|
||||||||||||||
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."
"Normal" legal avenues is his right.
Arrest doesn't mean you can't defend yourself.
Duration?!
Of a never-ending illegal "war?"
And you're proud that your President can ignore principles?
If that's a qualification, Clinton is better than Bush.
"...his rights kick in?!"
The civil courts already have jurisdiction.
The military tribunals are un-Constitutional.
That's the same reason that we have "detainees" instead of prisoners. If we had prisoners, we would have to follow the Geneva Convention rules regarding prisoners of war.
We're playing a word game that technically makes our leaders war criminals.
The terrorists are not initiating force.
In their eyes, they are responding to our attack.
As for the "singing," anybody can break.
It doesn't take a coward.
If Clinton was still in power, you would be speaking to the choir.
Now you're just a tin-foil wearing conspiracy nutcase.
Amazing how much our government changed with a Republican administration.
Military courts are not an option.
Civil courts have jurisdiction.
We aren't fighting on our terms.
Our terms would require a declaration of war.
By making war without a declaration,
we are both waging an illegal war and prolonging the danger.
No it's not.
Prescient, the executive, legislative, and a disinterested judiciary contradicts you.
You're right, the 13th century despots who rule brutally over them and their tyrannical mullahs that keep them angry and ignorant initiate the force. And just like a whipped dog, they live in fear and strike out in fear. The piece of crap from Chicago will demonstrate their true nature. He was willing to 'bravely' kill tens of thousands of infidels out of fear. But I think he'll sing like a canary to avoid being alone in prison for the rest of his miserable life. That's who they are inside…
I don't believe Bush would ultimately prevail in keeping this man without filing charges at some point soon. That being the case I am surmising that Bush knows this. If he does know this then I see the reason for announcing it may be more in the nature of both a deterrent to others and a threat to get cooperation.
My mistake. As a citizen he has rights. What I should have said is his rights to discovery kick in.
Wrong! the 42 case is on target, even under the UCMJ this slimebucket would get to see an attorney in 48 hours. Its the rules of evidence that are different.
Right… 'History shows' that the same Retaliatory force used on members of the group which declared war on us and attacked us is going to be used internally on people like homeschoolers. I can't find those chapters. Can you give me all those examples?
BS! One doesn’t' have to declare war to have to take emery combatants prisoner. There's precedent. We didn’t declare war be cause of inappropriate rules that would have would have restricted our ability to prosecute the war.
No, I do not feel that it worth my effort. The fact that you are here at FreeRepublic inclines me to think that you should have seen enough examples already.
I assume that you are young. If you are a sensible person you will see it in time, or perhaps not.
Pray that you don't finally see it when it's too late.
" Right… 'History shows' that the same Retaliatory force used on members of the group which declared war on us and attacked us is going to be used internally on people like homeschoolers. I can't find those chapters. Can you give me all those examples? ""Sigh.... No, I do not feel that it worth my effort. "
What a phony reply.. Posturing like a child, "No, I don't feel like doing the impossible today." Paranoid psycho BS …
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.
