|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2002 : 18:40:16 [Permalink]
|
quote: Are you saying that you would rather wait until he had all his material together to arrest him?
No that's not what I mean at all. What I do mean is that perhaps the government was inflating the threat to make itself look better to the public.
"Nuclear Terrorist Thwarted" plays better in the media than "al Qaeda suspect arrested" and the media is all too ready to make a headline like that. Perhaps they can get radioactive material but it is not going to be easy to get the really dangerous stuff. I also question any time the government attempts to tie it's foes to al Qaeda in any way these days because it seems to tie all of them to that organization.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2002 : 02:40:51 [Permalink]
|
I don't think for, that Padilla is innocent. He is very likely working with the terrorists. I do even belive that he was working for what could have eventually lead up to a terrorist attack. It think that they did the right thing when they arrested him. And I don't feel very concerned about his rights.
My problem is that the threat of a Dirty Bomb was nowhewre as actual as some people would have us believe.
From an article on this, I found on CBSnews.com:
quote:
...
Attorney General John Ashcroft and other U.S. officials said Padilla was allegedly plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty" bomb in the U.S., probably in Washington D.C.
But CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart reports some U.S. officials now admit they're not sure what Padilla's plans were when he returned to the U.S. last month. And any plot, including possibly exploding a radiation bomb in Washington D.C., was in the "initial planning stages."
But given what Padilla had trained for in Afghanistan, they expected the worst.
"He researched nuclear weapons and received training in wiring explosives while in Pakistan, and he was instructed to return to the United States to conduct reconnaissance operations for al Qaeda," said Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.
...
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2002 : 10:42:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
When the news of this came over the radio my wife predicted that within a day the same (news) people who were complaining that the CIA and the FBI had dropped the ball with 9/11 would be complaining that Brooklyn's own Jose Padilla a.k.a. Abdullah al Muhajir had been arrested and handed over to the military. And she was right (as usual). His status as a citizen is being confused with civilian. He's not a civilian, he's a member of the al Qaeda, a foreign military at war with the United States, and as such is covered by the WW II saboteur laws.
This sounds like a job well done by the F.B.I.
------- My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860
Funny, the issue I see is the lack of due process in way of not being allowed access to legal counsel while in FBI custody is at question. Not his arrest or detention. By the way, the military allowed access to legal counsel. Well done FBI on the capture. Poorly done on the due process while in custody. It's a red letter day for the Fourth Amendment. And Ashcroft even referenced a case where people were transferred into military custody while getting due process.
Also, @tomic, the "dirty bomb" is basically nuclear waste (easiest access is medical nuclear waste. Worst stuff radioactive Cesium, half life 30 years) wrapped around explosives in order to irradiate a large area with radioactive materials redering it uninhabitable and kill potentially thousands over a long period of time due to contact with the contamination.
Much easier to construct as it would have no fissionable explosive force. This is a simple concussive force to contaminate as large an area as possible. Immediate body count: variable and due to concussion rather than radiation. Long term: thousands possibly millions if detonated near or on a resevoir over a long period of time due to radiation poisioning.
Cthulu/Asmodeus, when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2002 : 07:31:51 [Permalink]
|
It seems I am not alone in my opinion.
From the Boston Globe:
quote:
Defusing the hype surrounding 'dirty bomb' By Mark Jurkowitz, Globe Staff, 6/13/2002 Within 24 hours of the dramatic news of a thwarted plot to detonate a radioactive device in the United States, the media began wondering whether a ''dirty nuke'' bombshell was something of a dud.
Attorney General John Ashcroft's announcement Monday of the arrest a month ago of Abdullah al- Muhajir triggered front- page headlines and scenarios about the consequences of a radioactive explosion. The three network newscasts devoted a total of nearly 20 minutes to the story on Monday night, and CNN's ''Crossfire'' asked: ''Could a potential dirty bomb be rolling through your neighborhood?'' Seeing an irresistible news hook, the Center for Strategic and International Studies briefed reporters Monday on the results of a simulated radiological blast scenario in Washington.
But by yesterday, coverage had turned considerably warier. USA Today led its front page by citing concerns that ''Attorney General John Ashcroft overstated the potential threat posed by the `dirty bomb' suspect Abdullah al-Muhajir.'' The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd - a barometer of skepticism, if not cynicism - said: ''Both the bad guys and good guys are playing with our heads and ratcheting up the fear factor.'' The Globe quoted a former CIA official as saying, ''The facts of the story don't merit the hype given to it.'' Associated Press stories asked ''whether the threat ... posed was initially exaggerated to deflect attention from questions about terrorism-related intelligence failures.''
