But, like Gibbs, you're unable to recognize the colossal failure of the DHS to prevent a car bomb from being driven into Times Square by a person who was, at one time, on the federal terrorism radar.
You don't say how. You merely mention some points that you think are obvious but they're not obvious at all.
The point is that the administration is well aware of Awlaki and his influence. To the point of ordering his assassination. And they didn't need the illegal NSA program to know as much, imagine that!
And the difference is that Awlaki is a self-proclaimed enemy of this country and there's plenty of evidence on his plotting against America.
You keep avoiding to say what telling signs this guy gave to warrant being surveilled after being dropped from that radar.
Meanwhile, we're finding out how lucky the police were, as well:
Disgraceful Leaking [Andy McCarthy]
On your other points, I avoided nothing; I said what I thought warranted acute interest in this s bag. I also said that as time goes along, we'll probably learn more that will support that position than will exculpate the DHS for not being more interested.As I explained in this post last evening, there seems to have been no good reason to file the arrest complaint against Faisal Shahzad publicly, and to have done so in a way that showed he was cooperating. All that does is alert co-conspirators that they've been compromised and should think about fleeing and destroying evidence.
It turns out that I didn't know the half of it. This comes from an NPR report (and thanks to Greg McNeal for bringing it to my attention):
Tipping off reporters so they can show up at a police stake-out of an armed terrorist's home? Mind-boggling.[W]hat hasn’t been apparent until now is how news coverage of this story fundamentally changed the investigation. Law enforcement officials usually say they can't talk to reporters about an ongoing investigation, but there were leaks in this case from the beginning — partly because of the dynamic between two powerful law enforcement forces in New York City....
Details about the Times Square investigation were all over the local newspapers, even as authorities were still trying to puzzle out who was responsible. Any element of surprise that law enforcement might have had was evaporating. To be fair, law enforcement was partly to blame. In many cases, it was the source of the information and leaks. But there seemed to be an extra level of frustration about the leaks in this case. As one law enforcement official told NPR, "Our operational plans were being driven by the media, instead of the other way around. And that's not good."
He said they watched in horror as news organizations started talking about the fact that the vehicle identification number on the Nissan Pathfinder used in the botched bombing had been taken off the windshield. Then another report said that wouldn't matter, as authorities could find the VIN on other parts of the car. A short time later, the fact that they had found the number was reported. The coverage was providing a lot of clues about the direction the case was going.
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. (NPR also had the information but didn't report it out of concern that it would affect the investigation before Shahzad's arrest.) 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.
Then it got worse: Reporters started showing up at Shahzad's house in Shelton, waiting for the arrest to happen. Shahzad was actually up the road at a ramshackle apartment he had rented in Bridgeport. That's where officers were watching him — but apparently that also was leaked. A TV reporter showed up there and waited.
For the arresting officers, there was another wrinkle. They knew from running Shahzad's name through databases that he had purchased a gun in March. If the suspect was following the media reports, he knew the noose was tightening and might try to shoot his way out. They had to fundamentally change how they were going to approach the house to prepare for that possibility. But Shahzad surprised them by leaving the apartment. He went to a local supermarket and they lost track of him. NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly told NPR on Wednesday that they lost him for about three hours. When they finally caught up with Shahzad just before midnight Monday on a plane bound for Dubai, he smiled at the officers and said, "I've been expecting you. Are you NYPD or FBI?"
Also, this guy was more than "influenced" by terrorists, he had contacts with them; was trained by them; and counted them among his family's friends.
A story with unnamed sources from the National Review... nice. Par for the course.
Do you contemplate the possibility that maybe we won't? It's a rhetorical question, BTW. As I said, you're not posting an argument here. You already made up your mind, and are merely grasping at any straw to support your 'side'.
Except we didn't know that until we caught him and he admitted as much?
I don't claim he's not a bad guy. I dispute the notion he was easily detectable.
Good Night, Gracie.
True, but I don't think that's the point Yoni was trying to make, as I read it anyways. (Note: Haven't read upthread of this yet, so he may have commented.)
Anyways, the argument over whether traditional LE should combat terrorism within our borders, or whether the DHS should, doesn't speak to how effectively or ineffectively the DHS handled THIS case. Although the latter may influence the former.
I can see how an overarching body MAY be able to tie together strings which local PDs just don't have the capability to do. Whether they can effectively remains to be seen.
Anyways, there's no way to know whether the warning flags this guy raised were unique, making him easily identifiable and someone to keep a close eye on, or whether there are hundreds or thousands of citizens in the same situation as him, making it impossible to keep a close eye on all of them.
Without that info, we're left with vague suppositions.
Sure, there's a way to know; just don't expect those, with that knowledge, to share it unless it exculpates them.
But, absolutely, there's a way to know whether this guy is one of many or one of few that behaved as he did leading up to the May 1st attempt. I suspect we'll know more about the jihadi, his actions, and whether or not they should have reasonably been expected to have drawn scrutiny from Janet Incompitano, as time goes on.
I also believe we'll be able to judge how incompetent was this administration by observing from where the information comes. If the administration keeps tap-dancing around the failure, as did Gibbs at the news conference, leaving the public to get information from other sources (to whom it is probably leaked by others, in the administration) what eventually reaches the public will not be favorable to Janet and her boss.
Time will tell.
It's not like Obama received a memo led "Faisal Shahzad determined to strike in US" then did nothing about it.
That would be criminal.
that guy needs to get his money back, seriously he must have went to the terrorist equivalent of career point
Went to high school, didn't do great/now I gotta have more cash, education is what I'm looking at.
This attack was so amateurish it should raise serious red flags...this was the shoe bomber multiplied by a factor of 10...this justifies a trillion dollar war on terror?
Red flags indicating what?
At first blush, it is puzzling. Maybe torture is more shocking to the conscience of the world than murder.
Killing works. Torture doesn't.
How succinct.
Last edited by Winehole23; 05-08-2010 at 03:49 AM. Reason: glossed, shortened
—Swift, Thoughts On Various SubjectsThe power of fortune is confessed only by the miserable, for the happy impute all their success to prudence and merit.
(double post)
-- La Rochefoucauld, Reflections; or Sentences and MaximsLucky people are bad hands at correcting their faults; they always believe that they are right when fortune backs up their vice or folly.
Enhanced interrogation techniques produce more actionable intelligence than a bullet to the head.
I didn't mean shocking to your conscience, Yoni. I already knew you were cool with it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
