Terrorism in the USA:threat & response

[davidbfpo]

A long article on an American Muslim who now prefers the label orthodox; it is a good illustration of the difficulties such individuals and wider society face when talk turns to the 'J word'. Not surprisingly it reflects the dilemma for the state in can we talk to such people, who are often now labelled non-violent extremists?

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/ma...&_r=1&emc=eta1

A short UK comment on this dilemma in the UK:http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourking...utm_campaign=0

[AdamG]

More importantly, based on the Defendant’s recorded statements and admissions made to law enforcement agents, the Defendant was a former member, or at the very least, associated with [Al-Ittihad al-Islami] AIAI, an SDGT, and that he believed that there was no separation of personnel between AIAI, the Council of Islamic Courts, and Al-Shabbab, a designated [Foreign Terrorist Organization] FTO.

He admits that he knowingly believed he was smuggling violent jihadists into the United States with the full knowledge that if the decision was made by the SDGT, for which he was associated with in the past, to commit terrorist acts in the United States, these jihadists would commit violent acts in and against the United States. Because the law enforcement authorities are constantly trying to investigate, detect, and prevent the infiltration of potentially violent jihadists, the Defendant’s lies hid critical information from the United States authorities regarding his successful smuggling activities. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence proves that the other obvious motivation for him to lie on his asylum application was to cover up and obstruct the fact from United States authorities that he facilitated the smuggling of violent jihadists who are now present into the United States. (pp. 10-11)

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/doj-mem...inglepage=true

And for sheer comedic face-palming,

In what appears to be a major security breach, components for a live bomb were allowed to remain in the federal building in Detroit for three weeks before the bomb squad was called in to remove it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/activ...ry?id=13202135

[AdamG]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- When an admitted al-Qaida operative planned his itinerary for a Christmas 2009 airline bombing, he considered launching the strike in the skies above Houston or Chicago, The Associated Press has learned. But tickets were too expensive, so he refocused the mission on a cheaper destination: Detroit.

The decision is among new details emerging about one of the most sensational terrorism plots to unfold since President Barack Obama took office. It shows that al-Qaida's Yemen branch does not share Osama bin Laden's desire to attack symbolic targets, preferring instead to strike at targets of opportunity. Like the plot that nearly blew up U.S.-bound cargo planes last year, the cities themselves didn't matter. It's a strategy that has helped the relatively new group quickly become the No. 1 threat to the United States.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...TAM&SECTION=US

[davidbfpo]

From the consistently good daily email news round-up from the NY-based Center for Law & Security, available via:

A comment on this US practice:

Reuters cites data from the Center on Law and Security to illustrate that entrapment defenses in terrorism prosecutions have not been successful over the past decade. The Reuters report states that “[s]ince 2009, the FBI has arrested 41 people on terrorism charges through sting operations — where law enforcement posed as extremist militants — the Center said. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, 10 suspects in six trials have formally used entrapment as a defense and none were successful.

Link:http://centerlineblog.org/2011/03/25...rism-news-204/

[jmm99]

From 2005 Michigan Law Review, Psychology, factfinding, and entrapment:

Although accurate statistical evidence of the frequency with which the entrapment defense succeeds is difficult to come by, anecdotal evidence suggests that it is seldom successful. One survey of practicing criminal defense attorneys described it as "judicially unpopular," (17) best used only "in desperate circumstances," (18) or "in a few cases with ideal facts," where "plea bargaining has proved unsuccessful," (19) and "no other defense is possible." (20) Another survey of State's Attorneys in Chicago reveals a perception that in narcotics sales cases where the defendant pleads entrapment, "the jury will convict almost every time." (21) The author of one police manual on the execution of sting operations states that he has "never, in hundreds of cases, ever lost one to entrapment," and that in all the sting operations he has studied, he has "not heard of a single case being lost to a defense of entrapment." (22)

Still, this "defense" is a favorite of the pro-defendant chattering class.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

A BBC Radio 4 report:

In the years after 9/11 the threat to America from Islamist militants seemed to come exclusively from abroad, but recent events have disproved that assumption - and posed the question how to prevent the radicalisation of Muslim immigrants.

Link to report:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13068133

Link to podcast, which is far better IMHO:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010dp1k

In that Peter Neumann, from ICSR @ Kings College London, commented that the USA will now be asking itself the questions the UK has asked for the past ten years. Please do not repeat what the UK state did.

This is a RUSI commentary:http://www.rusi.org/analysis/comment...4D90A51D14AB0/

[davidbfpo]

Spotted on the CLS e-alert an article in The Economist, which opens with this:

AMERICA has increased homeland security spending by more than $1 trillion in the decade since the 9/11 attacks. A new academic paper from John Mueller (of The Ohio State University) and Mark Stewart (of the University of Newcastle in Australia) attempts to determine whether the return on investment justified those huge expenditures. They also ask whether policymakers ever considered anything remotely resembling a cost-benefit analysis before they spent all that money. The answer in both cases, it seems, is no.

Link:http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulli...orism?fsrc=rss

Note the academic paper is on a Scribd link within and is approx. 28 pgs. Not read through today; not really a day to read such thoughts!