Checking in on Terror Arrests
Brian Doherty | August 1, 2006, 5:40pm
Abdel Jabbar-Hamdan, a man who "has become a symbol for those who believe Muslims have been unfairly targeted in the government's war on terrorism" was released last night from federal prison in California. He had been a fundraiser for the Holy Land Foundation, which the government maintains funnels money to terrorist organization Hamas. The official charge under which he had been held without bond since July 2004, though, involved ovestaying a student visa from 1982. From an Orange County Register report:
A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman said the government will electronically monitor Hamdan and will try to deport him.
"Both the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals have previously held that Mr. Hamdan is deportable and subject to mandatory detention," said Lori Haley.
This Los Angeles Times story about Hamdan from a few days ago (before his release) discusses two other similar cases of terror cases turned immigration cases where held suspects have been released under court order recently.
While these cases involved support of terrorism as opposed to being an active "terror cell" that's a clear and present personal danger to American life, limb, and property, this seems an opportune time to mention that the Miami 7/Seas of David really ought to hire Jon Stewart as their defense attorney to humilate the case out of court.
In considering the thin yield of domestic terror arrests since 9/11, I wouldn't want--pace Steve Sailer!--to say there have been no "terror attacks" in the U.S. since then, thus making all the law enforcement panic effort purely silly. Sailer, in the last sentence's link, calls the recent Seattle Jewish Federation shooting such a terror attack, and reminds us of the LAX shooter on July 4, 2002.
Still, even the most Patriotic Actish of Americans might admit that a) these one-angry-man-and-a-gun actions aren't the sort of thing that post-9/11 law enforcement "everything's changed" changes were allegedly needed for and b) increased law enforcement efforts post-9/11 didn't do a thing to stop them.
I await the 2007 "Gunman Official Undoing and Security Act" (GO USA!)
thoreau | August 1, 2006, 9:21pm | #
Here's my essay on terrorism post 9/11:
I'm not surprised that everything since 9/11 and the anthrax attacks have paled in comparison.
9/11 was done by a group of guys who were all very disciplined, motivated, able to trust each other, and backed by enough money that they could spend more than a year devoting their full attention to very, very, very meticulous planning. That sort of thing requires (1) the support of a wealthy patron and (2) a supply of men who have been trained and indoctrinated in a very rigorous military-style process. The indoctrination is necessary so that they can trust each other while they plan, and the rigorous training is necessary so that they have the discipline to keep their noses to the grindstone and work through the detailed, meticulous planning that was required.
By meticulous planning, I mean that in addition to flight school they apparently did a large number of practice flights as passengers. They flew the routes that they would ultimately fly on, and on the types of planes that they would ultimately hijack. They noted security procedures at different airports, they noted the ordinary in-flight procedures, and tried to familiarize themselves as much as possible with the details. Supposedly they even visited the WTC with a GPS device, scoping out the final target. That's the mark of somebody who's been well trained. An amateur would just go on board with a box-cutter and try to fight without knowing the layout of the plane or the schedule and routine of the flight attendants or the habits of the passengers.
The training and indoctination camps in Afghanistan have apparently (hopefully?) been disrupted. There are still trained guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan, of course. Lots of them. But many of them are fighting for tribal or nationalist reasons, not the deep religious fanaticism that is necessary to forge an element of trust (or motivate somebody to move far away from his homeland and collaborate with young men who aren't from his tribe). And guerrilla fighters accustomed to fighting in mountains may not operate as well in the West as young Arab men who grew up in cities, and only went to Afghanistan to acquire military discipline.
As long as we keep their leadership (i.e. financial backers) on the run and prevent them from operating training camps, I doubt that we'll see another group of disciplined and coordinated young men attack us on our soil any time soon.
We'll see some lone lunatics, of course, like the LAX shooter, acting out for reasons that may or may not qualify them as terrorists. We'll see some amateurs who can't even figure out how to make an improvised bomb, so they have to look for a mentor and wind up talking to an undercover FBI agent. We'll probably encounter more guys like the guys who supposedly plotted to blow up a tunnel in NYC: Guys who had to meet each other over the internet because the training camps are no longer available for networking, and were so undisciplined that they discussed their terror plot in an internet forum.
We might also see some slightly more savvy guys who figure out how to make improvised explosives and go about planting them without announcing their plans over the internet or seeking out an FBI informant. However, even those guys will probably lack the experience, discipline, and numbers to get the maximum effect from improvised explosives: They won't have the savvy to identify and successfully infiltrate targets where a small bomb can do the most damage.
The big thing we have going for us, unlike Europe, is that we are pretty good at assimilating young male immigrants from the Middle East. Our job market is much more dynamic, and our popular culture is the most infectious thing on the planet. An alienated teen of Middle Eastern descent doesn't need to join the Jihad to rebel, not if he's in the US. We have businesses that market clothes, music, posters, and other cultural goods with a calculated "rebel" image. Like Jason Ligon said, when his sister decided to rebel as a teen, she called herself an "anarchist" and wore all black while listening to certain bands. And somebody earned a nice profit by selling the requisite clothes, jewelry, and music. We have a system that actually makes money by providing would-be rebels with safe outlets.
Of course, a few could slip through the cracks, fail to assimilate, and seek to attack us, but at least we've stacked the odds in our favor.
The big danger is Iraq: There are a lot of guys learning how to effectively wield improvised explosives in urban areas. If some of them come over here, with the discipline, experience, and bonds of trust that they've built while fighting together, we could be in BIG trouble.
