Once in a while
I do confess
I feel a sudden
and powerful urge
to lace 'em up
and just take off
Happy New Year
I wish I had a river
I could skate away on
I wish I had a river so long
I would teach my feet to fly
Oh I wish I had a river
I could skate away on
John Scarlett, who took responsibility for the error-ridden dossier that justified the war in Iraq, is knighted in today's New Year's Honours list. The award will enrage peace campaigners, who have accused the veteran spymaster of saving Tony Blair's skin over the flawed case for the invasion.Nor am I the only one who thinks this action is despicable.
...
Sir John, the head of MI6, played a key role in the Hutton Inquiry hearings into the death of the weapons expert David Kelly, three years ago. He steadfastly defended the dossier, which contained the notorious claim that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes. And he dismissed accusations he had bowed to pressure to "sex up" the document's conclusions.
As chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, he told the inquiry he had "overall charge and responsibility" for the dossier.
Sir John allowed last-minute changes that had the effect of strengthening its conclusions, leading Lord Hutton to suggest that he could have been "subconsciously influenced" by his political masters.
One crucial alteration was to cut the observation that Saddam Hussein was more likely to use chemical and biological weapons defensively than offensively - a change was made after Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's chief of staff, said the passage could pose "a problem" that could be seized on by anti-war critics.
The award of a knighthood to John Scarlett was described as "utterly astonishing" by MPs yesterday.and so on...
Sir John, who oversaw the production of the so-called "dodgy dossier" which claimed that Saddam Hussein could launch a missile attack in 45 minutes, is made a Knight Commander of the Order of St George in the New Year honours.
But Angus MacNeil, SNP MP for Na h-Eileanan An Iar, said Tony Blair had shown "breathtaking arrogance" in approving the award.
"John Scarlett has been awarded an honour for services to diplomacy. Services to creative writing might have been more appropriate," he said.
It is now clear that America’s moment in the Middle East is coming to an end. It has been a rather long moment — the United States has called most of the shots in the region since the 1960s — but recently it has turned into a classic case of imperial over-stretch. So we will soon find out if a strong American presence really was vital for all of those years to keep the oil flowing, keep the crazies from seizing power, and keep Israel safe.It's tempting to ask what Gwynne Dyer has been drinking, or even to assume we know what he's been drinking and to ask how long before New Year's Eve he got started. But let's not forget that Dyer is a military historian of considerable experience, a veteran of two navies, an observer who tends to take the high ground because of the long view it offers, and a man who likes to keep his powder dry.
All the speculation early this year about American military action against Iran to destroy its alleged nuclear weapons program now sounds preposterous; Iran will be the new great power in the Gulf, and there is nothing that the U.S. can do about it. Syria will do what it wants in Lebanon, confident that neither the United States nor Israel will intervene to stop it. The U.S. Navy will still hang around the eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf and Israel will still get lots of American money and weapons, but six months after President Bush leaves office in early 2009 there will probably be no American boots on the ground between Morocco and Oman.
A piece of ice larger than Manhattan has broken off the Arctic ice shelf at the northern edge of Ellesmere Island (the very northernmost part of Canada, next to Greenland). (zoom in a bit)Scientists have discovered that an enormous ice shelf broke off an island in the Canadian Arctic last year, in what could be sign of global warming.Why next summer? It's too cold at the moment; our ice is caught in a jam.
It is said to be the largest break in 25 years, casting an ice floe with an area of 66 sq km (25 square miles).
It occurred in August 2005 but was only recently detected on satellite images.
The chunk of ice bigger than Manhattan could wreak havoc if it moves into oil drilling regions and shipping lanes next summer, scientists warned.
"The Arctic is all frozen up for the winter and it's stuck in the sea ice about 50km (30 miles) off the coast," said Luke Copland, an assistant professor at the University of Ottawa.No offshore oil rig is a match for this iceberg. Nor is any shipping I know of.
