Bush's label as this case as a "major crackdown on terrorists" has been demolished again.
Yesterday, one of 7 men accused of trying to blow up a Sears tower in Chicago was acquitted. As for the other six, the jury was deadlocked and a mistrial was declared in the prosecution of them.
These people, known as the "Liberty City Seven," often gathered in a rundown warehouse in Miami, but never attained any weapons or threatening equipment. However, officials on the other hand wanted "pre-emptive terrorism precaution." They first became under suspicion in 2005 when a man contacted the FBI to report suspicious activity (he claimed they asked him for help in contacting Al Qaeda).
Was this charge justified? Does this hurt the Bush reputation any further? What can we learn from this? What will the verdict be?
So is this the crackdown on terrorism?
Full Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/us/nationalspecial3/14liberty.html?bl&ex=1197954000&en=2058e2ee314d1264&ei=5087%0A
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I think that the charge on the "Liberty City Seven" of a pre-emptive terrorist strike is a positive step in Bush's fight on terrorism. However, it may have been too early of a call and made the Bush administration look a little nervous. Even though one of the "Liberty City Seven" was acquitted, it doesn't mean that this was a failure to fight terrorism, it's just not as successful as people may have thought. I think that Bush is taking smart steps to prevent further terrorist attacks on the US and he deserves a little credit if any.
From what I remember hearing when this story first broke, the Liberty City Seven were just a bunch of losers who drew up a terror plot in their basement, without any real ability to actually carry out the plot. The fact that we have these idiots in jail but have pretty much given up looking for Bin Laden is very sad. The Liberty City Seven, no matter how devastating their plot would have been if they had ever been able to carry it out, are nothing compared to the thousands of actual terrorists with real "weapons and threatening equipment" still at large in the Middle East, so I don't know how this could really be described as a crackdown on terrorism.
It was a good idea to target these seven men because of the suspicious activity, but to charge them this early was stupid. From the article I read there was absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing by these men. There was some hearsay, that's it. I think it would have been a better move if the government waited a little longer to try and catch the seven men doing some illegal activity, like purchasing illegal weapons. But since the men were tried this early, the government has no evidence against the men and we'll probably never know if these men were terrorists or not.
I agree that it seems a little early and that they don't have that much evidence to charge them. But i also think they it is better than taking a chance. An important reason for learning history is to learn from our mistakes- not taking action earlier before 9-11. And since we don't want another terrorist attack, it is better to be safe than sorry.
I agree it was not very smart to charge these men too early of such crimes. Yes we want to prevent terrorism rather than fix the results, but i think if we get too happy on accusations, the US will just look bad. Especailly now that the US looks like they don't have it together, it will be easier to disprove any terrorism related cases. I hope Bush isn't really calling this stuff a 'major crackdown' because it's just making him look worse. Unless he wants to leave his presidency with a big bang to demonstrate his failures, I think he should stop now. He has already done enough damage to his public image.
This step towards fighting terrorism seems like a positive one although with no evidence to actually charge Liberty City Seven of anything it also draws out the "waste of time" argument. Depending on where you stand on the Bush administration, this could just be another waste of time or a positive step towards better national security.
I don't really like the idea of preemptively charging people with crimes but if they can show that these men really intended to cause harm to others then I think it is ok.
First I'd like to post a link to a cartoon I found representing one idea:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://bp2.blogger.com/_dnHz8QkkiaI/RmoMmvPMHoI/AAAAAAAAAY0/9F5A6bD0g9c/s400/9-7-01.jpg&imgrefurl=http://discerningtexan.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html&h=303&w=400&sz=41&hl=en&start=17&um=1&tbnid=Lki8JXPkb3SP_M:&tbnh=94&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhomegrown%2Bterrorism%2Bcartoon%26ndsp%3D21%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
(just click on 'see full sized image')
This cartoon presents the idea that America really should be more aware of potential terrorist attacks. While the administration may get criticism for being too safe, maybe it's better than not being safe enough. I know this isn't the same thing, but I do know that whenever I'm on some kind of trip with some kid of program, they'll be overly safe, sometimes not letting participants do things that they should be able to do for safety precautions. Yes, maybe this is a little too much, but I do believe that being a little "too safe" isn't as bad as not safe enough (notice that the newspaper says Sep. 9, 2001).
And yet, I don't know if such policies should be as harsh as this. Here's the other cartoon I found:
http://www.inkcinct.com.au/Web/CARTOONS/2005/2005-675-anti-terrorism-policies.gif
I think this cartoon is pretty clear as it points out how aggressive America is in its defense of our country, and that is something that should be seriously considered. Where the line is? I don't know...
Oh and for the comment above, although you may not be able to see the whole links to the cartoons, you can highlight the full link.
Well, I don't know where the line is either, but I do think that ideas can be as dangerous as the action itself. If the seven of them really were working together for that goal, even if they couldn't complete it, the intent was still there, and I think thats pretty dangerous. Granted, normal people have dangerous thoughts too, but if a group of people share it, it way more likely that it will get carried out.
Preemptively catching these men is a smart move, after all, isn't preventative action better than reactive action? Better to get them now than get them after they blow something up. Unfortunately, that also means that there isn't any evidence against them. It may have been a better decision to simply watch them very closely until they did something truly illegal.
To tell the truth, I thought that this was a step in the right direction. However, the fact that it took about 3 years to actually comprehend these men is worrisome. Unless they thought asking for help to contact Al-Qaeda wasn't enough evidence to arrest them, I would have at least taken them in for questioning.
I don't think this would hurt Bush's reputation any further, unless he denies them constitutional rights and tortures them. This may actually help Bush's reputation because now, he might have actually caught potential terrorists who were targeting metropolitan areas. Whether or not this is true is up for debate, but at least Bush has something to show for all those strict anti-terrorist rules and legislation.
I think the pre-emptive charges are rediculous. Is it illegal to meet in a warehouse? Pretty soon they're going to start enforcing thought crime. In my opinion, the only way to effectively end terrorism is to fix the problem where it starts: the U.S.'s foreign policy. If the Bush admin. wasn't so trigger happy and imperialistic, America wouldn't be so hated world-wide.
To Eddie --
September 11 was not a response to Bush's "trigger happy and imperialistic" America.
While we complain that the Bush Administration is too aggressive, I distinctly remember not long ago when the government was criticized for not being aggressive enough.
Post a Comment