Posted on 04/12/2005 11:13:26 AM PDT by prairiebreeze
WASHINGTON - Three suspected terrorists on Tuesday were indicted on charges that they targeted financial buildings in New York, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., in a plot that prompted federal authorities to raise the terrorism threat assessment level in the area last summer.
A four-count indictment unsealed Tuesday accuses Dhiran Barot, Nadeem Tarmohammed and Qaisar Shaffi of scouting the New York Stock Exchange and Citicorp Building in New York, the Prudential Building in Newark, N.J., and the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in the District of Columbia. The three men, already in custody in England, were charged with three conspiracy counts and providing material support to terrorists.
Described as senior al-Qaida figure U.S. officials claim that Barot is a senior al-Qaida figure, known variously as Abu Eisa al-Hindi, Abu Musa al-Hindi and Issa al-Britani, who scouted the financial targets in the United States at the behest of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Prosecutors say the men conducted surveillance on the buildings between August 2000 and April 2001, including video surveillance in Manhattan around April 2001.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
But but but .. this can't be
The Dems said these plots aren't real and are to just scare folks and score political points for Bush ... / s>
But don't just throw him into a briar patch!
Feather him too!
&&
LOL!
Hangin's too good for 'em!
Now I'll have the stupid "Zip-a-dee-doo-dah" ear worm the rest of the day.
Sorry, you're mistaken.
I have it on good authority that the three gentleman in question are Norwegian Presbyterians.)
Gee, and I thought those elevated terror alerts were concocted by Bush to scare people into voting for him. </sarcasm>
I want to know how they entered the country originally to scout the financial targets. Where is the answer to that important question?
CONDUCTED A SURVEILLANCE? That could be anything. How do they know that they weren't just participating in the stock exchange? They could be guilty of stealing information needed to make a fortune off of stock holders or something like that but terrorism is jumping to conclusions. There is no indication of terrorism here....how absurd we are sometimes. However, if there was clear evidence that they planned violence, then they have something.
Last time I checked TERRORISM meant inflicting TERROR not just fear
I'd hate to stop your imagination from running wild but the news article doesn't mention any verifiable information with regards to terrorism plans. Maybe they were planning terrorism, maybe they weren't.
Did you read the full article? The surveillance had been going on for 4 years. Planning to inflict terror. They were arrested on terrorism related charges in Britain.
Prosecutors don't tend to level charges without significant evidence. Just because it wasn't all laid out in an MSNBC.com article doesn't mean they have no evidence.
Now you're just being trollish.
Shoot them.
After information has been extracted from them by any and all means.
"possessing reconnaissance plans for the U.S. institutions and notebooks containing information on explosives, poisons, chemicals and related matters "of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism."
Maybe these were going to be used for terrorism. But with the information we get from reading the article, there's an equal chance that these were intended for blowing open a vault or being used for sabotage. Did they say anything about notes or recorded messages stating or even subtly indicating their terrorist intentions in the article? I don't see any there.
"Prosecutors don't tend to level charges without significant evidence. Just because it wasn't all laid out in an MSNBC.com article doesn't mean they have no evidence."
Of course they don't. But reading one MSNBC.com article doesn't automatically make us judge and jury. Innocent until proven guilty, it's the American way! Right?
But that's just because they've already hauled away the dead bodies.
I am being skeptical
And let's try to agree that being charged with three conspiracy counts and providing material support to terrorists isn't just a misdemeanor that some over-zealous prosecutor decided to throw against them on a whim. There is enough supportive evidence of the charges or they wouldn't have been accused.
No, you're being trollish.
Nevermind, forget about everything I said. Those were probably just needless omissions. No point in battling a spectre.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.