home

The Holland Tunnel Case: Why Bust Now?

Two weeks ago, the FBI was crowing about the bust of some Miami terror wannabes who aspired to blow up the Sears Tower but couldn't acquire boots, explosives or even transportation to Chicago on their own.

Now it's the New York Holland tunnel plot. The FBI, Mayor Bloomberg, Port Authority and the NYC Police Commissioner held a big news conference to announce the arrest of a man in Lebanon believed to be leading the plot. The facts, as the New York Times notes, are these:

Federal and local law enforcement authorities identified the main subject of the investigation as Assem Hammoud, 31, a Lebanese man who was arrested on April 27 in Beirut and was still being held there. The locations of the other two men in custody were not revealed. The eight "principal players" planning the attack, the authorities said, had secured no financing, had gathered no explosives and had not visited New York -- or even the United States -- to conduct surveillance. At least one of the planners has been in Canada, the authorities said.

At least one American official said the members of the group had never even met one another. "There was a lot of discussion, there was planning being done; but there was no indication that there was any movement toward these facilities," Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said yesterday. "There is no indication that materials were secured or that specific reconnaissance was done." ...Officials said Mr. Hammoud would likely be tried in Lebanon and that no charges were pending against him in the United States.

What gives? One issue for discussion is whether the FBI and local law enforcement should be arresting people pre-emptively for intended acts rather than waiting until they have committed an overt act in furtherance of their illegal objective. We went through this umpteen times with the Patriot Act and "the wall" between intelligence agencies and law enforcement, which for good reason in my view, prevented the two from sharing information.

Ashcroft insisted on tearing down the wall. As a result, intelligence agencies are passing information -- internet chatter, really -- onto the FBI and law enforcement who are acting outside their traditional functions by arresting people before their acts amount to a crime.

I can already hear your arguments: Should they wait until they have blown up the Sears Tower or Holland Tunnel to act? Of course not. But, there's a world in between. That world is called an "overt act" in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The crime at issue is conspiring to provide material support to terrorists. Or conspiracy to blow up a building or a tunnel through the use of explosives or weapons of mass destruction.

Conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act. It doesn't matter if the unlawful act is committed or not. All that is required is proof of the agreement and (except for federal drug crimes) an overt act in support of the illegal agreement.

In the Miami case: I don't see how swearing allegiance to al Qaeda is an overt act, and allegations of driving someone to a meeting or to buy a battery for camera to take a picture of a building is a stretch. So is asking for combat boots. A good take on the Miami case is here.

In the Holland Tunnel case, the information is more limited, but I don't see an overt act there either. Why couldn't they wait until the alleged perpetrators had actually done something in furtherance of their objective, like shop for explosives, request money -- even come to the U.S. for a meeting? FBI Agent Mershon said,

"They were about to go to a phase where they would attempt to surveil targets, establish a regimen of attack and acquire the resources necessary to effectuate the attacks, and at that point I think it's entirely appropriate to take it down."

They should have waited to arrest until they did made an actual effort to do one of those things. Otherwise they are charging people for just talking.

The cynical part of me believes that the Holland Tunnel bust is related to the Administration's planned defense of its warrantless NSA program. It's one way of telling the American people the government must have access to all of our emails, phone records and internet usage to catch terrorists.

Monitoring of Internet chat rooms used by Islamic extremists led to the arrest of Mr. Hammoud, according to Lebanese authorities. At least one American official said the members of the group had never even met one another.

For more reading on why we need the wall, check out the Rockefeller Report on the Church Commission, particularly the findings and recommendations beginning here. (a pdf version is here.)

< N.C. Senate Comm. Approves Innocence Commission | Bag Searches Now Routine on NYC Subways >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: The Holland Tunnel Case: Why Bust Now? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 01:09:22 PM EST
    The Holland Tunnel Case: Why Bust Now? Because it's the season, the election season. Expect more of this. How much difference is there between talking in a chat room about how you like OBL and talking on TL about how you think that GWB poses a greater threat to the US than OBL?

    Re: The Holland Tunnel Case: Why Bust Now? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Punchy on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 01:47:03 PM EST
    I didn't know you could arrest someone for mearly talking about terrorist acts. I'm betting that buried in the Patriot Act II is some provision that if a brown-skinned person mearly clicks a photo of the Wash Monument, it's an arrestible offense. Wow does THIS precendent set a path for abuse: "Your Honor, I heard him talking about bombs...hence the arrest and redition..."