''It's hard for both the media and the government. We're truly in a new environment now,'' said Marvin Kalb, director of the Washington office of Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.
Kalb said news organizations initially responded appropriately to Ashcroft's announcement. ''I don't think the press went overboard,'' he said. ''The government went overboard, and the press went along for the ride.''
For the media, the dirty-bomb story recalled a series of terror threats cited by top administration officials last month.
And a dilemma remains: How do news outlets report on potentially serious threats without desensitizing the public and without being exploited by either the good guys or the bad guys?
Citing ''the weekly drumbeats of new threats,'' Hurst Hannum, a professor at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, said, ''The media is open to manipulation by two sources - terrorist sources and the administration ... We are not suddenly under siege from everyone.''
Larry Sabato, a media analyst and a University of Virginia professor, said: ''There have been so many warnings about so many things that most people are not taking any of it seriously anymore. If it's not the subway, it's the bridges. If it's not the bridges, it's the airports. If it's not the airports, it's a dirty bomb.''
A number of observers acknowledged that at this point in the post-Sept. 11 world, news outlets have little choice but to relay - on Page 1 and at the top of newscasts - new terror warnings and developments from government officials. The key, they say, is to burrow deeper.
''After you report the facts as they've been delivered, you also need to report on what we don't know,'' Sabato said. Hannum added: ''The media has overall done a good job, but I think they could use a bit more investigation and less merely reporting White House press statements.''
Hodding Carter III, president of the Knight Foundation which focuses on journalism, said he is pleased by the follow-up stories, which took a harder look at the dirty-bomb plot.
''The government itself often operates with half-information and first-time assumptions, but there's no need to be cowed,'' he said. ''I think the recovery has been exactly what you would have hoped, saying, `Wait a minute, wait a minute.''''
From anotherarticle I just found on the web:
quote:
Dirty bomb alert was over the top, White House admits By Gay Alcorn, Herald Correspondent in Washington June 14 2002
Faced with accusations that the dirty bomb plot announced this week was exaggerated for political purposes, the White House is now acknowledging that the threat was minimal.
An alarmed Bush Administration has reprimanded the Attorney- General, John Ashcroft, over his remarks, according to a leak to the USA Today newspaper.
Mr Ashcroft, in announcing the detention of Abdullah al Muhajir, said that authorities had "disrupted an unfolding terrorist plot to attack the United States by exploding a radioactive dirty bomb".
The next day, the Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, softened this, saying: "I don't think there was actually a plot beyond some fairly loose talk and [Muhajir's] coming in here obviously to plan further deeds."
The White House has released no evidence of a dirty bomb plot, saying only that Muhajir had suggested to al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and Afghanistan a radioactive attack and conventional strikes. He was then allegedly sent to the US to scout for targets.
Law enforcement officials told USA Today they doubted whether Muhajir, a US citizen who was born Jose Padilla, had the equipment or know-how to develop a dirty bomb, in which conventional explosives are wrapped with radioactive material.
Mr Ashcroft also appeared to overstate the likely impact of such a bomb, saying it could cause "mass death and injury". Experts assured jittery Americans that the number of deaths would probably be small, and that the greatest impact would be panic.
Administration officials rejected suggestions by some Congress members that the timing of Mr Ashcroft's announcement had been designed to bolster President George Bush's proposal for a new Department of Homeland Security and to neutralise criticism of the FBI and the CIA.
"These very few people who want to make such an outlandish political accusation represent the most cynical among the most partisan," the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said. "And they're not to be taken seriously."
The announcement of Muhajir's arrest at O'Hare Airport in Chicago on May 8 was delayed for more than a month.
The Democratic majority leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle, said there "may have been a rush to bring it before the news media" to counter the recent criticism of the CIA and FBI for failing to anticipate the September 11 attacks.
The Democrats are very cautious about criticising the popular President over his handling of the war on terrorism, for fear of a public backlash.
The White House has declared Muhajir an enemy combatant, meaning he is denied the right to a lawyer or a trial, and can be held until hostilities end.
The US does not believe that it has enough evidence to prove the dirty bomb charge and is fearful of compromising intelligence sources.
