Failed car bomb in Times Square

[MattusMaximus]

Also... African-Americans that are too black to be considered African-American?

Yeah, talk about frakked up.

ETA: Great reference on the colorism article, DR. And speaking of color, I can see how the suspect's ethnicity could be questionably ID'ed from a street-side camera, especially in non-ideal lighting conditions. A close-up photo of the suspect shows that he's pretty light-skinned, so under crummy viewing from a distance it would be easy to mistake him for your garden variety "white guy".

 

[MattusMaximus]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...nsidering-possiblity-of-terrorism-in-car-bomb

"Could be"? What an idiot. And she's at the top of the pile. Heaven help us. She probably thinks the system worked too.

Like Obama said … the ONLY reason this failed is because of quick thinking ordinary citizens. For all intents and purposes, it succeeded. Our government missed this one. It failed ONLY because the bomb was poorly designed and didn't go off. And I suspect as more details come out, it will be apparent our government missed it in part because some of the methods the Bush Adminstration had wanted to use to prevent terrorist attacks in the US were publically revealed and then stopped by democrats and America's left. Equally frightening is that the morning after the attempted car bombing occurred, many of the major papers (like the LA Times), didn't even mention the attack on the front page. It's not front page news? No, instead they were promoting the May 1st immigration protests and the Arizona law.

Uhhh... should I point out the little fact that the system did work, at least in part, because the suspect was actually caught?

Nah, facts are too annoying. Continue ranting nonsensically.

 

[INRM]

Abenja,

First of, I don't think you realize this, but the government has the right to develop technology whether you like it or not. It's called progress.

So you're okay with the government collecting every piece of information that they can learn about you without any good reason, and intruding into every aspect of your life?

Have you been London? I have. For every 3 persons there is street camera. You know how many cameras that is? A lot. NYC doesn't even come close to the same amount of cameras. Street cameras are in the city mainly to catch speeders or people who break traffic laws.

And according to the ACLU, The UK is considered an endemic surveillance society.

No you didn't respond because if you even said that Iran or China had a better human rights record than the USA, I would the evidence up and show how wrong you are.

I don't recall saying that. I think I might have said something to the effect that if the US government was freed from it's restrictions, and people lost all their rights that the country would be potentially more dangerous to its own people than any external threat.

I did not say that China had a better human rights record than the US

And stop quoting the Constitution for god's sakes.

Why not? It's the framework from which the United States was founded on, and it's basic function was to prevent abuse of power by separating powers so that no one group has all the power, and imposes limits on what the government can and cannot do (to prevent said abuse of power)

You didn't care about the Constitution 10 years ago, you don't care about it now.

I would not say I didn't care about the Constitution back then, the truth is, though, that I probably would not be as concerned about our civil rights if they were not under constant assault under the Bush administration, and are still being attacked under the Obama administration.

I'll ask once again. How come you are trying to fearmonger in your post? Please answer that. Thank you

I'm not trying to fear-monger, I am seriously concerned about the erosion of our civil-rights. Without civil rights, our government could potentially be far more dangerous to us than our enemies.

Look at the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin (and China under Mao Tse Tung). Their governments had no regard for the most basic of rights for their people, and as a result their people were terrified of their governments, the country was a miserable place to live in, and for good reason. Their governments did whatever they wanted to their people whenever they wanted with absolutely no restriction at all.

Governments in my opinion should have heavy restrictions regarding what they can and cannot do. Governments are big and powerful, and they have lots of resources, and when freed from all the restrictions which determine what they can and cannot do, they become very dangerous.


INRM

 

[BeAChooser]

Yeah, only if you're going by, say, the legal definition of terrorism:

LOL! Shall we see what things democrats have claimed over the years were acts of terrorism and which I doubt you challenged even once *definitionally*? Or shall we just act sane and ignore the counting of angels on pins by State Department lawyers … lawyers like Napolitano? I'd hazard that AT LEAST 99% of Americans knew FOR CERTAIN at that point in time that this was an act of terrorism. But not Napolitano. Like I said, heaven help us.

Oh, and by the way, you gave the definition of terrorism that the State Department uses. But the FBI's is broader: "The unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of politial or social objectives." And the DoD's is even broader: "The calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." And the UN has an even broader one still: “An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets.” But most importantly, according to the ACLU, Section 802 of the USA Patriot Act has this definition for "domestic" terrorism (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism ):

A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

This act occurred primarily within the US territorial jurisdictionand clearly meets that definition. So yes, even back on May 2nd, Napolitano should have called this an act of terrorism without hesitation.