    Re: The Holland Tunnel Case: Why Bust Now? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 02:39:09 PM EST
    Punchy - Let's take this to a few more logical connection conclusions. From the highest levels, down to the individual private security contractor/employee, the system is based on increased profit by increased threat ot fear. The govt has to go through too much red tape to conduct legal surveillance but it's completely legal for private business to engage, entrap, manipulate, monitor or otherwise gather 'intelligence and sell it to the govt. How much of the threat assessment that's acted on by govt law enforcement is genuine and how much is for other reasons?

    Re: The Holland Tunnel Case: Why Bust Now? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 07:51:59 PM EST
    Just another example of the schizophrenic approach. No measures against terrorism are permissible except those related to law enforcement -- but no law enforcement that is actually effective is permitted, either. For the record: the material was made public because a newspaper revealed it before the investigation was completed. They're getting what juice they can from the dregs. Also for the record: I would be willing to exempt New York City and environs completely from any anti-terrorist efforts -- that is, if the investigation turns up anything related to NY it will be abandoned. The land will be valuable once the Islamists have cleared out the moonbats. Regards, Ric

    Re: The Holland Tunnel Case: Why Bust Now? (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 07:56:43 PM EST
    They're getting what juice they can from the dregs.
    Yes, seeing that this is very old news the administration is milking it for what it is worth, which is not too much.

    Re: The Holland Tunnel Case: Why Bust Now? (none / 0) (#6)
    by desertswine on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 08:08:42 PM EST
    At least one of the planners has been in Canada, the authorities said.
    CANADA? Those danged Canadians. We must build a wall!

    Re: The Holland Tunnel Case: Why Bust Now? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 08:23:14 PM EST
    Isn't it odd that with all these security issue's a chatroom is now a meeting grounds for people who want to make life miserable for many Americans.What does that say.Is it possible to assume that Certain ISP's might have given the government permission to seek out terrorists who use internet chatrooms to recruit Al Queda Members inside the US. It's quite possible to assume something like this is already planned to throw many Americans off guard while the real terrorists the Bushlicans loot the treasury a leave many Americans wondering what the hell happened.

    Re: The Holland Tunnel Case: Why Bust Now? (none / 0) (#8)
    by aw on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 11:50:05 PM EST
    I would be willing to exempt New York City and environs completely from any anti-terrorist efforts -- that is, if the investigation turns up anything related to NY it will be abandoned. The land will be valuable once the Islamists have cleared out the moonbats.
    Some guests just don't have any manners.

    Re: The Holland Tunnel Case: Why Bust Now? (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 04:46:02 AM EST
    The land will be valuable once the Islamists have cleared out the moonbats. How is that not a troll?

    Re: The Holland Tunnel Case: Why Bust Now? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 08:25:42 AM EST
    I'd expect the FBI or whoever to watch the suspects for as long as possible before moving in on them. Do they have any *real* AQ contacts, or are they just wannabees that only the FBI is interested in? The latest bit with the chatroom terrorists looks like somebody in the White House needed some good news, and decided to sacrifice this operation. Where have we seen this before?

    Re: The Holland Tunnel Case: Why Bust Now? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 10:08:46 AM EST
    ric constantly says 'for the record' yet never offers links of that record. Why is that do you suppose?

    Re: The Holland Tunnel Case: Why Bust Now? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 11:00:57 AM EST
    Two U.S. intelligence officials said that so far, no evidence indicated that the alleged co-conspirators were about to enter an operational phase -- as some U.S. and Lebanese authorities have said in recent days -- or that they had even decided to go forward with the plot.
    "There have been suggestions that this was a lot further along than it was," said one of the U.S. officials. "The bottom line is that there may have been less here than meets the eye."


    Re: The Holland Tunnel Case: Why Bust Now? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 11:38:38 AM EST
    I would be willing to exempt New York City and environs completely from any anti-terrorist efforts -- that is, if the investigation turns up anything related to NY it will be abandoned. The land will be valuable once the Islamists have cleared out the moonbats.
    Once again wrongwingers call for the deaths of millions of innocent people, including women and children. And yet TL and others think Frisch needs an abject apology from all of us for one person's remarks. We should all go to Goldstein's site and demand he apologize for Ric Locke's comments. BTW, TL, how about banning him? Unless advocating the deaths of all New Yorkers is OK with you, I mean you condemned one commenter on jeffy's site that none of us would ever have seen, yet seem OK with the fact that this is standard discourse for wrongwingers. BTW, I don't mind that you delete my posts with factual links and reasoned response, but it is odd that the post I was responding to is still left up and had no links and wrong facts.

    Re: The Holland Tunnel Case: Why Bust Now? (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 11:57:36 AM EST
    Bein one 'a em Neeeuw Yorkers mah self, I take a little more exception to crypto-Klansman's wishes to "clear the place of moonbats", but then, maybe Im being overly sensitive: you know how we p.c lefties are with our "speech codes" and such.