« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Thwarted New York Terror Plot: How Serious Was It?
So what happened with that failed plan to bomb synagogues here in New York City? Was it a serious, well-organized terror plot, or more like a repeat of the Liberty Six?
First, here's what we know:
Four men, all Muslims living in Newburgh, New York, were arrested last night in what authorities said was a plot to bomb two synagogues in the Bronx and to fire Stinger missiles at military aircraft at an Air National Guard base in Newburgh.
The men -- James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen -- were petty criminals who had met in prison. They do not appear to have been acting in concert with any larger terrorist group. All are native-born Americans, except for Payen, who is Haitian.
There's no doubt the men expressed violent sentiments towards Jews and others, and a desire to commit large-scale terror acts. According to the complaint, at one point during the planning, Cromitie said: "I hate those motherfuckers, those fucking Jewish bastards ... I would like to get [destroy] a synagogue." In that same conversation, he also said, referring to the Twin Towers: "The best target was hit already."
Separately, during the planning, Onta Wiliams said, in substance, "they [the US military] are killing Muslim brothers and sisters in Muslim countries, so if we kill them here with IEDs and Stringers it is equal." And David Williams (it's unclear whether the two are related) said that if Jews were killed "it does not matter."
But it's not clear whether these men would have carried out any terror plot without encouragement and material support from an FBI informant. The New York Times reports that "a federal law enforcement official described the plot as "aspirational" -- meaning that the suspects wanted to do something but had no weapons or explosives."
Indeed, the complaint paints a picture of a plot in which the FBI informant played a central role from the start. The informant met Cromitie, the apparent ringleader of the plot, last June at a Newburgh mosque. Cromitie told the informant that his parents had lived in Afghanistan, that he was upset about the US killing Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that he would like to do "something to America." Soon after, the informant falsely told Cromitie that he (the informant) was a member of the Pakistan-based terror group Jaish-e-Mohammed. Cromitie said he too would like to join, in order to "do Jihad."
From there, the plot began to slowly take shape, with the informant playing a central role throughout. The informant helped to procure fake homemade bombs, and accompanied the men in obtaining a surface-to-air guided missile system and three IEDs. The informant also accompanied the men in buying handguns for use in the plot.
So based on what we know, it looks like the suspects had definite intentions to follow through on their ambitions to commit violence -- but whether they had the wherewithal and resources to have done so without the help of the informant is less clear.
Josh
Zachary
This article comes across as anti-Semitic. I am not Jewish, and that is my opinion. I gather Zach is not in the New York area, so ignorantly doesn't know the sensitivity of this subject and how it is not wise to report on all that is published in the New York Times.
When I was in Middle School nearly 30 years ago Swastikas were spray painted on the neighboring Great Neck North High School facade. High School was closed and not opened until the Swastikas were removed. Before the school was closed most students already had arrived at school, and broke down into tears. Grief counselors were brought-in. A majority of those students were in the U.S. because their parents and grandparents fled Hitler's concentration camps; they also had relatives that were amidst the 7.5 million Jews slaughtered.
The New York area has a very large Jewish population, and the law enforcement agencies, particularly the FBI (higher educations) has a proportionate number of Jews as is apart of the population. Here, plots to commit criminal acts against synagogues are taken as seriously as southern church burnings. This is a job well done because if it hadn't been an FBI agent stepping forward to get the explosives, the Muslim men would have gone on looking until they found someone who could provide the explosives. The FBI needed to move in on the men before the men could discover they were provided fake explosives and the FBI agent's cover be blown. Congratulations to the FBI that had someone who could play the role of wannabe terrorist so well to deceive the Muslim men!
Law enforcement seeks to serve and protect. The most recent terror plot foiled in the New York area shows the FBI is being aggressive about protecting. It is sniffing-out our wannabe domestic terrorists and foiling their plots before they can come to fruition and loss of life and property damage be realized. The New York Times article just proves that "no good deed goes unpunished." If the FBI hadn't done this and the Muslim men had succeeded, the New York Times would have criticized the FBI for not having foiled he terrorist plot. Hence, the NY Times just has it out for the FBI, and the FBI can do no right in the NY Times'opinion.
The main reason why the NY Times is going bankrupt is because it hasn't learned a very valuable lesson: Anyone can criticize and it is very easy to criticize. The better person is the person who makes the time and has the cognitive thought to compliment when a compliment is due. If I look around at the other New York metro area newspapers on better financial footing, I suspect I will find they extended the compliment that is due New York's FBI!
May 21, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"This article comes across as anti-Semitic. I am not Jewish, and that is my opinion. "
I do have Jewish ancestry and for the life of me can't see what you find anti-semetic in Zach's article.
Since you don't cite any particular writing in the piece that led you to your opinion, I can't judge your analysis though.
You do write as though Zach Roth and the NYT are being "critical" of the FBI's proactive methods of rooting out would be terrorist's, and although I didn't read the Times piece, Zach Roth's didn't contain any criticism of the FBI that I could detect.
It's helpful for me to remember that advocating being super aggressive at finding those inclined to do harm to the US while still being very realistic and even skeptical about what the real averted dangers are when bad thinkers are discovered aren't mutually exclusive.
