have a higher security clearance than the vast majority of the Senate and House and ALL of the reporters sniffing around for an exclusive.

It should also be ... (Below threshold)
It should also be noted that Kim edited/changed her post. This was not noted.

jp2, I changed one sentence for clarity's sake. It appeared you thought I was blaming Bill Clinton for this plot when I was simply pointing out how Defreitas first came up with the plot years and years before the Iraq war. My change was not substantive to the point of the post so I didn't note it.

It didn't take lonmg... (Below threshold)
marc:


It didn't take lonmg for the "it's Bush's fault" crows to show their face.

And it hardly surprising it's Rep[rehensible] Murtha.

The following is an exchange on the JFK plot:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: I want to get back to my first question, but let me pick up on something you said just there. You believe that these homegrown terrorist plots are being inspired by the U.S. work in Iraq right now?

JOHN MURTHA, CONGRESSMAN: Absolutely. George, they were inspired by them all over the world. Our presence in Iraq, our occupation in Iraq, gives these people the inspiration. Now, we didn't have this problem before, they came from Afghanistan. But, now we even have it in the United States. So, I'm absolutely convinced that this is the kind of thing that inspires these people.

Who's they asshat? The THEY involved in 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia not Afghanistan. THEY attacked and planned 9/11 prior to the Iraq war. And please "Mr Okinawa," how does that explain the "homegrown" terrorists that first bombed thew WTC?

STEPHANOPOULOS: But we did have 9/11 before we went into Iraq.

MURTHA: Yeah, we had 9/11, but that came from Afghanistan. There was no, there was no al Qaeda in Iraq. We don't even know how many al Qaeda are in Iraq right now. For instance, we think a couple of thousand. They'll take care of al Qaeda. They'll get rid of al Qaeda. Our presence is inspiring them to recruit people all over the world. This is the problem we have.

Again, THEY came from Saudi Arabia. As for the recruiting cannard... well golly gee-wiz, does it really matter they recruit no matter what the West does. Reaching out and touching those that want to kill us only speeded up the inevitable.

When you're a jihadis-cut-throat who believes Saudi Arabia is a U.S. puppet and finds its version of Sharia law not fitting your version, when you believe America is evil because its laws are based on.... LAWS and not based on a perverted version of Islam and sharia law what the U.S. does is immaterial to your final objective.

Murtha... may I suggest you go on a fact finding mission to Okinawa.... and STAY there!

"The THEY involved in 9/11 ... (Below threshold)
groucho:

"The THEY involved in 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia not Afghanistan. THEY attacked and planned 9/11 prior to the Iraq war."

"what the U.S. does is immaterial to your final objective."

Nice job pointing out two of the many reasons we should not be in Iraq. Well said.

What's the matter, don't you support the troops? I'm sure they would be glad to hear that what they're doing is "immaterial".

"You don't decide you're go... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"You don't decide you're going to do your own thing, tell a few congressman you're doing it but they can't do anything about it, can't learn any more and can't tell anyone about it,"

HA HA HA!

You criminal frauds are a fricken riot. You are obviously too stoned on that democrat dope to hear how stupid and obsurd you sound.

Democrats do not care for the rule of law , they use it as an excuse. They are just so green with envy and jealous of President George W Bush. END OF STORY.

groucho: "I'm sure they ... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

groucho: "I'm sure they would be glad to hear that what they're doing is "immaterial"."

Not even REMOTELY what marc said.

I would say, "and you know it", but your lack of reasoning skills are becoming legendary here...so you probably DON'T.

what marc WAS saying is that the Left's horseshit claim that all Islamic violence is because we're in Iraq is, well, horseshit! These morons, and the Fort Dix morons, may actually wind up CLAIMING that...but it isn't the case.

The work our brave men & women are doing in Iraq is VERY material! It's just immaterial to the Jihadi wannabes, and all those seeking a worldwide Caliphate. To them our very existence is all the cause they need to attack us.

p.s. they want to kill YOU too, and if we left Iraq tomorrow that FACT would remain! Don't forget it.

groucho: "I'm sure they wou... (Below threshold)
marc:

groucho: "I'm sure they would be glad to hear that what they're doing is "immaterial"."

And you're just as clueless as Rep[rehensible] Murtha.

Find me someone on the Left... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Find me someone on the Left saying ALL Islamic violence is because we're in Iraq. For you to make that claim as part of your attempted defense of marc is merely a different variety of equine excrement. And if you don't know it, you should. Many on both sides who are no doubt more in a position to know than I am feel that our presence there is is causing at least as much harm as good regarding the Muslim fanatics who wish us harm. If we were invaded and occupied by another country's military you and I might find ourselves fighting them side by side.

There have been people who want to kill both you and me before Iraq and many will remain after we leave, if indeed we ever do. Most of those who are most capable of this are probably nowhere near Iraq. Time to get out of the civil war and focus on the bigger picture.

groucho...fair enough. it ... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

groucho...fair enough. it is just WHATEVER is happending at the current moment that they blame on Iraq.

From above:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: I want to get back to my first question, but let me pick up on something you said just there. You believe that these homegrown terrorist plots are being inspired by the U.S. work in Iraq right now?

JOHN MURTHA, CONGRESSMAN: Absolutely. George, they were inspired by them all over the world. Our presence in Iraq, our occupation in Iraq, gives these people the inspiration. Now, we didn't have this problem before...

Mark my words, one of these... (Below threshold)
T. Tompson:

Mark my words, one of these days, there will be another successful terror attack, and that will be used as justification for an invasion of Iran.

Its the same damn script they used last time. Luckily for us, the JFK bombers sound like they are a bunch of buffoons.

T. Tompson (channeling Rosi... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

T. Tompson (channeling Rosie O'Donnell):
"Its the same damn script they used last time"

Thank you for visiting Earth...now please leave.

grouchoAnswer me t... (Below threshold)
marc:

groucho

Answer me this genius...

Lets assume U.S. policy, (i.e. in Iraq as Murtha suggests), has caused those behind the JFK plot, the Miami Haitians plotting to blow up Chicago's Sears Tower along with a couple others how does that explain the Canadian islamists that hatched terrorist plots in Toronto and Ottawa?

No Cannucks in Iraq now, or ever.

Your turn groucho, more delusions to follow.

Either "everybody knew"... (Below threshold)
jim:

Either "everybody knew"...in which case there was no story for the NY Times to repeatedly splash on the FRONT Page above the fold, or everybody DIDN'T know...and they should have acquiesced to the request of the Administration to not print what they did.

Justrand, the point about the program that everyone didn't know, was that it was VIOLATING FISA.

See, the problem is not that people didn't know the government was wiretapping. People did. What people didn't know was that the Bush Administration had taken it upon itself to break the law and violate the Constitution.

The reality is that in both cases the terrorists have changed tactics as a result of these revelations.

Oh really? And you know this how? Because Rush told you so?

First of all, at least t... (Below threshold)
jim:

First of all, at least two FISA judges knew from the inception of the terrorist surveillance program and didn't raise any doubts about it legality.

I'm glad you brought this up. First, that's not true. They were NOT properly informed, and when they found out they DID object.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511_pf.html

"Twice in the past four years, a top Justice Department lawyer warned the presiding judge of a secret surveillance court that information overheard in President Bush's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to obtain wiretap warrants in the court, according to two sources with knowledge of those events.

The revelations infuriated U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly -- who, like her predecessor, Royce C. Lamberth, had expressed serious doubts about whether the warrantless monitoring of phone calls and e-mails ordered by Bush was legal. Both judges had insisted that no information obtained this way be used to gain warrants from their court, according to government sources, and both had been assured by administration officials it would never happen."

Please don't take my word for it. Read for yourself the article on these facts, and correct your mistaken impression.

If you think a "few congressman" equates to the intel committees of both houses of congress (you know the ones who are entrusted to make these decisions and use "oversight") feel free to do so.

I just read your link. Did you read it? It mentioned only Nancy Pelosi by name.

