|
|
 The Miami group were apparently targeting Chicago's Sears Tower
|
Posted on 06/24/2006 11:09:00 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
US officials have been making two main and, in some ways, contradictory points about the arrest of seven men in Miami for allegedly hatching a terror plot.
The Miami group were apparently targeting Chicago's Sears Tower
The first is an upbeat one: the alleged plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and the FBI building in Miami was not far advanced at all, they say.
In the words of one official, the alleged terrorists were aspirational, rather than operational.
But their second point - made forcefully by the US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and the FBI director Robert Mueller - is a rather more frightening one: Americans must be aware of the heightened possibility of home-grown terror plots, of threats that can come from their own streets.
According to the indictment against them, the Miami group may have been inspired by al-Qaeda and may have thought they were in contact with an al-Qaeda operative, who turned out to be an undercover agent.
But they were not part of a sleeper cell, sent from a foreign country. They were, in the main, US citizens, who had allegedly developed a hatred for their own country.
Domestic danger
Over the past year, the US authorities claim, they have disrupted three separate cases of home-grown terrorism.
One of those involved two men from Atlanta, who have since been linked to the arrests of 17 others in Toronto earlier this month in connection with an alleged plot to attack public buildings and behead the country's prime minister.
The FBI building in Miami was also on the alleged target list
It is this case which has really provoked anguish in the US, prompting concerns about security along the border with Canada, and reflection on the possibility that Americans - inspired, perhaps, by extremist teachings - could carry out the sort of deadly attacks that were seen in London and Madrid.
It will be chilling for Americans to hear that, according to this latest indictment, the seven arrested men were boasting of an attack that would have been bigger than 9/11.
At the same time, there is, at this stage, plenty of uncertainty about the Miami arrests.
The families of the men, aged between 22 and 32, are loudly proclaiming their innocence.
Others are wondering how serious they could really have been if, as the indictment suggests, they were relying on their supposed al-Qaeda contact to supply them with boots.
Clearly, though, the FBI believes its undercover agent gathered enough evidence, over a period of months, to justify the arrests.
Policy contradiction?
Whether or not the arrests result in convictions, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that there is a political dimension to the way they have been presented.
The attorney general has faced a lot of criticism about the government's methods of tracking terrorists after 9/11.
The group of men arrested lived inside a warehouse in Miami
Those methods include the so-called warrantless wire tapping programme, and the newly-disclosed policy of monitoring the supposedly confidential bank transactions of tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Any breakthrough in the fight against terrorism can only bolster the government's defence of these kinds of programmes.
Yet there is also a potential downside for the Bush administration in talking up the threat of domestic terror.
One of the arguments made for the continued presence of US troops in Iraq is that it is better to fight terrorists abroad than to fight them at home.
If the US is having to do both, surely the public will begin to call this argument into question?
Total rubbish--there is nothing contradictory in saying "It's good we stopped them when we did, but this is proof these guys are out there trying to hurt us."
"One of the arguments made for the continued presence of US troops in Iraq is that it is better to fight terrorists abroad than to fight them at home.
If the US is having to do both, surely the public will begin to call this argument into question? "
Oh for Gods sake, how silly can this get?
He's definitely a moonbat1
It's the BBC. They can go all the way to looney whacko, and not even get their hair mussed.
President Bush's biggest failing was the PR team that let the White House, and in turn America, fail to rebut the lies of the Enemies of America.
The scumbag traitors commonly called Democrats, the Eurosluts weasels, the MSM, and the Islamist terrorist Enemy were allowed to attack America with gross propaganda lies with abandon while Bush and company said and did nothing.
The WMD issue could have been won easily given the multitude of evidence in support. A Clinton presidency would have basked in the sun of approval by comparison.
Since the addition of Tony Snow, things are much better, and there is a case for renewed optimism that they will not again lose news cycles easily.
Miami “terror” arrests—a government provocation ~~ ( View from the Marxists Left....Barf Alert)
How about the fact that any employer who wishes to minimize his exposure to this kind of crap by refusing to hire Muslims would face massive fines and civil lawsuits under EEOC regulations?
There is every indication that this latest purported terrorist threat—described by some media outlets as “even bigger than September 11”—was manufactured by the FBI, which used an undercover agent posing as a terrorist mastermind to entrap those targeted for arrest.
It is really amazing stuff.
A Double Decker bus...
A train station...
“even bigger than September 11”—was manufactured by the FBI, which used an undercover agent posing as a terrorist mastermind to entrap those targeted for arrest."
For what it is worth, there may have been a little of this during the 60s.
"Since the addition of Tony Snow, things are much better, and there is a case for renewed optimism that they will not again lose news cycles easily.
Agreed, he is our first spokesman instead of a sounding board.
Every resume I receive where the job-applicant has an Islamic/Middle-Eastern names goes right into the shredder.
It's not illegal to be part of any group. What is illegal are specific actions. In my opinion it's OK to not hire someone based on his actions; it's not OK to not hire someone based on his beliefs. There's a word for that, but I ain't goin there! ;)
It's like watching a baby with a loaded pistol in its mouth, crying because his little fingers aren't strong enough to squeeze the trigger.
Yes it should. Islam, with its own laws which are incompatible with liberty, should be rendered unconstitutional and illegal in the United States.
Silly. By your definition, ANY religion should be rendered unconstitutional and illegal in the United States, since they all put a god above the United States Constitution, and would require obedience to that God before the laws of this nation.
Silly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.