Antiterrorism and Failed Attacks Discussion

[Bando]

Please people more informed on this stuff correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the no-fly list like 7 lists rather than one? And haven't we learned that the no-fly list is generally useless, generating tons of false positives?

Isn't it likely this guy was found via an APB rather than the no-fly list?

[The Stig]

Here's a simple explanation: The authorities who had the relevant info needed to legally arrest him weren't at JFK when he checked in. If you turn him away, he leaves, and he knows you're on to him. If he checks in and goes through security, you know he's at the airport, and he doesn't suspect a thing until he's actually arrested.

Regardless of whether that was the actual scenario, I'm pretty confident that the authorities deliberately let him check in and go through security. There's no other way a Pakistani who just bought a ticket in cash to Islamabad at JFK the day after an attempted terrorist attack gets through security that easily.

Either that, or they were just playing with the guy. Which would be hilarious.

[AustinHoya03]

May 4, 2010 12:51:30 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

One thing hasn't been touched on yet in the media (to my knowledge), which is that the use of a car bomb is a relatively new development as to international terrorism in the US. We've confronted it with home grown extremists - McVeigh, Rudolph, et al. However, to the extent that it becomes the mode of choice (or suicide bombing) for supposed Muslim terrorists and they remain interested in attacking, we've got ourselves a very serious problem.

The NYT touched on this in yesterday's paper:

www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/nyregion/03threat.html

[SFHoya99]

Is it new? Wasn't the original Trade Center attack a car bomb?

Car Bombs and similar smaller scale attacks are scary because they are virtually unpreventable.

I really don't know if there's a solution out there.

[jerseyhoya34]

Fair enough, SF. My comment was intended to relate more to the smaller-scale, asymmetric car bomb and suicide vest attacks. The Shahzad attempt could have conceivably caused more loss of life than the original WTC attack (6 fatalities). That's the nearby street cart and the people waiting in line (to say nothing of the other folks nearby on an average weekend in Times Square).

[SirSaxa]

Explanation of why the bomber was able to get on the Jet before being arrested, from the NY Times.

www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/nyregion/05plane.html?hp

Excerpt
Though Mr. Shahzad was stopped before he could fly away, there were at least two significant lapses in the security response of the government and the airline that allowed him to come close to making his escape, officials of the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies said on Tuesday.

Despite the errors, redundancy did what it was supposed to and the bomber was caught just over two days from the time of the incident. Pretty amazing. Kudos to all involved.

[The Stig]

Sounds like Emirates dropped the ball twice - first not checking the No-Fly List, and second not reporting the cash purchase to TSA until it was too late.

I didn't realize it was up to the airlines to enforce the No-Fly List at check-in. Fortunately they have the second stage of the system, sending the final passenger manifest to Customs and Border Protection. It looks like they already had a change planned to prevent this type of scenario from occurring, but it hadn't been implemented yet.

Here's the audio from the ATC calling the plane back to the gate:

[kchoya]

May 4, 2010 23:44:19 GMT -5 The Stig said:

Here's the audio from the ATC calling the plane back to the gate:

Hmmm, if the plan was (for whatever reason) to let the guy board and the plane to taxi away, I doubt they'd let the plane get to #1 position for takeoff.

[The Stig]

Yeah, it looks like they legitimately didn't know he was on the plane until the final manifest was sent to Customs and Border Protection. My earlier hypothesis was wrong.

[SFHoya99]

I was at the airport yesterday and they had Mary Matalin on, talking about how they shouldn't have mirandized this guy. It was the most incoherent argument I've ever heard, to the point where I believe her argument rested somehow on someone having the n-word kind of shouted at them.

Does anyone listen to this woman? I'm just curious. I don't watch news networks, but every time I do, I'm amazed at how bad they are -- how tabloid they all are.

[The Stig]

He's an American citizen who was arrested on American soil by American police. Anybody who thinks this guy shouldn't have full Constitutional protections is, in my mind, very dangerous.

Don't get me wrong, I think we should put the guy on trial, and if he's found guilty (pretty damn likely), we should punish him to the full extent of the law. If the prosecutors deem it proper to go for the death penalty, I'll have no problem with that, and I certainly won't shed a tear if they zap him. But let's do this the American way, not the wrong way. If we start stripping American citizens on American soil of their Constitutional protections BEFORE they've been found guilty of any crime, we're going to be starting down a very dangerous road.

[EasyEd]

I agree he is entitled to full constitutional rights because he is an American citizen. Where I have a severe problem is with others who are not citizens.

[rosslynhoya]

This is rather fascinating, "How Media Coverage Crimped The Times Square Case"

On Monday afternoon, basically a day-and-a-half after the attack, a news organization reported that law enforcement officials were looking for an American citizen of Pakistani descent from Shelton, Conn ... Shahzad mentioned that news report after he was in police custody, according to two law enforcement officials familiar with the case. He told the arresting officers that the moment he read it was the moment he knew it was only a matter of time before authorities would close in on him. He also assumed from the report that he was under surveillance. That's an important detail, because surveillance is only effective if people don't know they are being watched. "It was like watching an episode of 24 in real time," a law enforcement official said. The only problem was that Shahzad was able to watch it, too.

May 4, 2010 16:12:45 GMT -5 Bando said:

Please people more informed on this stuff correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the no-fly list like 7 lists rather than one? And haven't we learned that the no-fly list is generally useless, generating tons of false positives?