I also enjoy the idea that THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD is what Janet Napolitano calls the crime within a few days of it happening. Not the investigation, not the legal issues, just the words someone uses.

Words have power and significance, especially when they come from the head of Homeland Security. And speaking of words, Napolitano seems to choke on the word "terrorism". She's much more comfortable saying "man-caused disasters" (that's the term she recommended we use instead in mid-March of last year when she was appointed to her job).

Haha, so the problem with a guy we caught by monitoring phone calls is that we can't monitor phone calls…riiiiiight.

You don't get it. The secret programs that were in place under Bush and that were ended by leftist media leaks and democrat outrage would have monitored calls into and out of the country (especially from and to terrorist hotbeds like Pakistan and suspected terrorists like those this man was apparently in contact with) BEFORE the act of terrorism actually took place. And the government would have built a database linking phone numbers together BEFORE the act of terrorism so that once they had evidence of an impending attack and stepped in to prevent it, they could catch everyone involved. But noooooooo … democrats in their *wisdom* put an end to those programs. Since then, we've had one success after another by terrorists and the ONLY reason hundreds and hundreds haven't died is the incompetence of the terrorists and the actions (often brave) of ordinary civilians. The government leadership have had NOTHING to do with that.

 

[TraneWreck]

LOL! Shall we see what things democrats have claimed over the years were acts of terrorism and which I doubt you challenged even once *definitionally*? Or shall we just act sane and ignore the counting of angels on pins by State Department lawyers … lawyers like Napolitano? I'd hazard that AT LEAST 99% of Americans knew FOR CERTAIN at that point in time that this was an act of terrorism. But not Napolitano. Like I said, heaven help us.

Oh, and by the way, you gave the definition of terrorism that the State Department uses. But the FBI's is broader: "The unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of politial or social objectives." And the DoD's is even broader: "The calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." And the UN has an even broader one still: “An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets.” But most importantly, according to the ACLU, Section 802 of the USA Patriot Act has this definition for "domestic" terrorism (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism ):



This act occurred primarily within the US territorial jurisdictionand clearly meets that definition. So yes, even back on May 2nd, Napolitano should have called this an act of terrorism without hesitation.



Words have power and significance, especially when they come from the head of Homeland Security. And speaking of words, Napolitano seems to choke on the word "terrorism". She's much more comfortable saying "man-caused disasters" (that's the term she recommended we use instead in mid-March of last year when she was appointed to her job).



You don't get it. The secret programs that were in place under Bush and that were ended by leftist media leaks and democrat outrage would have monitored calls into and out of the country (especially from and to terrorist hotbeds like Pakistan and suspected terrorists like those this man was apparently in contact with) BEFORE the act of terrorism actually took place. And the government would have built a database linking phone numbers together BEFORE the act of terrorism so that once they had evidence of an impending attack and stepped in to prevent it, they could catch everyone involved. But noooooooo … democrats in their *wisdom* put an end to those programs. Since then, we've had one success after another by terrorists and the ONLY reason hundreds and hundreds haven't died is the incompetence of the terrorists and the actions (often brave) of ordinary civilians. The government leadership have had NOTHING to do with that.

This doesn't deserve a point by point response.

1) There is a difference between the casual use of "terrorism" and the legal use.

2) Even under the broader definition, convicting someone of terrorism requires the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, facts about the motivations for the act. At this point it seems highly likely that it was an act of terrorism. Thus, qualifying "terrorist" with "likely" or "probable" is a responsible way to describe the suspect in a nation where one is innocent until proven guilty.

3) Words do not have all that much power, it turns out. That's mostly something silly people say when they want to become outraged over silly things.

And before you throw a tantrum about that one, note I did not say words were POWERLESS, but compared to the fact that law enforcement has captured, interrogated, and will now commence with trying and punishing this individual, Napolitano's very reasonable words mean very little.

4) Show me the law that was changed. Explain why law enforcement was incapable of obtaining a FISA warrant on this individual based on his ties to Pakistan. They didn't listen to every phone in the world under Bush, they targeted specific communications. Not much has changed structurally (to Obama's great discredit) and even before the Bush era laws, the FISA courts liberally granted warrants.