Edited by - Lars_H on 06/14/2002 07:38:30 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2002 : 14:38:26 [Permalink]
|
Just one last commentary and then I will shut up on the topic.
Bob Park also talks about the Dirty Bomber in his What's New column. He summarized how I see the situation fairly well.
quote:
DIRTY STORY: IF YOU CAN'T CLASSIFY IT, CREATE A NEW HEADLINE. On Sunday, FBI screw ups prior to 9/11 were on every talk show. By Monday, congressional committees were fighting over who would get to hear the first public testimony from FBI whistle- blower Coleen Rowley. The White House urgently needed an intelligence success. So what are news managers for? On Tuesday, it was announced that Abdullah al-Muhajir, described as the key figure in a plot to explode a dirty bomb in Washington, DC, had been arrested at O'Hare International Airport. Failures of the FBI vanished from the news. Lucky timing? Not exactly. Muhajir, a US citizen, had been arrested a month earlier, and was secretly held in a military prison, without charges, until he was needed. The media did the rest, feeding on the public's exaggerated fear of radiation – even pictures of mushroom clouds. President Bush was shown on television explaining that "Padilla is a bad guy." It's probably true, but then, that's why we have trials isn't it?
He also talks about some other stuff, where I find myself agreeing with him, like the classification of the missile defense project and the Bush Administration's reaction to the recent US-Climate Action Report.
|
|
|
MartinM
New Member
6 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2002 : 11:25:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Also, @tomic, the "dirty bomb" is basically nuclear waste (easiest access is medical nuclear waste. Worst stuff radioactive Cesium, half life 30 years) wrapped around explosives in order to irradiate a large area with radioactive materials redering it uninhabitable and kill potentially thousands over a long period of time due to contact with the contamination.
Much easier to construct as it would have no fissionable explosive force. This is a simple concussive force to contaminate as large an area as possible. Immediate body count: variable and due to concussion rather than radiation. Long term: thousands possibly millions if detonated near or on a resevoir over a long period of time due to radiation poisioning.
Don't believe everything you hear on the news - did you read the links PhDreamer provided? The dirty bomb is barely more dangerous than a standard explosive device. The greatest threat is mass panic, which is precisely what we'd get so long as people believe the kind of fairy story you've got hold of there. Low level radiation isn't all its' made out to be.
"But I don't work with proof. Proof doesn't mean a thing"
- Some Moron |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2002 : 20:34:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Also, @tomic, the "dirty bomb" is basically nuclear waste (easiest access is medical nuclear waste. Worst stuff radioactive Cesium, half life 30 years) wrapped around explosives in order to irradiate a large area with radioactive materials redering it uninhabitable and kill potentially thousands over a long period of time due to contact with the contamination.
Much easier to construct as it would have no fissionable explosive force. This is a simple concussive force to contaminate as large an area as possible. Immediate body count: variable and due to concussion rather than radiation. Long term: thousands possibly millions if detonated near or on a resevoir over a long period of time due to radiation poisioning.
Don't believe everything you hear on the news - did you read the links PhDreamer provided? The dirty bomb is barely more dangerous than a standard explosive device. The greatest threat is mass panic, which is precisely what we'd get so long as people believe the kind of fairy story you've got hold of there. Low level radiation isn't all its' made out to be.
Quite so. The other day on a radio talk show the host interviewed a local doctor who works at a major hosptial here in Los Angeles. The doctor said exactly the same thing. The fear would cause more problems than the bomb. I'm glad I don't watch much news or believe what I do hear, causes less stress. Just call me The Ostrich.
* * * * * * *Carabao forever. ----------------- Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they shall never cease to be amused. |
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2002 : 20:20:35 [Permalink]
|
Who cares if the threat isn't as bad as the press says? It's still a fucking bomb! Every possible method should be applied at stopping it's being detonated in the US regardless of how many rads you'd actually receive. "Well, it's just a thousand people, not like it's THAT many." What the fuck kind of mentality is that? If it's a bottle rocket and it's in the hands of a terrorist, it's a big deal. Not only that but it shows a much more grave capability; access to nuclear material used in dirty bombs is controlled by the same people that control the actual nuclear bombs. And they obviously are willing to sell out. Spent fissile material in a dirty bomb is just the first domino in obtaining full on nuclear weapons. In fact it's less of a leap for that same source to score both dirty material and bombs than it is for him to be able to get bio or chem weapons, as they are controlled through different channels than nuclear research.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
|
|
|