I attended a panel discussion last month in which a former senior counterterrorism official at the CIA (now a senior Dem. foreign policy advisor) was ranting about how ~35 known American converts to Islam are currently training at AQAP camps in Yemen and QUOTE "because they still have their American passports, there's absolutely nothing we can do to stop from boarding a plane and coming here." Coupled with the Christmas Day bombing and the ease with which Shahzad circumvented Emirates' reporting responsibilities, I'm beginning to firmly believe that the "no-fly list" is simply designed to harrass individuals who are not on any of the real "watchlists."

[EasyEd]

You legal experts out there - how would you craft a law making an exception to access to full constitutional rights for American citizens known to be converts to Islam who undergo training at overseas camps?

[theexorcist]

May 7, 2010 13:19:26 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

You legal experts out there - how would you craft a law making an exception to access to full constitutional rights for American citizens known to be converts to Islam who undergo training at overseas camps?

Converts to Islam shouldn't matter. What may be legally interesting is the terrorist training camp and whether that constitutes treason.

[jerseyhoya34]

Absent sweeping changes, I hope Congress looks at the terrorist loophole in the gun control laws and deprives terrorists of what Americans "enjoy" under the Second Amendment. Well-regulated militias does not mean terrorist militias. Put that on a bumper sticker.

[The Stig]

May 7, 2010 13:19:26 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

You legal experts out there - how would you craft a law making an exception to access to full constitutional rights for American citizens known to be converts to Islam who undergo training at overseas camps?

Remember, there are non-Islamic terrorists, and there are terrorist training camps here in the US. The alleged one in Michigan is the most notable case right now, but they're certainly not the only one.

If an American citizen is found to have trained at a terrorist camp with proven intent to carry out attacks against the United States, there's a very simple way to strip them of almost all their Constitutional rights: Find them guilty in a fair trial.

If we start stripping people of their rights before they're found guilty in a fair trial, what's to stop the government from picking you or me up tomorrow, saying we trained in an overseas camp for the purpose of killing Americans, and locking us up for the rest of our lives without giving us a chance to defend ourselves?

[jerseyhoya34]

Here is an interesting report on how suspected terrorists are being interrogated in the US - tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/experts_obama_admin_pioneering_more_robust_use_of.php?ref=fpa

This seems like a good idea that balances the needs of obtaining information and following the law without using torture.

[The Stig]

It's also interesting that they brought in a "clean team" on Abdulmutallab after he'd gotten his Miranda warning. I think that having split interrogations like that might be a good idea in the future.

Two teams: Dirty Team and Clean Team. As soon as the suspect is arrested, Dirty Team interrogates him for national security intel. After they're done, Clean Team comes in, Mirandizes him, and interrogates him for the purpose of gathering evidence for his trial. Evidence gathered by Clean Team is admissible at trial, evidence gathered by Dirty Team cannot be used. Clean Team can talk to Dirty Team (for example, if they stumble across something related to national security), but Dirty Team cannot talk to Clean Team. Dirty Team is allowed to interrogate the suspect again after he's been Mirandized, but any info gathered then still cannot be used in court. Neither team is allowed to torture the suspect.

Thoughts?

[SirSaxa]

May 8, 2010 21:48:35 GMT -5 The Stig said:

It's also interesting that they brought in a "clean team" on Abdulmutallab after he'd gotten his Miranda warning. I think that having split interrogations like that might be a good idea in the future.

Two teams: Dirty Team and Clean Team. As soon as the suspect is arrested, Dirty Team interrogates him for national security intel. After they're done, Clean Team comes in, Mirandizes him, and interrogates him for the purpose of gathering evidence for his trial. Evidence gathered by Clean Team is admissible at trial, evidence gathered by Dirty Team cannot be used. Clean Team can talk to Dirty Team (for example, if they stumble across something related to national security), but Dirty Team cannot talk to Clean Team. Dirty Team is allowed to interrogate the suspect again after he's been Mirandized, but any info gathered then still cannot be used in court. Neither team is allowed to torture the suspect.

Thoughts?

It seems to me the Administration is working to find ways -- within the law -- to achieve its goals of gleaning as much useful intel in as timely a fashion as possible, yet still be able to prosecute these terrorists in a way that is consistent with the Constitution and established US Law.

However, I am not sure your point about being unable to use info in a trail that was gleaned by the "dirty team" is necessarily accurate:

Excerpt from Article Ambassador Linked:
...the Supreme Court, which recognized the public safety exception in the 1984 Quarles case...

In the Quarles case ... a woman told officers she had been raped and the assailant fled with a gun to a grocery store. One officer caught the man in the store, and, after noticing an empty holster, asked him where the gun was before reading him the Miranda warning. The suspect said he had hidden the weapon behind some empty cartons. The use of that statement at trial was challenged, but it was ultimately allowed by the Supreme Court.

[/b][/blockquote]

I do believe it is important -- very important -- for the USA to live up to our standards, our principles and our Constitution. We claim to be the world's leader, and we claim to follow domestic and international law, unlike the countries, terrorist organizations and individuals with whom we clash. If we do not live up to our own standards, how are we different from them?

Your posts about Civil Rights for arrested Americans have been absolutely spot on.
Here's a question, was Timothy McVeigh's citizenship revoked? If not, did anyone raise a fuss about that issue? Or is this simply a case of racial/ethnic/religious profiling?

Now if the Times Sq. bomber is convicted, as we fully expect he will be, it would be entirely appropriate and legitimate to strip of his US Citizenship due to treason (writing as a non-lawyer).