You have all your work ahead of you. Find the law passed under Obama that restricted law enforcement's ability to monitor this individual.

5) Take a deep breath.

 

[barrymore]

All of the domestic terrorists out there are offended by Napolitano because she does not consider them full-fledged terrorists They are really going to be angry now.

 

[BeAChooser]

1. How is it that Napolitano is the issue

Because Napolitano is head of DHS (or should we say DHI, after 4 successful terrorist attacks in the US since Obama took office). And because this isn't the first time Napolitano has demonstrated she's out of her league and/or clueless.

But since you brought it up, I agree that Holder certainly shares some blame for the incompetence we see from the Obama administration in this and other cases. He should go too.

2. There is no question that New York got lucky again, with an incompetent attacker. I invite you to rent the movie Nighthawks, with Rutger Hauer and Sly Stallone. Sure, it's all Hollywood and such, but there are a few core points that they got right, back in 1981, about terrorists and terrorism. It is set in New York City.

Saw it.

The terrorist has the initiative, every time.

No, I think Bush's administration proved that doesn't have to be the case. But then democrats got involved and through leaks and politically motivated outrage succeeded in taking the teeth out of what the government could be doing on a preventative basis. Which is why we are now stuck waiting for the next one. And one of these times, the attack isn't going to be "failed", as Obama put it. And lots of Americans are going to needlessly die.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You don't get it. The secret programs that were in place under Bush and that were ended by leftist media leaks and democrat outrage would have monitored calls into and out of the country (especially from and to terrorist hotbeds like Pakistan and suspected terrorists like those this man was apparently in contact with) BEFORE the act of terrorism actually took place.

Facts assumed in absence of evidence. Might or might not.

And the government would have built a database linking phone numbers together BEFORE the act of terrorism so that once they had evidence of an impending attack and stepped in to prevent it, they could catch everyone involved.

You assume this guy would have left more tracks. Assumption in absence of evidence. As it was he left a few tracks. We don't do Minority Report yet, is that where you want to go?

But noooooooo … democrats in their *wisdom* put an end to those programs. Since then, we've had one success after another by terrorists and the ONLY reason hundreds and hundreds haven't died is the incompetence of the terrorists and the actions (often brave) of ordinary civilians. The government leadership have had NOTHING to do with that.

While the incompetence, both of this clown and the twits up in Michigan, domestic version, were factors in attacks not happening, I am curious by how you get "one success after another" for the terrorists.

Can you list them, since 9-11? I am interested to see what you consider a success.

Do you consider the Fort Hood attack to be related to this Pakistani, and the guy on the plane with his underwear?

More to the point, is Bill Clinton behind the whole thing? Are you setting us up for the big reveal, Inspector Clouseau?

DR

 

[BeAChooser]

Well, without debating the merits of constant call monitoring, how do you propose that you "monitor" calls to Pakistan? There are a quarter of a million Pakistani Americans in the US, not to mention other business/random calls to Pakistan--it's like finding a needle in a haystack the size of the Empire State Building.

Do you know how fast computers are?

 

[abenja1]

Abenja,



So you're okay with the government collecting every piece of information that they can learn about you without any good reason, and intruding into every aspect of your life?



And according to the ACLU, The UK is considered an endemic surveillance society.



I don't recall saying that. I think I might have said something to the effect that if the US government was freed from it's restrictions, and people lost all their rights that the country would be potentially more dangerous to its own people than any external threat.

I did not say that China had a better human rights record than the US



Why not? It's the framework from which the United States was founded on, and it's basic function was to prevent abuse of power by separating powers so that no one group has all the power, and imposes limits on what the government can and cannot do (to prevent said abuse of power)



I would not say I didn't care about the Constitution back then, the truth is, though, that I probably would not be as concerned about our civil rights if they were not under constant assault under the Bush administration, and are still being attacked under the Obama administration.



I'm not trying to fear-monger, I am seriously concerned about the erosion of our civil-rights. Without civil rights, our government could potentially be far more dangerous to us than our enemies.

Look at the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin (and China under Mao Tse Tung). Their governments had no regard for the most basic of rights for their people, and as a result their people were terrified of their governments, the country was a miserable place to live in, and for good reason. Their governments did whatever they wanted to their people whenever they wanted with absolutely no restriction at all.