Do I think the danger is great enough to fund and pursue this type of investigation? Yes. Do I think the FBI took the appropriate actions in leading these folks on past their own organic capability to verify the extent of their willingness to do harm? Yes. Do I think these people should be punished? Yes. But that doesn't mean I think an actual attck was thwarted by this law enforcement activity, there is scarce evidence pointing to that, and I'm glad that that is being factually reported. That certainly doesn't make me a self hating jew.
I do wonder how many half baked plots to do harm to the US would emerge if FBI agents scoured the prisons and seedy redneck bars for those willing to shoot/blow up stuff when furnished with guns, bombs and ammo.
May 21, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Depends on the President. If the President is a frightened little man like Cheney, I mean Bush, then the next Armageddon was thwarted. If the President is an enlightened and reasoned individual like Obama, then a pathetically lame plot was simply revealed.
May 21, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
There seems to be a thin line dividing roles of FBI informants, providing tips on potentially dangerous crimes, and agents-provocateurs, who actively set-up fall guys for politically advantageous busts and prosecutions. Would this plot have taken shape without the machinations of the "informant"? Were these men capable of carrying out the plot had they hooked up with a real contraband weapons supplier, instead of FBI undercover agents? How many others are walking around out there with militant hatred that specific?
May 21, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
San Fran Curt asks:
Curt, this looks like entrapment; the "informant" obviously encouraged them, then described weapons to them that he had access to and they ordered them from the informant's menu.
May 21, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd call the case "liberty six PLUS"
I imagine the FBI was embarrassed by the liberty six so they simply upped it a notch. they guaranteed that it was more "operational than aspirational" by pushing things along and supplying actual/dummy bombs, just to make it a little more scary for the public when arrests were to be made.
this is nothing new for the FBI, though, as they often specialize in quasi-entrapment cases if not outright entrapment. you can probably name other cases, but this new one reminds me of the "Auburn Three". these "anarchists" were offered a free house to live in, that happened to be well-equipped with FBI recording gear. and then "Anna", a paid FBI informant (provacateur?) pressured the three over and over and over about bombing or destroying various corporate and governmental installations, challenging their activist/revolutionary commitments, until the three finally relented and agreed to do so. once they said "yes" they were arrested, with the whole thing on videotape. two of the three then plea to bogus charges and turn on the third even though it was the informant who pushed the entire plan from the start
the FBI is in the business of *creating* terrorists out of whole cloth. they seek out weak-minded people, stir them up, and then arrest them as if these jokers were a threat to anybody or ever would be in any real sense without FBI involvement. they did the same thing to Malcom X's daughter, about 15 years ago. it goes on and on, now often with a 9/11 twist
don't believe the hype when the FBI is supplying the bombs
May 21, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, but "turn on the third" was to link to this
May 21, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
A Republican (Bloomberg) running for re-election; a terror plot (consisting of wannabes strung along by the FBI) thwarted.
Sound familiar?
This also happened during Bloomy's last re-election campaign.
May 21, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, in 2005 it was Bloomberg claiming an imminent plot to blow up the subways, which even Homeland Security doubted.
http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=propoganda/terror-threats/2005/sybway-terror-plot-uncorroborated.txt
May 21, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Classic entrapment. Find hapless disgruntled souls and opportunistically stoke their inadequate egos with visions of power (or money in the case of drug case entrapments), then guide them in the development of a plan, facilitate the acquisition of materials and bust them with a big splash. These cases are manufactured by law enforcement for political effect. They use them to prove the presence of evil in our midst, make us afraid, and advertise their efficiency at catching the bad guys. Its all a charade, does nothing to improve security (or reduce drug trafficking) and its pathetic.
May 21, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Simple entrapment. I guess the Prison Industrial Complex likes this kind garbage.
They could equally find some poor white rural folk to entrap.
May 21, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
...the Muslim men would have gone on looking until they found someone who could provide the explosives.
That’s something of a canard. Assuming these wannabe jihadis are smart, resourceful and determined -none of which I would take as a given- they would still have considerable difficulty acquiring explosives and constructing an actual device.
The question being asked is: If not for the FBI informant and their actions, where would the “terrorists” be today? Judging by initial news reports: no substantive threat. These men could have easily obtained handguns or other small arms without the help and encouragement of the FBI…yet they never showed any real initiative on their own behalf.
The current case differs from the Liberty Six mostly in that it lacks the ridiculous elements of the latter case: like the “terrorists” practicing karate and soliciting cash, uniforms and combat boots from a government agent. Now, I’m not saying that the people in question are totally undeserving of scrutiny from law enforcement. But spare me the breathless news reports of a failed plot that’s 90% of the FBI’s own making.
May 21, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to know the educational background of the Liberty Six, and also this current gang of 'aspirational terrorists' arrested by the FBI, using an undercover provocateur.
I doubt if the FBI tries to pull this kind of terrorist sting on many PhDs.
May 21, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since J Edgar Crossdresser was placed in charge of the Newly hatched FBI in 1935, their record has been one of mixed success. Combined with genuine crime fighting science developments, they have a long' sordid history of PR overhype.