According to the NY Times article on this, which I'll point out has not been disputed by anyone, including the Bush Administration:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/politics/04nsa.html?ex=1181016000&en=5ab70a1f0719eb3e&ei=5070

"You seemed to be inviting expressions of concern from us, if there were any," Ms. Pelosi wrote, but she said that the lack of specific information about the agency's operations made her concerned about the legal rationale used to justify it."

Now how is that possibly allowing for legal oversight?

Got any other unsupported theories about how Congress' Constitutional oversight privileges weren't violated?

Interestingly, in making this statement, Orrin Hatch confirmed that this program exists, when the Administration was refusing to comment on it's existence. If revealing it's existence makes the NY Times traitors, doesn't this make Orrin Hatch a traitor too?

actually, Jim, they WERE in... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

actually, Jim, they WERE informed!

Here is Jay Rockefeller's "defense" for not taking action if he found it so reprehensible:

"I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, said in a handwritten letter to Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003. "As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney."

That's right, boys and girls, Rockefeller, the TOP Democrat on the Committee at the time, uses the "I was too STOOOPID to understand what I was told" defense!

Until, of course, the NY Times TOLD him it was nefarious!

After the NY Times told the Dems what to think, well then they started howling!!

Justrand, are you for real?... (Below threshold)
jim:

Justrand, are you for real?

Why don't you quote Rockefeller's full sentence, at least?

Here it is, go read it.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2005/12/rock121905.pdf

It says:

"As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel profoundly unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activies."

Rockefeller is clearly stating that:

a) he is the only one allowed to have this level of access to this information.

Therefore his own letter proves you wrong - Rockefeller is a 'he' and not a 'they'.

b) he does not endorse these activities - therefore even if he *did* represent Congress, Congress does not approve.

c) the full scope of the Bush administration's circumvention of FISA wasn't revealed until the NY Times article came out.

The Bush Administration could have course decided to actually follow the law. Instead, they decided they were above it - and *you* are twisting words and misquoting in order to pretend they didn't.

Now, why did you distort Rockefeller's letter in the way that you did?

Department lawyer warne... (Below threshold)
marc:

Department lawyer warned the presiding judge of a secret surveillance court that information overheard in President Bush's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to obtain wiretap warrants in the court

Hanging your hat on a couple cases (out of how many thousands?) that MAY have been improperly used.

Good luck with that.

That's how Bush's employee,... (Below threshold)
jim:

That's how Bush's employee, a lawyer in the Justice Department, phrased it.

The impartial judge, on hearing this, had a much stronger reaction - "no information obtained this way be used to gain warrants from their court".

But hey, Marc, maybe you're... (Below threshold)
jim:

But hey, Marc, maybe you're right. let's just have a full investigation with an independent counsel. That way it'll be fully impartial and non-partisan. If the Bush Administration has done nothing wrong then they'll be cleared of all wrongdoing.

Sounds good, right?

But hey, Marc, maybe yo... (Below threshold)
marc:

But hey, Marc, maybe you're right. let's just have a full investigation with an independent counsel. That way it'll be fully impartial and non-partisan.

Like who?

Fitzmas?
The buffoon that headed the Clinton case?
Independent counsels are anything but, but thanks for the laugh.

If the Bush Administration has done nothing wrong then they'll be cleared of all wrongdoing.

Correct but it won't be by any independent counsel it will be determined at the Supreme court when a case finally hits there.

Unfortunately that will occur long after Bush is gone, some other hack is in office and the ruling in favor of the program being legal will be buried on page E-32 next to a list of Obits.

Yeah, just like Fitzpatrick... (Below threshold)
jim:

Yeah, just like Fitzpatrick would be great.

The buffoon who headed the Clinton case would be great, too - since he actually found no wrongdoing.

Or, I'm open to whatever you might think would be a fair way to investigate this. Since it seems we both agree that this should be resolved now, before Bush is out of office. You because you're sure he'll be exonerated, and me because I'm sure he's guilty as Reagan in Iran-Contra.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy