Saturday, June 24, 2006

Feds Put Forward Questionable Case Of "Terrorism"

The Miami "home-grown terrorists" spectacle is shaping up to be a pretty flimsy case.

This prosecution is being brought for no other reason than so that the government can claim that they have been vigilant and proactive in stopping "terror" plots.

It is purely CYA to be pointed to as a "victory" following a future real attack.

A plot to topple the Sears Tower in Chicago and attack the F.B.I. headquarters in Miami was "more aspirational than operational," (John S. Pistole, deputy director of the F.B.I.) said Friday, a day after seven Florida men were arrested on terrorism charges...

(Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales) acknowledged that the men, who had neither weapons nor explosives, posed "no immediate threat."

The FBI informant is looking increasingly like an agent-provocateur.

The indictment, which charges the men with seeking support from al-Qaeda to wage a "ground war" on the United States, is based primarily on (Narseal) Batiste's interactions with an unidentified government informant who posed as an al-Qaeda "representative" and discussed plans for bombings and assaults on the Sears Tower, the FBI office in Miami and other targets. Batiste and the six others also allegedly swore an oath of loyalty to al-Qaeda during meetings with the informant, according to the charges...

The case underscores the murkiness that has been common to many of the government's terrorism-related prosecutions since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, cases that often hinge on ill-formed plots or debatable connections to terrorism. It is also the latest in a series of FBI-run stings involving informants or government agents who pose as terrorists to build a case.

The "charismatic Haitian American named Narseal Batiste" who allegedly was the "ringleader" of the group was probably trying to shake down someone he thought was a gullible mark by saying whatever the informant wanted to hear in exchange for big money:

On Dec. 16, 2005, Batiste met in a hotel room with the informant and, around the same time, said he was trying to build an "Islamic Army" to wage jihad, according to the indictment. He also asked for boots, uniforms, machine guns, radios, vehicles and $50,000 in cash.


The real proof that the feds knew that this wasn't a real terrorist group is:

"By May, the indictment suggests, the plan had largely petered out because of organizational problems.

If the government really thought that these guys were terrorist material there would have been no arrests Thursday.

The feds would have continued to keep a close watch upon the men for possible contacts with actual terrorists. No question about it.

Their arrests this week show that the real motive of the government here was public relations.


Blogger Jon said...

You are typical liberal, making statements that you cannot possibly backup with proof. How do you know that the Feds are only bringing this case to make it look like they are doing something about terror? These people were plotting to blow up the Sears Tower and had they actually made contact with an Al-Qaida operative they could have easily followed through with their plot. You can take this kind of thing lightly, but when are you going to take things like this seriously? I glad our FBI took this seriously and stopped it before they got a hold of the ammonium nitrate fertilizer. I live in Oklahoma City and I can tell you for a fact that this type of bomb can do exactly what they planned on doing.

6/24/2006 6:08 PM  
Blogger Effwit said...


The proof that this is all bullshit is that they arrested these guys. If the accused were a serious threat they could have used them to lead the FBI to real terrorists by watching them.

If these guys were drug dealers, for instance, they would have kept them under surveillance until they led to higher ups.

The facts of the case, as admitted by the feds, don't support their conclusion that these guys were particularly dangerous.

If I were you I wouldn't be so proud to advertise your gullibility, not to mention your fearfulness.

How long did it take you to come out from under the bed after the Murrah Building attack?

PS: How many McVeighs do you think that this current Iraq war will produce? After all, this war has taken a lot longer, and has gone quite a bit worse than the first one.

6/24/2006 6:29 PM  
Blogger DrewL said...

Believe me, there are thousands of self-proclaimed white supremacists in the Pacific Northwest who present a helluva greater threat than this group of Miami stooges. These guys couldn't have bombed their way out of a paper sack.

Sadly, many Americans - including a lot who should know better - fall for this BS hook, line and sinker. It was blatant propaganda, plain and simple. And what should have been a very minor case - if one at all - gets played by the feds like it's just saved millions of lives. Multiple press conferences. Major media coverage. The whole Sears Tower crap. What a complete load of bull biscuits!

This was nothing more than the Bushies attempting to sell more fear to sway voters in the fall. And to justify unfettered spying and surveillance of any and all Americans. After all, the threat is no longer overseas. It's now right in our own backyards. Funny how that happened while our troops have been fighting the "war on terror" overseas.

I'm so sick of all this nonsense. When will Americans wake up to the madness? And when will they realize that they are being played the fool of all fools? It's just so absurd!

6/25/2006 12:12 AM  
Blogger Effwit said...


True. The publicly advertised "successes" in the "war on terror" have been largely for show, and are being banked for future use. When the next real attack comes to our land, these officials will need to show that they have not been entirely incompetent.

Also, the Americans who portray themselves as concerned with security, and who support the Bush administration policies, blind themselves to the reality that the war in Iraq and have achieved the opposite of protecting our country.

Anyone who thinks that we are safer following our ill-advised intervention in Iraq is--at best--fooling themselves.

6/25/2006 8:15 AM  
Blogger DrewL said...

As someone in another blog wrote recently, why is it that every other national soccer team competing in the World Cup rode to their venues in buses with their names and colors for all to see, while the U.S. team rode in an unmarked vehicle? Is it because we are so loved around the globe? Once upon a time, we were. Now? We're a pariah.

6/27/2006 10:55 PM  
Blogger Effwit said...


I thought that we used the unmarked bus out of the natural modesty that comes with our team being so unbeatable on the football pitch.


6/28/2006 8:07 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home