"The risk is that next summer, as that sea ice melts, this large ice island can then move itself around off the coast and one potential path for it is to make its way westward toward the Beaufort Sea where there is lots of oil and gas exploration, oil rigs and shipping."
The ice break was initially undetected due to the remoteness of the northern coast of Ellesmere island, which is about 800km (500 miles) from the North Pole.A piece of ice larger than Manhattan moving a kilometer in an hour? Quite amazing indeed!!
Satellite images showed the 15km (9mile) crack, then the ice floating about 1km (0.6 miles) from the coast within about an hour, said Mr Copland, a specialist in glaciers and ice masses.
"You could stand at one edge and not see the other side, and for something that large to move that quickly is quite amazing," he said.
Condemned Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been executed by hanging, CNN International is Iraqi state television.
Post-Sept. 11 Air Security Programs Fail to Take Flightand so on...
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos | Sunday, December 24, 2006
WASHINGTON — Five years, millions of dollars and innumerable headaches later, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) still has not put in place the sophisticated terrorist screening facilities it promised to install at the nation's airports and ports after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
TSA officials have confirmed to FOXNews.com that Secure Flight, the terrorist screening program that would check passengers against a massive federal terror watch list, won't be up and running until the database is complete, and no deadline has been set for completion.
Jason Burke, writing for The Observer, has all the scary details.The Channel tunnel has been targeted by a group of Islamic militant terrorists aiming to cause maximum carnage during the holiday season, according to French and American secret services.Remember this.
The plan, which the French DGSE foreign intelligence service became aware of earlier this year, is revealed in a secret report to the French government on threat levels. The report, dated December 19, indicates that the tip-off came from the American CIA.
British and French intelligence agencies have run a series of checks of the security system protecting the 31-mile tunnel but the threat level, the DGSE warns, remains high. British security services remain on high alert throughout the holiday period.Remember this, too.
According to the French sources, the plan was put together in Pakistan and is being directed from there.
The plotters are believed to be Western Europeans, possibly Britons of Pakistani descent. The DGSE say that levels of 'chatter', the constant communication that takes place between militants, has not been so high since 2001. Last week Sir Ian Blair, the head of the Metropolitan Police, described 'the threat of another terrorist attempt' as 'ever present' adding that 'Christmas is a period when that might happen'.Of course it is. The threat of another terrorist attempt is always and we must always and everywhere remember this.
It is a far graver threat in terms of civilians than either the Cold War or the Second World War,' he said.Right. It's a far graver threat than the Second World War.
'It's a much graver threat than that posed by Irish Republican terrorism.'Sure it is. By the way, Ian, can you recall a single IRA blast that was not directly related to British "security" forces?
American security sources told The Observer that the threat was 'sky high'.Sky high, indeed. To infinity, and beyond!
Fans of the dead terrorist rock star Osama bin Laden, late of Osama And The Nineteen Patsies, will be pleased to learn their hero is the subject of a cartoon book which is doing very well in the stores this holiday season. It is either funny or tasteless, or perhaps it is both. One thing is certain, it is popular. A book in which the reader has to find a cartoon Osama bin Laden on crowded illustrated pages is emerging as a Christmas bestseller.How about a few trillion dollars? Can we try to find some of the money that went missing on 9/11? Or would that be too much fun?
The book chain Borders said yesterday that Where's Bin Laden was the best selling humour book of the year, with stocks selling out in record time.
It is based on the series of children's books Where's Wally, in which you have to find the bookish looking hero in various scenes, always involving hundreds of tiny characters.
In this version, published by New Holland, you have to find the al-Qaida leader and his henchmen. Sometimes there are weapons to find, such as a scimitar or a bundle of dynamite.
A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qae'da organization, stating that bin Laden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death.Whoa! Enough of this painful reality. Let's get back to the sellers of cartoon literature.
Borders said satirical books were outselling that other Christmas staple, the celebrity biography of which there seem to be more than ever.I wish I knew what made this book so funny. Are the readers, like your nearly frozen blogger, "laughing just to keep from crying", or have we lost our collective minds?