They were good at gunning down obvious rebels during the depression, a la John Dillinger and "Baby Face Nelson" and they did help suppress the KKK and Nazis during the 30s & 40s. He/They also denied the existence of "organized crime" no matter how ludicrous it became, they spied on American citizens who didn't match absurdly tight-shpinctered concepts of patriotism and who, among the Boomers, could forget CoIntelPro during the 60s & 70s.
I've never believed even half of the hype and it seems I was being generous. I concur that this stinks of entrapment, which is SOP for our modern, Mighty G-Men. They apparently never had a clue about how to proceed in the Anthrax investigation. It makes me wonder at the instant success the FBI had when it came up with all of the names and a detailed history of the 9/11 hijackers, within a very few days, if I recall it rightly.
I believe they can be fairly good at catching tax cheats. After all, the original Bureau of Investigation arose from the Secret Service. When it comes to dashing spy stuff and catching terr'rists,though, each new case seem more buffoonish than the last. That is, if Chuckie, the Slasher Doll can be seen as buffoonish.
I shudder to think what kind of holdovers, or burrowers in today's terms, may still be lurking. These ass clown tried for three years and over $200 million to just install a computer network in the late 90s and FAILED miserably.
May 21, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 1993 NYTimes story is interesting, but your inferences from it are at the most extreme end of the spectrum. Even the informant you mention didn't accuse the FBI of plotting the WTC bombing, but only of bungling a chance to prevent it. The article itself says the transcripts don't establish that the FBI even knew that WTC was the target -- only that a bomb plot was afoot.
The fact that William Kunstler, a great and courageous attorney, was willing to make your inference for the purpose of defending the WTC bombers is, to say the least, neither here nor there. Defense lawyers are in the business of raising exculpatory possibilities, no matter how implausible.
May 22, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was no plot until the "informant" created it.
This is just more Manufacturing Crime for political (and self-supporting) purposes. The "informant" was a provocateur, plain and simple.
We should be careful to understand the difference between a lightning rod and a lightning generator.
May 21, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least the FBI has stopped doing actual bombings via its agent provacateurs.
The first World Trade Center bombing, in 93, was entirely an FBI operation. If you don't know that, you don't remember things, because it was published first on the front page of the NYTimes on Oct 28 1993, and reprinted in nearly every paper in the US.
Search for "Emad Salem Ralph Blumenthal" if you want to refresh your memory. This info came out of the trial record, and was available because Salem recorded his conversations with his FBI handlers. Kunstler found out about those tapes, forced them into the trial record.
Salem was paid $1 or $2 M for his efforts (I read both in different places), a big chunk of it after his testimony.
The OKC McMurrah building was almost certainly the same scenario: The agent provacateur was Andreas Strassmeier. The FBI had several informants in the White Aryan Nation group, the BATF at least one other. Strassmeier worked for one of them, I never heard for sure who.
In any case, anyone who trusts the FBI's accounts of these things is very gullible.
May 21, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember, if the FBI can give fake bombs and missles, it can give real ones. And given the FBI's long history of direct and indirect involvement in provocations and murders, it's all a matter of the politics of the moment and whose ox they want to gore.
May 21, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny how these plots get busted at seemingly opportune times to make certain 'figures' look justified in spouting their idiocy.
May 21, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
This article is really horseshit journalism. What kind of journalist writes: "Separately, during the planning, Onta Wiliams said, in substance, "they [the US military] are killing Muslim brothers and sisters in Muslim countries, so if we kill them here with IEDs and Stringers it is equal."
Either he said it or he didn't. If it's only the "substance" of what he said, it shouldn't be in quotes.
Journo-terrorism rears its head!
All that aside, these guys sound like real assholes.
May 22, 2009 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
L0ngT0m,
The characterization of what Onta Williams said is directly quoted from pages 10-11 of the criminal complaint:
During that discussion, ONTA WILLIAMS stated, in substance, "they [the United States military] are killing Muslim brothers and sisters in Muslim countries so, if we kill them here [in the United States] with IEDs and Stingers, it is equal."
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20090520-bomb-plot-arrests/complaint.pdf
May 22, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recall a story about twenty years ago about Black Panthers on trial for violence, or conspiring violence. The reporter recounted how one of the defendants was astonished when he saw that the prosecutors' main witness was an FBI informant who had joined the group and, at meetings, was the most vociferous in pushing for committing violent deeds. Everyone seems to want to give law enforcement heroic status--as if it weren't another special-interest organization willing to aggrandize itself on the backs of the innocent. Recall that many prosecutors are unwilling to review convictions in the light of DNA--no matter how many innocents it may affect: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/us/18dna.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&emc=eta1
May 22, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
DLD, just saw your comment. Just so you know, I live in New York City, and I'm Jewish. I'm aware that there are a lot of Jews in New York, and that anti-semitism exists, thanks. Probably better not to assume next time.
May 22, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what always happens to the law enforcement industrial complex. We throw tons of money at something -- right now it's Islamic terrorism -- and then law enforcement goes crazy trying to make cases. This is not only wasteful but dangerous. Haven't these people read about the boy who cried wolf?
May 22, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink