BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


News: US Arrests "Dirty Bomb" Suspect

 
 
Ethan Hawke
15:26 / 10.06.02
From Salon.com:

The U.S. government has arrested an alleged al Qaida terrorist who plotted to build and detonate a radiological "dirty" bomb, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Monday.

Ashcroft said Abdullah Al Mujahir was in the custody of the U.S. military and being treated as an enemy combatant, suggesting plans for the first military tribunal of an alleged terrorist.


Abdullah Al Mujahir is apparently a US citizen, but will be tried under the first military tribunal set up after Sept. 11th.
 
 
w1rebaby
16:05 / 10.06.02
As yet there don't seem to be many details, though.

AP story on Yahoo

"We have disrupted an unfolding terrorist plot to attack the United States by exploding a radioactive dirty bomb," he said, adding that the government's suspicions about Mujahir's plans came from "multiple, independent, corroborating sources."

A senior administration official speaking on condition of anonymity said Mujahir was trained by al-Qaida in Afghanistan ( news - web sites) and Pakistan to wire explosives and to research radioactive dispersal devices. He was not believed to have had a bomb at the time of his apprehension.

"We don't believe it went beyond the planning stages," the official said.

So basically it sounds like there was no actual bomb. I assume that full evidence will of course be presented for the fact that he was attempting to build one, and that it's not just a scare story or anything.

The basic concept is believable.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
16:12 / 10.06.02
So basically it sounds like there was no actual bomb. I assume that full evidence will of course be presented for the fact that he was attempting to build one, and that it's not just a scare story or anything.

This is sarcasm, right? Another article I read said that they've been holding this guy since May 8.
 
 
w1rebaby
17:35 / 10.06.02
Yeah, it did have a sarcastic bent... Although I suppose it's possible he's a major terrorist player. It all seems very convenient at a time when the FBI and CIA are getting such bad publicity for being, well, crap. "Look! We've found a terrorist! He was going to blow up the world! See! We're good really!"

I've been accused of cynicism in the past.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
18:01 / 10.06.02
If Bush ever declares a "War on Cynicism" then that's a whole load of us fucked.
 
 
Logos
20:02 / 10.06.02
Don't worry. John Ashcroft has your Civil Liberties under his protection.
 
 
Harold Washington died for you
02:08 / 11.06.02
Well figure what the reaction would be if the FBI rounded up 19 "students," who happened to be all Arabs, back in August. Most disturbing part is this guy is a US citizen and he'll probably never get a fair trial...but given that or the option of glowing in the fucking dark I'll reluctantly take the former.
 
 
w1rebaby
10:55 / 11.06.02
bit of a bugger if the option wasn't glowing in the dark, though
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:13 / 11.06.02
Um....where is the connection? Does he absolutely have to receive an unfair trial because otherwise you *will* start glowing in the dark? Is it a skin condition you get around juries? Why should this US citizen be deprived of his right to a non-military trial?
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
11:29 / 11.06.02
Because the Bush administration needs scapegoats?

No one gets a fair trial where politics are involved. Was Nixon ever imprisoned, for the Red witch hunts/Vietnam/Watergate? The US politics/media climate being what it is, anyone alleged to be involved with anything relating to US-based terror is fucked before anything approaching a trial happens. Witness the US government's creative approach to legal designations of anyone involved in the atrocity on September 11th, or anyone captured of killed in the war begun in Afghanistan by the US and their partners... or certain people who attempted to publically or legally defend said individuals. And even the UK money-laundering legislation has now been altered. Previously you could POTENTIALLY be charged if you worked in the financial services industry and had a suspicion that ML had been perpetrated, but did not report it through the appropriate channels. It was unenforceable and unpoliceable, and would only even be considered if they had evidence of more serious and related offences. Now you are VERY LIKELY to be charged if ML is investigated and you didn't have a suspicion, but they think you SHOULD have done - and you can be investigated on that alone, without any other evidence to hand of any other wrongdoing.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
11:52 / 11.06.02
If they caught this guy with some cesium and a coupla sticks of dynamite, I probably would be hard-pressed to care whether or not they tried him under a military tribunal. However, since the attack was only in "the planning stages" (whatever that means), it seems perilously close to summary execution for thought crimes.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
11:55 / 11.06.02
Incidentally, did anyone else in the U.S. notice a rather odd tone in the reporting about radiological weapons on the TV news last night? The tenor of the broadcast seemed to be "Don't worry; if this happens, you'll be fine. Just shower, put your clothes in a baggy and evacuate. No silly terrorist nuke could that. Only American nukes can blow up cities."
 
 
gridley
13:11 / 11.06.02
well, the whole idea of dirty bomb isn't to actually hurt people. it's to scare them. A dirty bomb is about as deadly as the actual bomb part would be with or without the radiation. They've done all kinds of tests proving that any time you spread the radioactive particals that thinly through the air (especially if you're using medical grade material), they get pretty weak, and the small amount of cases of radiaction sickness is going to be the least of your problems.

The big problem is that if someone blows one of these up in NYC or DC and somehow let's people know that it is in fact a dirty bomb, you'll get widespread panic from people trying to flee the city and overloading the hospitals and social services. It's more terror than weapon.
 
 
Fist of Fun
13:20 / 11.06.02
I have a couple of questions on this topic, I thought somebody might help me out on.

First off - how are the US justifying trying a civilian as an 'enemy combatent' and removing his usual right to a fair trial by his peers? I can see a certain degree of logic when this is done to a foreigner (note - 'logic', not justice) in that if they are not US citizens they don't necessarily have the same legal rights. And if he was a member of a foreign power's military forces, then the Geneva convention requires he be treated as a POW (although I think they might be able to try him for treason). But as a US citizen, what happened to his rights under the constitution here?

Secondly - in the UK it is extremely difficult to persuade a court that a defendant will have a fair trial if there has been adverse comments on his particular case in the media. The more widespread the comment, the more difficult to have a fair trial, the more likely it is that the court will order the trial abandoned. This is why we always see people saying "I cannot comment, the matter is sub judice" (Actually, there is nothing to stop them commenting - there might be a ban on reporting, ordered by the court, but they can comment all they like.) In this case, the President himself has stated (as publically as possible) that he *is* a terrorist and *ought* to be locked up. How on earth can there now be a fair trial now?

Any US lawyers out there?
 
 
Ethan Hawke
15:05 / 11.06.02
Update: U.S. Backing off "Dirty Bomb" Claims

"He had indicated some knowledge of Washington, D.C., but I want to emphasize again that there was not an actual plan. We stopped this man in the initial planning stages," said Wolfowitz.
 
 
w1rebaby
15:33 / 11.06.02
"initial planning stages" appears to mean "he hadn't even thought of it yet, but he might have"

Basically, they've arrested an al-qaeda member and there's no indication that he was even planning to build a dirty bomb. Fair enough to arrest him, but the rest looks like obvious propaganda to me.

I imagine it will just be one of those things that gets forgotten about but which still serves to raise the overall paranoia level.
 
 
gridley
15:57 / 11.06.02
It seems funny to me that US intel agents apparently can't infiltrate Al-Quaeda, but this Chicago gang member had not trouble....
 
 
Ethan Hawke
16:23 / 11.06.02
Here's the Legal Real Deal, according to the Washington Post.

Basically, what the article says is that the U.S. cannot try Abdullah al Muhajir (nee Jose Padilla) in a military tribunal, but by turning him over to the Defense Department and designating him an "Enemy Combatant", can hold him indefinitely without charging him with a crime.

From the article:
Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson yesterday cited two legal precedents for holding al Muhajir. One is a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that established -- but only implicitly, in vague language -- that a U.S. citizen who had joined a German military plot to sabotage American facilities could be tried as an "unlawful combatant."

The other case cited by Thompson was a 1946 appeals court decision that established that a U.S. citizen of Italian descent who was captured after joining the Italian army during World War II could be held in this country as a prisoner of war.


Well, Constitutional Scholars and dilettantes, whaddya think? Does a U.S. citizen implicitly renounce hir citizenship upon conspiring to attack the government/people of the U.S., in conjunction with a foreign power? Is there a difference if the foreign power is a state or non-state actor?
 
 
Naked Flame
20:01 / 11.06.02
dilettantes, whaddya think? Does a U.S. citizen implicitly renounce hir citizenship upon conspiring to attack the government/people of the U.S., in conjunction with a foreign power?

Well, I think I qualify as a dilettante. I think it's inevitable that you should lose your civil rights in a country if you decide to blow shit up. However, you shouldn't lose them on suspicion of it. In this particular case, if he actually is an Al-Qaeda member, then he's 'fair game' within the parameters the US have set- disregarding for the moment whether or not those parameters are valid.

so... is he an Al-Qaeda member?
 
 
w1rebaby
21:33 / 11.06.02
so... is he an Al-Qaeda member?

I thought that was the point of trials - to determine whether someone was hostile enough to society to have their civil rights removed.
 
 
Harold Washington died for you
22:17 / 11.06.02
From what I understand (not much), if you had terrorists on trial they could 1) start to propagandize on the stand. This is scary to a lot of individuals who think a little free speech would destabilize the greenback and plunge the world into 1001 years of utter darkness. I can understand their position but I think it is crap.

2) The terrs would be required to have access to all sorts of secret documents and sources (the putative accusers), plus access to phones, libraries, and internet to do their research for their defense. This one seems a bit concerning, as the "bad guys" (oh Dubya is soooo eloquent) in custody could possibly blow the cover of informants to outside contacts.

Wasn't being ironic when I said that I would reluctantly abridge the rights of a suspected terrorist. Just seems that the Framers thought life was more important than liberty. Sounds terribly fascist of me I know. I'm gonna pursue happiness in the bottom of a cup of vodka and try to forget the whole mess for now.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
07:15 / 12.06.02
morocco - but what if he's innocent? he's being held with apparently no rights, with no legal end in sight, on suspicion of a crime. if it were me, and i were eventually aquitted, i don't think i'd be saying it was fair enough, the war against terrorism justifies you treating me in this way. i think i'd be charging *them* with false imprisonment.
 
 
Sebastian
11:57 / 12.06.02
Padilla [...] was vague about the $10,000 in U.S. currency he was carrying, [...]

In my country, the above is enoguh to get you into trouble. If a cop stops you in the street under any circumstance, from a shiny picnic day to a dirty street at night hours, and you can't explain how you got the huge amount of money you are carrying, the cop is supposed to take you to a police station until it is clarified.

The other bits of information are unfortunately too much "media-ticized" to get to any honest conclusion.
 
 
Baz Auckland
06:47 / 13.06.02
From the tiny page 4 article in (I think) The Times or the Telegraph yesterday, they said that "he had not gotten past the surfing-the-internet stage" "there was no bomb, and no plans to make one"

and "he discussed with someone in Pakistan about maybe a dirty bomb, or maybe they should blow up a petrol station, or..."

How this was a screaming headline front page about 'dirty bombs' I have no idea.
 
 
grant
12:49 / 13.06.02
From fuckedworld.com:



The one on the right is Jose Padilla a.k.a. Abdullah al-Muhajir.

The one on the left is "John Doe #2," the never-captured accomplice in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
 
 
gridley
17:03 / 13.06.02
That's a great story, Grant! here's the text from fuckedworld...

Here's a discovery to unsettle the average American and elate the average conspiracy theorist: Take a look at these two pictures. Notice any resemblence? The picture on the right is Abdullah al-Muhajir, aka Jose Padilla, whom the U.S. government claims is an al Qaeda operative recently arrested on suspicion of planning a "dirty bomb" radioactive attack on the U.S. And the picture at left? Why, that's John Doe No. 2, the still-unaccounted-for co-conspirator from the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995! What, you say, what? You mean the FBI somehow failed to notice this? Or did they?

The visual observation was first made by Bryan Preston at the Junkyard Blog. But wait, there's more! Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh had connections to Florida, where the freshly converted al-Muhajir was living at the time of the OK attack. Nichols, additionally, was married to a woman by the name of Lana Padilla (!). Lana Padilla allegedly claimed in a news conference (apparently only quoted by whacked-out conspiracy nuts and apparently refuted in subsequent news interviews) that Nichols was paid in gold by a bearded Islamic man associated with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, while Nichols was in the Philippines, a known al Qaeda stronghold. While the bearded Islamic man may be apocryphal, the Philippines connection is not. Nichols lived there for several years and is suspected to have met with al Qaeda members during that time.

The conspiracy buffs (and some mainstream sources too) have long ranted about what they saw as an FBI failure to investigate links between US right-wing militants and Islamic fundamentalist groups. I am not wholeheartedly endorsing the content on some of these pages I'm linking to, but they might have a point.

The police sketch seems to be a pretty accurate depiction of Padilla. Are there more connections? Tough call. It's hard to imagine the Dub administration passing up a tidbit like this. If there was a chance in hell, you would expect them to be all over it. In addition to bolstering their case for Padilla as an "exception" to constitutional rights, I imagine Ashcroft and the boys would be happy to spread the blame for ignored clues and missed opportunities to the Clinton administration, where the buck stopped during the OK attack. And yet... And yet...

Anyone with specific and verifiable information and/or links for a further expansion of this story should e-mail me.

Note: This first came to my attention as a Fuckedcompany message board (not associated with this site), the meat of which was also forwarded to me by a reader, D.F. Specifically, the Lana Padilla link came from that source. I later found the Junkyard Blog listing which apparently originated this discussion via a posting at Metafilter. I assembled the pieces as I found them, with a little supplemental juice and slightly strong pictures (I think). I'm adding fuel to the fire, so I can see what color the smoke is. But it wasn't my brilliant idea that nailed this down. It's the Internet at large, and Bryan Preston specifically who got the ball rolling. Credit where it's due.
 
 
Baz Auckland
15:12 / 18.12.03
Court rules that US citizen cannot be detained as an enemy combatant

The decision could force the government to try Padilla, held in a so-called "dirty bomb" plot, in civilian courts. In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) said Padilla's detention was not authorized by Congress and that Bush could not designate him as an enemy combatant without the authorization

The court directed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to release Padilla from military custody within 30 days, but said the government was free to transfer him to civilian authorities who can bring criminal charges.

"As this court sits only a short distance from where the World Trade Center stood, we are as keenly aware as anyone of the threat al-Qaida poses to our country and of the responsibilities the president and law enforcement officials bear for protecting the nation but presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum, and this case involves not whether those responsibilities should be aggressively pursued, but whether the president is obligated, in the circumstances presented here, to share them with Congress," the court said.

In its ruling, the court said it was not addressing the detention of any U.S. citizens seized within a zone of combat in Afghanistan
 
 
Tryphena Absent
09:10 / 19.12.03
Woo! Go courts!
 
  
Add Your Reply