Threats From Within (Al Qaeda's Use Of American Terrorists)

CommonConservative.Com ^ | June 16, 2002 | Tom Adkins

[PJ-Comix]

Now that 3,000 lives have been lost in a massive terrorist attack on our own shores, Americans are happily willing to sacrifice a few freedoms for security. Racial profiling, a little snooping, maybe a few uncomfortable searches here and there. Those Middle Eastern men between 17 and 40 will just have to accept a few intrusions for the sake of national security. OK, fair enough.

But something interesting happened this week. The CIA arrested Abdullah al Muhajir for plotting to detonate a nuclear "dirty bomb" in Washington, DC. But Muhajir isn't a Middle Eastern Muslim terrorist. He is an American Muslim terrorist. His real name, the one mamma gave him long before his jail cell conversion to Islam, is Jose Padilla. Mexican bloodlines, actually. But born and raised in America. That leads to an intriguing question: What do we do if the next terrorist is named "Billy"? When some suburban misfit is busted at the local mall with a van full of fertilizer and a pocket full of plans in Arabic, what sort of profiling do we use then?

We better think about that because it's happened before. In the 60s, a slew of leftist troublemakers justified bombings, hijackings, shootings, lootings and murders that terrorized America in the name of socialist nirvana. And every one of these liberal groups were funded, staffed, influenced, sponsored or provoked by the Soviet Union. The demise of the radical American left mysteriously coincided with the defeat of the Soviet Union.

That old USSR vs. USA battle featured borders, armies and diplomacy. This new terrorist threat is different. Al Qaeda has no borders, no real army, and you certainly can't sit down and discuss peace with Osama bin Laden. But there is a common thread. Al Qaeda justifies anything in the name of a 14th century dream of quasi-religious despotism. Radical American liberals justify anything in the name of their self-aggrandizing elitist despotism. From Berkeley to Bagram, these twin pinnacles of relative morality make ideal teammates. The cooperation is inevitable.

While radical leftist groups are the usual suspects, America actually features a motley collection of left-wing America haters, right-wing government haters, recreational anarchists, and anti-corporate geeks, all seething to carry the terrorist banner and ready for grand-scale violence. All it takes is money. And Al Qaeda has that. Why not help their bottle-tossing friends-in-arms with a few real bombs?

Al Qaeda is in perfect position to sponsor American domestic terrorism. And they will. This courtship is happening just as the FBI switches gears from domestic crime to international terrorism. As we crack down on foreign bad guys, the next terrorist front will develop from within, not without.

So how do we stop this terrorist menagerie? First, let's acknowledge that George Bush's unification of the 100+ scattered security and defense agencies is a desperately necessary first step. Colleen Rowley's testimony showed a bloated, paralyzed bureaucracy and stifled agents, who helplessly watched as their suspects turned into mass murderers on national TV. Led by luminaries such as Frank Church and Chris Dodd, every American security apparatus was gutted, starved and emasculated over 40 years, enticing enemies to take a crack at us. Which they did. Our security agencies must be restaffed, refunded and unleashed, returning to the stealth and power that once defined our dedication to freedom.

Yet we must also make sure international terrorism is watched with one eye and domestic threats with the other. They must be attacked with equal vigor. But tackling domestic terrorism is much more difficult. Foreign terrorists have few rights. But Americans do. Civil libertarians will shriek at any opportunity real or imagined, as demonstrated with our Guantanamo Bay tourists. And constitutional conservatives will be equally vigilant. As long as we understand the right to protest ends where the right to live freely begins, the trick is to make the distinction between impassioned dissent and dangerous activism.

Nobody has the right to fly planes into office buildings or bomb our embassies and ships. They don't even have the right to interrupt a coffee break. And if anyone appears to be trying, we have the right and responsibility to preserve our nation and our freedoms by investigating, and if necessary hunt them down and crush them before they act. This right knows no borders. But without an equal emphasis on the domestic side of national security, Americans are guaranteeing a painful and embarrassing domestic incident from a guy whose picture can be found on page 23 of someone's high school yearbook.

[PJ-Comix]

I'm still wondering if Al Qaeda was behind the OKC bombing. There is a lot of speculation out there that Padilla might be the infamous John Doe #2.

[neutrino]

Great post!

[PJ-Comix]

It comes on the heels of the WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE about the Jose Padilla and John Doe #2. The WSJ seems to discount the connection but leans on the name of Nichol's former wife (Padilla) rather than on the sketch. And I still would like to know the whereabouts of Jose Padilla in April 1995.

[Thebaddog]

If you think about it, it really seems that the arabs seek to use our system against us. They used our planes against our buildings. The internet is their main means of communication with equipment and phones from us. I do think that we have found John Doe with Padilla's capture and he was here to buy a dirty bomb using our stuff too.

[Illbay]

We better think about that because it's happened before.

I think it may have happened in the recent past.

Whether Padilla is "John Doe #2" is beside the point; it isn't inconceivable that there was radical Islamist "input" in the OKC bombing.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist in order to see that there may have been--may LIKELY have been--other co-conspirators in the OKC bombing. Why weren't they ferreted out? Probably for the same reason that a LOT of intel slip-ups have occurred in dealing with terrorism, which slip-ups may well have contributed to 9-11.

First and foremost we have to understand that the Clinton administration saw EVERYTHING in terms of politics: "Is this going to hurt us politically? Is there some political advantage to be gained?"

Now, this is the SAME administration that dragged its feet on the '93 WTC bombing, that didn't want ObL even when the Somalis offered him on a silver platter, didn't seem to give a hoot'n'holler about the U.S.S. Cole.

So why isn't it possible that the adminstration simply instructed the FBI to stop after they had their VRWC punks, allowing them to blame Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio?

Whatever it was that caused them always to pull punches where radical Islamist terror was concerned, they might have pulled those punches in the matter of the Murrah Building.

Sorry, you can say what you want about "thuh gub'mint" in general, but next to William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, the Harding Administration was the Ice Capades.

[Illbay]

If you think about it, it really seems that the arabs seek to use our system against us.

But that's been true of ALL our enemies since the First World War.

[PoppingSmoke]

"First, let's acknowledge that George Bush's unification of the 100+ scattered security and defense agencies is a desperately necessary first step."

Wrong, the first step is to FIX the first line of defense organizations like the FBI and CIA! This hog wash of creating a new super agancy is just political spin at this point. We cannot get the TSA off the ground and everyone is jumping on the new Super Homeland Defense band wagon. This is Plainly nonsense! FIX THE PROBLEM! Get another DCI and let him do what Congress legislated him to really do. Centralize Intelligence. Fix the FBI and let them prevent and prosecute. Then go play with a new agency. By the time we get this new agency off the ground and operating the Palm Pilot will look like the old atari video games.