|
||||||||||||||
Posted on 06/11/2002 7:06:16 AM PDT by MississippiMan
'Dirty Bomb' Suspect Not Cooperating, Wolfowitz Says
Tue Jun 11, 8:39 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A suspected American al Qaeda operative accused of plotting a radioactive "dirty bomb" attack on the United States has not yet given authorities information on his associates, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said on Tuesday.
|
||||||||||||||||
"He came into this country with the intention, by various means, not just the dirty bomb idea, of killing hundreds and maybe thousands of Americans," he said on CBS' "The Early Show."
Detained by the FBI ( news - web sites) in Chicago on May 8, al Muhajir was declared an "enemy combatant" by President Bush ( news - web sites) over the weekend and transferred to a naval brig in South Carolina.
But Wolfowitz said the former gang member had not provided information to investigators.
"To the best of my knowledge he hasn't cooperated at all so far," Wolfowitz said on NBC's "Today Show."
"He clearly had associates and one of the things we want to ask him about is who those associates were and how we can track them down," he added on CBS.
Wolfowitz said it was clear to investigators, however, that al Muhajir had had "a great deal of contact" with the al Qaeda network of Saudi exile Osama bin Laden ( news - web sites), and that "he was clearly taking a great deal of instruction."
Authorities said on Monday al Muhajir had trained with al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan ( news - web sites) and was in the planning stages of launching a so-called dirty bomb attack, which combines a conventional bomb with radioactive material, somewhere in the United States.
Washington blames bin Laden's network for the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington that killed about 3,000 people.
Wolfowitz said al Muhajir apparently planned to get radioactive material for the bomb from somewhere within the United States.
"This man actually thought he could get them from places like university labs," he said. "I have no idea how difficult that would be but there is nuclear material around in a lot places."
The New York-born Jose Padilla, 31. who changed his name to Abdullah al Muhajir, was being held by the Defense Department as an "enemy combatant," which under the rules of war allows him to be held until the end of the conflict and questioned without an attorney present.
Civil rights groups like the American Civil Liberties Union ( news - web sites) have criticized the detention and said he should be tried in U.S. court.
"What we're about here is preventing," Wolfowitz said. "Preventing him from doing further acts, preventing those about whom he may have knowledge from doing further acts."
If authorities decide to prosecute al Muhajir he will be transferred back to civil courts, Wolfowitz said.
Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American-born Saudi national detained in Afghanistan, is a second U.S. citizen known to be held by the Defense Department.
John Walker Lindh, another American captured while fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan, is facing trail in a federal court in Virginia. He is in the custody of the Justice Department ( news - web sites).
Wolfowitz spoke from a spot outside the Pentagon ( news - web sites) where one of the hijacked airliners crashed Sept. 11, to note that workers had almost completed reconstruction efforts.
Poised to lay the final piece of limestone, he said officials planned to also place a time capsule to honor those killed in the attack.
"It's also a way of honoring the incredible determination and resolve of the workers who put this building back together so quickly," he said on CBS.
"I think its symbolic of the resolve of the American people to prevail over people like Abdullah al Muhajir."
No you're not. You've avoided my logic at all costs and have tried to bring into the discussion facts not in evidence.
| Padilla | John Doe #2 |
|---|---|
 |
 |
You assert that they have no credible information and therefore are not releasing it. You are committing the Fallacy of Distraction known as the False Dilemma, although instead of providing two options, you merely provide one. I present another option: They know much more than they are revealing. This is a common attribute of most criminal investigations. It is done to a) Prevent the case from being compromised, b) Prevent the prospective juries from being colored by opinion and inadmissible fact, and c) To apprehend additional conspirators.
COINCIDENCE???????
I can tell you with absolute certainty that this material would be easy to steal (and in sufficient quantities). Security at many of these sites is non existent.
One imagines this will improve, and soon.
No, I'm saying that they admit publically that they have no credible evidence and that the man is not "cooperating" in giving them any. You're trying to assert that Wolfowitz might not be telling the truth: Facts not in evidence.
There is no logical reason for Wolfowitz to make such claims about their lack of evidence if it weren't true.
Your premise is that they admit publically that they have no credible evidence. Could you kindly provide me the citation where they state that they have no credible evidence?
I already have. Have you read this article at all? Perhaps you should before making unfounded arguments.
He clearly had associates and one of the things we want to ask him about is who those associates were and how we can track them down," [Wolfowitz] added on CBS.
He "clearly" has associates but they don't know who they were. Bizarre.
First the guy was arrested over a month ago. Second, he's not being charged yet.
Everyone knows any DA can bring charges against someone on something like obstruction or possible flight risk. Here we have a guy who is walking away from proveable meetings with Al-Qaeda and training camps in central asia and the line is they cant hold him. Thats a little bothersome.
I think this guy is a flight risk and a traitor. Its a proven fact that Al-Qaeda has used detainee's to gather information on the US prison system, so there has to be other ways besides standard incarceration to hold him i.e. military detention. But when people start making arrest policy for American citizens without precedence it does leave some unanswered questions.
I have seen no post by you in which they state they have no credible evidence.
Your primary premise is baseless.
I stridently disagree with the US holding this individual without charging him, unless the President has suspended habeus corpus without my knowledge.
Then you didn't read my last post. Willfull ignorance eh? He's "not cooperating." They don't need any cooperation from him if they had evidence that he had committed a crime.
I read your last post. No where therein contained did any spokesperson of the United States of America state that they had no credible evidence.
Your primary premise remains baseless.
Absurd. Law enforcement personnel attempt to get cooperation from even the most clearly guilty people.
And no where did anyone who spoke on behalf of the United States government state that they had no credible evidence. You asserted that they did. Your assertion has been shown to be false.
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.
