|
||||||||||||||
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."
I've never said anything of the sort. If you "know" this, then you have an active imagination.
I strongly object to this. Unless the President has suspended Habeas Corpus -- which I have not heard having occurred -- then it is imperative that they charge him or release him.
This, however, does not release you from the two logical faults you have engaged in during this conversation.
It actually proves my point. If they had evidence, they could easily charge him with a crime, cooperation or not. They admit that they have no evidence with which to do so.
It proves nothing of the sort. All it proves is that they are not abiding by the rules of the Constitution.
They admit that they have no evidence with which to do so.
You have failed to present any admission thereof by any spokesperson of the United States government. Repetition of your false premise will not make it any more true.
No I don't. I oppose the government from arresting people without any evidence that they have conspired with anyone or committed a crime. That constitution thingy is a good idea contrary to many "conservative" objections to its limitations lately.
Let us be clear about what Conspiracy is. You must express interest in committing a crime, then you must take ONE ACTION that is in concert with the interest you expressed. Talking about something is no crime. We could discuss a bank robbery all day long and never commit a crime. But the first time we bought supplies to that end, cased the bank, rented a car, whatever -- then we are guilty of Conspiracy to Commit.
Of course there is. Letting others believe he is cooperating would potentially harm other investigations especially anyone they are watching that was associated with the dirty bomber.
Oh yes we did. His due process rights were extensively and continuously violated in order to get to a speedy execution.
And no, I won't argue the point.
Its also possible the threat of being interned without access to normal legal avenues is part of the Bush incentive plan to get him to cooperate. My guess is the idea that you will be in jail for the duration of a war with no ending is a fairly strong carrot.
If I were Bush, I'd play as hard ball as I can with the terrorists while letting others come to my adversary support. Bush has proven himself to take the practical road over the principled road. Its a dangerous route.
Only valid if your only goal was to inprison this person. His cooperation is helpfull to catch others and reinforce those already in custody.
Yes, one imagines.
Don't hold your breath.
Logical fallacy. A therefore B.
As soon as they admit the courts have jurisdiction his rights kick in.
Actually conspiracy can be proven with far less information. So long as at least two people have a conspiracy even unwitting helpers to the original two can be charged with conspiracy. Once a conspiracy exists, the threshold of including participants is far lower because the participants don't need full knowledge just intent.
Your post made me think of a related question. Will the Red Cross be allowed contact ?
Punishable by DEATH.
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.