Governments in my opinion should have heavy restrictions regarding what they can and cannot do. Governments are big and powerful, and they have lots of resources, and when freed from all the restrictions which determine what they can and cannot do, they become very dangerous.


INRM

Did I ever say I was? Don't put words in my mouth? I would hope you know that that is intellectually dishonest. As people have explained here before, the type of storage is quite impossible. Again, you're just against progress. Do you not know without government you wouldn't have your computer?

My statement about the UK was merely how you are wrong about NYC being a police state. And thank you for proving me right.

No that's why you didn't respond. You and your CT ilk like to continually cry foul about how America abused the system and destroys civil rights blah blah. And my response is, if its really that bad you have the option to leave and go live in China or Iran or another country where people are truly oppressed.

I like how just quoted that one part to make it seem like I said "Don't ever quote Constitution." What I said was "Don't quote the Constitution because you're being disingenious about quoting it." Just like "fighting the power" was the hip thing in the 60s and 70s, being a Constituion whore as I call it is now the trendy thing. And I do believe you are a Constitution whore. The worst thing someone could do against the Constitution is have the audacity to say what the Founders would've wanted. You don't know what the founders would've wanted. I don't know what the founders would've wanted. The only people who have a smidgen of authority to do that is Constitutional scholars, lawyers, etc. So just stop being disingenious with the document please.

Oh come on. As I said before, you didn't care about it then, you don't care about it now. You just jumped on the Constitution bandwagon because its the hip thing to do.

No stop it. Again you're being disingenious. You are fear-mongering. You're telling use we are going to loose our civil rights and become slaves. That's fear-mongering. BTW, in Soviet Russia, there were people who were murdered right on the street in broad daylight in view of hundreds of people. Has that ever happened here?

If in a month from now, nothing happens from this incident that relates to limiting civil rights, will you admit you were wrong?

 

[BeAChooser]

You will be amazed how many crimes are stopped because of alert citizens.

That's not the point. If we are going to have to depend on alert citizens every time, why do we need DHS and Napolitano?

 

[barrymore]

Do you know how fast computers are?

Can they analyze conversations spoken in Pashto or any of the other various Pakistani languages?

 

[BeAChooser]

Uhhh... should I point out the little fact that the system did work, at least in part, because the suspect was actually caught?

You and Napolitano.

So you think that just because the fuze failed and the bomber used the wrong fertilizer, the system worked?

Like I said, folks, heaven help us with this sort of thinking by those in power.

 

[Toke]

I recall one great "success" in anti-terrorism where the US and Russians cooperated in hiring a weapons dealer to smuggle an AA rocket from Russia to the US.
The anti-terrorist angle were toned down a bit when it became obvious there were only the one hired involved.

http://byeways.net/webreadings/readingcontent/1WORLD_web/212.htm

 

[BeAChooser]

1) There is a difference between the casual use of "terrorism" and the legal use.

There is also a difference between those who think terrorism is *just another crime* and those who don't. And, by the way, the definition in the Patriot Act isn't a "casual" use of the term. It's law. Nor are the definitions in use by the FBI, DOD and UN.

2) Even under the broader definition, convicting someone of terrorism requires the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, facts about the motivations for the act.

But that doesn't preclude Napolitano from calling it what it was ... terrorism. Which is the point, not whether it's been proven in a court of law already.

At this point it seems highly likely that it was an act of terrorism.

LOL! You just can't help it, can you. It's ingrained.

Thus, qualifying "terrorist" with "likely" or "probable" is a responsible way to describe the suspect in a nation where one is innocent until proven guilty.

She didn't say "likely" or "probable". She said "could be". Which suggests considerably more doubt than she should have had.

3) Words do not have all that much power, it turns out.

You are wrong, otherwise lawyers wouldn't fight so much about them. In fact, a Presidency can hinge on the definition of a little word like "is".

Explain why law enforcement was incapable of obtaining a FISA warrant on this individual based on his ties to Pakistan.

You STILL don't get it. The purpose of the Bush era programs (the ones that democrats revealed and stopped) was to discover unknown terrorists before they act … not just to listen in on conversations of known terrorists. Once you discovered a suspected terrorist, then of course you would seek a FISA warrant to do a full monitoring. But the purpose of those programs in question was to identify would be terrorists … especially ones that were getting help from al-Qaeda.

Not much has changed structurally (to Obama's great discredit) and even before the Bush era laws

You are wrong. What was identified by many as the single most importance tool in our anti-terrorism efforts (and the most highly classified program in the US government) was outed by the leftist NY Times and then stopped due to the outrage the leftist media and leftist Congresscritters raised for political purposes. And then they also revealed and eliminated our most effective means of interrogating hardened terrorists. And, instead of trying to capture and interrogate terrorists to learn about other plots, Obama policy has mostly shifted to killing them (preferrably at a distance using Predator drones). The loss of intel is staggering.

5) Take a deep breath.

Well let's hope everyone continues to get to breath after the next terrorist attack in the US, which it appears the Obama administration is unlikely to stop.

 

[BenBurch]

I am pretty much a hard liner when it comes to terrorism, and I find BAC's rants to be silly.

Ditto. Silly *and* offensive.

 

[BeAChooser]

Facts assumed in absence of evidence. Might or might not.

It's already been revealed that he received bomb-making training from al-qaeda/taliban terrorists in Pakistan during that year he was out of the country and then made phone calls to Pakistan (one just before he boarded the plane to leave the US).

You assume this guy would have left more tracks. Assumption in absence of evidence.

Want to take a bet he was in contact with Pakistanis off and on? Authorities have stated that

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/03/officials-reportedly-foreign-plot-times-square-car-bomb/

Sources say that evidence includes international phone calls made by the person of interest, who has not been identified publicly. The Associated Press identified the person as a man of Pakistani descent, citing unnamed law enforcement sources.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050400192.html

The complaint says Shahzad told federal agents that he received a series of phone calls from Pakistan after purchasing a 1993 Nissan Pathfinder used in the attempted car bombing.

Any one of those phone calls might have led to his capture BEFORE he succeeded in lighting that fuze in Times Square.

I am curious by how you get "one success after another" for the terrorists.

Because except for their own incompetence, those efforts would have killed many people. And despite being incompetent, they did manage to get people and explosives past US defenses and attempt to set them off. That's nothing for Obama to cheer about.

Do you consider the Fort Hood attack to be related to this Pakistani, and the guy on the plane with his underwear?

Those are two of the cases. And if you don't think the guy on the plane with explosive underwear wasn't serious, why has the government made such drastic changes in inspection procedures and would like to use very revealing imaging devices? Hundreds if people almost died.

 

[BeAChooser]

Can they analyze conversations spoken in Pashto or any of the other various Pakistani languages?

LOL! Do you think computers can only understand *english*?

 

[TraneWreck]

You STILL don't get it. The purpose of the Bush era programs (the ones that democrats revealed and stopped) was to discover unknown terrorists before they act … not just to listen in on conversations of known terrorists. Once you discovered a suspected terrorist, then of course you would seek a FISA warrant to do a full monitoring. But the purpose of those programs in question was to identify would be terrorists … especially ones that were getting help from al-Qaeda.

So that's no, you have no idea how the laws have changed. Shocking.

You are wrong. What was identified by many as the single most importance tool in our anti-terrorism efforts (and the most highly classified program in the US government) was outed by the leftist NY Times and then stopped due to the outrage the leftist media and leftist Congresscritters raised for political purposes. And then they also revealed and eliminated our most effective means of interrogating hardened terrorists. And, instead of trying to capture and interrogate terrorists to learn about other plots, Obama policy has mostly shifted to killing them (preferrably at a distance using Predator drones). The loss of intel is staggering.

What has changed? Find me the actual laws. Legislative authority is not vested in the media.

I'm not even going to get into the "enhanced interrogation" nonsense. This will suffice to demolish that horse-crap:

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/03/29/100329crbo_books_mayer?currentPage=all

Now I'll wait for the ad-homs on the author and fables about electrodes that stopped nukes from going off under central park.

Well let's hope everyone continues to get to breath after the next terrorist attack in the US, which it appears the Obama administration is unlikely to stop.

Oh noes, the bad men in caves are coming!!

 

[BeAChooser]

So that's no, you have no idea how the laws have changed. Shocking. ... snip ... What has changed? Find me the actual laws. Legislative authority is not vested in the media.

You don't even have a clue what I'm talking about, do you.