1
   

Terror war a bust, or is it?

 
 
au1929
 
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 09:32 am
Terror war a bust

Stats inflated: study

BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Federal authorities' strategy of arresting terror suspects on any charge possible has proved effective in thwarting attacks, but too often prosecutors have inflated the importance of the busts, a new study says.
"The strategy of disruption has worked, but they hyped these cases to be more than what they seemed," said Karen Greenberg, author of the study by New York University's Center of Law and Security.

"It leaves their record of prosecuting the war on terror unconvincing," she said yesterday.

Of 510 cases since the Sept. 11 attacks that the government said were terrorism-related, only 30% of the defendants were actually prosecuted on a terrorism charge, the NYU study found. Most of the others faced charges such as fraud, racketeering or conspiracy.

While 169 cases are still pending, only four people charged since the 2001 attacks were convicted for trying to commit an act of terrorism, the study said.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the report "reflects the underlying premise of our strategy to prevent and disrupt terrorists before they can carry out what they may be conspiring to do, by using any and all tools at our disposal in the U.S. code."

Terror prosecutions have declined from a spike in the three months following the 9/11 attacks, when 116 people were indicted. Only 57 have been indicted in 2006.

The NYU study found that only 14% of the defendants were tied to Al Qaeda. Of the 510 defendants, more than half had "no known affiliation" with any terrorist group.

Justice officials said that suggests homegrown terror is a bigger threat than many realize.

Material support for terrorism was the most common charge in cases where a defendant was slapped with a federal terrorism offense - but only 30% were convicted. Officials noted, however, that the pending cases skew that statistic.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who led probes of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, said the strategy has worked. But he said when the feds oversell a case's terror ties, it's "woefully unproductive [because] it tells the bad guys that we don't know what we think we know."

The report also found that no sleeper cell with "logistical or tactical links to Al Qaeda" has been uncovered in the U.S.

Originally published on December 6, 2006

I suppose that the administration works on the premise that if you cast a big enough net you are bound to catch some fish. Would you as the caption suggests call the terror war a bust????
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 387 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 10:24 am
Local authorities cast a big net sometimes by sending out notices to wanted criminals every now & then & tell them that they should come to so & so place to pick up their winning, could be tickets to bowl games, a new TV, whatever, The wanted go to the designated place & get nabbed. Works locally, why not nationally.
Too early to tell if the war on terror is a bust.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 10:27 am
It's a bust, because you can't win wars against emotions or things.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 10:43 am
A war of or on emotions can't be won, I agree, a war on things, can be won.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 10:46 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
A war of or on emotions can't be won, I agree, a war on things, can be won.


Nope. Wars are between countries, or at least large groups of people.

Terror is an emotion. A tactic. Can't win war against an emotion.

Drugs are things. Can't win a war against things. Can't even call it a 'war.'

The entire problem with the 'war on terror' is that we decided to call it a war...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 10:51 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
A war of or on emotions can't be won, I agree, a war on things, can be won.


Nope. Wars are between countries, or at least large groups of people.

Terror is an emotion. A tactic. Can't win war against an emotion.

Drugs are things. Can't win a war against things. Can't even call it a 'war.'

The entire problem with the 'war on terror' is that we decided to call it a war...

Cycloptichorn

Things, IMO, are headquarters, cities, that sort of thing. It has worked before. Terrorists are people, not things & they can die.
I agree on the war on drugs, also war on poverty, those are things that can not be won.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 10:55 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
A war of or on emotions can't be won, I agree, a war on things, can be won.


Nope. Wars are between countries, or at least large groups of people.

Terror is an emotion. A tactic. Can't win war against an emotion.

Drugs are things. Can't win a war against things. Can't even call it a 'war.'

The entire problem with the 'war on terror' is that we decided to call it a war...

Cycloptichorn

Things, IMO, are headquarters, cities, that sort of thing. It has worked before. Terrorists are people, not things & they can die.
I agree on the war on drugs, also war on poverty, those are things that can not be won.


It isn't that I don't think we can address terrorsim, or poverty or drugs, just that it is a mistake to call it a 'war' against them.

Sets up the wrong dynamic in the minds of people. Attacks the problem from the wrong angle....

Cycloptichron
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 11:05 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
A war of or on emotions can't be won, I agree, a war on things, can be won.


Nope. Wars are between countries, or at least large groups of people.

Terror is an emotion. A tactic. Can't win war against an emotion.

Drugs are things. Can't win a war against things. Can't even call it a 'war.'

The entire problem with the 'war on terror' is that we decided to call it a war...

Cycloptichorn

Things, IMO, are headquarters, cities, that sort of thing. It has worked before. Terrorists are people, not things & they can die.
I agree on the war on drugs, also war on poverty, those are things that can not be won.


It isn't that I don't think we can address terrorsim, or poverty or drugs, just that it is a mistake to call it a 'war' against them.

Sets up the wrong dynamic in the minds of people. Attacks the problem from the wrong angle....

Cycloptichron

Ah, well I agree that war on poverty, drugs, etc should not be called wars, it belittles real wars (military type) however, a war on people that wish to & do inflict harm on us is a war, IMO, although not the conventional type war.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 12:22 pm
The article covers just one aspect of the "terror war," the intranational police effort. It's misleading to judge the entire "terror war" on that singular aspect, which I think is probably the most effective method to thwart terrorist threats on US soil. There are other aspects of the "terror war" that, as evidenced by recent history, have been ineffective and irrelevant, like the invasions and occupations of foreign countries.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Terror war a bust, or is it?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 10:48:07