The JFK “Terror” Plot

6:47 pm EST June 6th, 2007 | Terrorism | 7 Comments

It’s why I use quotes around “terror” in instances like this that happen a lot under Bush and why Michael Bloomberg is right, much to the consternation of more than a few conservative idiots.

Credibility of JFK terror case questioned.

When U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf described the alleged terror plot to blow up Kennedy Airport as “one of the most chilling plots imaginable,” which might have caused “unthinkable” devastation, one law enforcement official said he cringed.

The plot, he knew, was never operational. The public had never been at risk. And the notion of blowing up the airport, let alone the borough of Queens, by exploding a fuel tank was in all likelihood a technical impossibility.

And now, with a portrait emerging of alleged mastermind Russell Defreitas as hapless and episodically homeless, and of co-conspirator Abdel Nur as a drug addict, Mauskopf’s initial characterizations seem more questionable — some go so far as to say hyped.

“I think her comments were over the top,” said Michael Greenberger, director of the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland. “It was a totally overstated characterization that doesn’t comport with the facts.”

Like the “Miami Five”, a terrorist cell that turned out to not be one – at least not a real threat to anyone besides their fevered imaginations.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

7 Responses to “The JFK “Terror” Plot”

  1. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    June 6, 2007 at 10:55 pm

    Why am I not surprised?

    If fact, I feel shame because I didn’t assume this was the case right from the beginning. Damnit, I’m a cynical guy, I don’t trust the media or the Bush administration, (which are practically one and the same right now). Why didn’t my bullshit detector go off on this one?

    By the way, I don’t think the media has the same agenda as the Bush administration. However, I think the media will parrot whatever talking points Bush and Co. give them out of fear of losing access to top officials. Of course, if that only means getting access to the liars in charge, it’s not much of a deal.

  2. Marty says:
    June 7, 2007 at 8:30 am

    I guess it doesn’t pay to connect the dots too early. Maybe “law enforcement” should wait as long as possible (like in “24″)so we can get the OW seal of approval.

  3. Adam Herman says:
    June 7, 2007 at 10:02 am

    That’s true of Al Qaeda in general for the most part.

    But if they burn a school in Kanadahar, the same people who criticize Bush for hyping the threat claim this proves the Taliban and Al Qaeda are stronger than ever.

    You guys seriously need some message discipline.

  4. Nimrod Gently says:
    June 7, 2007 at 10:59 am

    Comparing 24 to reality, in any context, under any circumstances, is like comparing an apple with an internal combustion engine.

  5. Mike says:
    June 7, 2007 at 6:08 pm

    This simply illustrates the difficulty involved in “preventing” terrorism, or violent crime for that matter.

    Someone says they’re a threat. Someone else says they’re not. Someone says they were serious. Someone else says ‘entrapment.’ Whom do you believe? What are the absolute criteria for believability?

    Do we err on the side of caution, and thereby imprison people who may not have been a threat, or do we try to implement a zero-risk/zero-error strategy and fail to stop the next Mohammed Atta?

  6. Wellstone says:
    June 7, 2007 at 8:35 pm

    Riiighttt..

    And if you capture a “terraist” who may have the secret code to deactivate that dirty suitcase bomb set to go off in downtown LA in 24 hours, what enhanced questioning torture method should you apply first?

    Conservatives are absolute cowardly idiots, combined with a childlike trust in “the Authorities”, a pathetic naivete, and an inability to admit mistakes.

    That’s a lethal combination, as we’ve seen as they allowed the most heinous rapes of innocents at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, and the rape of our Constitution on the floors of the Congress on their watch.

    My city’s Mayor Bloomberg said it best: Get a frikkin’ life.

    And let the grownups handle what you’ve botched up so badly.

  7. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    June 8, 2007 at 3:50 am

    “This simply illustrates the difficulty involved in “preventing” terrorism, or violent crime for that matter.”

    What are you talking about?

    The issue here lies with the lies spread through the media were an attempt to exploit the situation for political gain. This is a major, major problem.
    “Someone says they’re a threat. Someone else says they’re not. Someone says they were serious. Someone else says ‘entrapment.’ Whom do you believe? What are the absolute criteria for believability?”

    It’s not about who is believable or not, it’s what can be proven in court. Arresting someone on trumped up charges cause it looks good in the media is a terrible thing to do. Not only is it against the very concept of justice, it makes it harder to deal with real threats later on.

    “Do we err on the side of caution, and thereby imprison people who may not have been a threat, or do we try to implement a zero-risk/zero-error strategy and fail to stop the next Mohammed Atta?”

    How’s this for an idea:

    Let the intelligence agencies do their fucking jobs without trying to exploit it for political gain. This means you don’t release terror attack warnings unless there’s something specific and credible. This also means you don’t release information to the media until all angles have been covered.

    Nothing fucks up the works like politics, but it seems that politics is all the Bush administration can handle.