Borders also has no qualms about stocking a book some might see as being in dubious taste. Alistair Spalding, ITS marketing executive, said: "We believe in the basic right of our customers to choose what they want to read, listen to and buy. Our customers are intelligent, curious people who enjoy exploring all types of books, films, and music.
"Some of the thousands of books and music selections we carry and events we hold could be considered controversial or objectionable depending on individual political views, tastes and interests. However, Borders stands by its commitment to let customers make the choice."
Amy Tipper, fiction buyer, said: "We've already exceeded our original stock order of this book by 300% and by Christmas we expect that to have more than doubled. This has been our biggest humour book of the year."
The trial of Rashid Rauf is about to begin in Pakistan, where last week the formerly alleged ringleader and/or mastermind and/or explosives expert and/or al-Q'aeda connection of the currently alleged Liquid Bombers saw all of his terror-related charges dismissed.What with Bush's low approval ratings, the president and his administration could not count on Congressional Republicans to pass this Act just because Bush asked them to. So they ratcheted up the terrorism fear level and, six weeks before an election, forced the Republicans to rush through the Act in order to look tough on terrorism just before Americans went to the polls.The timing was very kind to the British as well, with Tony Blair teetering on and on, and his would-be successors bringing the knives into the open for the first time in many years.
And how did the Bush administration raise the fear level? Take a look at the Gallup Poll results relating to President Bush's handling of terrorism. In July of this year, more Americans disapproved of his handling of terrorism than approved. Four weeks later, there was a reversal and a majority approved of Bush's anti-terror performance. What happened in between?...the arrest of more than twenty suspects in a terrorist plot in England that was aimed at destroying ten airplanes.An alleged terrorist plot in England that was supposedly aimed at destroying ten airplanes (although we now know that destroying even one airplane with a so-called "liquid bomb" is quite impossible)
This incident was a perfect launch for the Bush administration's pre-election Be Afraid of Terrorists campaign. Even Bush's overall approval rating went up, albeit by a modest 3%. The Bush team sure got lucky on that one. Or was there more to it? Maybe it's just my fertile imagination, but...The link above leads to a site set up expressly to mirror that NYT article.
I recommend reading the article about the plot by Don Van Natta, Elaine Sciolino and Stephen Grey that appeared in the New York Times on August 28 and that is available online through the TimesSelect service or on various unofficial sites.
The article makes clear that the plot was real. However, it was not imminent.It's hard for me to imagine in what sense the plot was "real", but in all other respects Mr. Wallechensky's approach seems quite sound.
British officials apologized, two weeks after the fact, for the exaggerated, panic-inducing statements they had made at the time of the arrests. Naturally, the dire warnings made headlines, while the retractions and apologies went largely unnoticed.Naturally!
The most intriguing revelation in this article is that British officials at Scotland Yard felt in complete control of the plotters,Scotland Yard may have been in complete control of the alleged plotters, in more ways than one!
who had not yet made flight reservations and two of whom had not yet even obtained passports. The British spies wanted to continue their surveillance of the plotters. Unfortunately, Scotland Yard was forced to act quickly because, thousands of miles away in Pakistan, the Pakistani government, without informing their British anti-terror colleagues, arrested a man with dual British/Pakistani citizenship who was, presumably, vital to the plot and whose arrest was immediately known to the plotters.Mr. Wallechensky here joins the text-message school of thought, as opposed to the tortured-confession school of thought favored by such seasoned observers as Nafeez Ahmed and Craig Murray.
From the Times: "Several senior British officials said the Pakistanis arrested Rashid Rauf without informing them first. The arrest surprised and frustrated investigators here who had wanted to monitor the suspects longer, primarily to gather more evidence and to determine whether they had identified all the people involved in the suspected plot." So if the hijackings were not imminent and the British wanted to wait before making any arrests, why did the government of Pakistan's dictator, General Pervez Musharraf, arrest Rashid Rauf when it did? So far, there has been no official explanation.Well, the official White House explanation for this series of events would not be difficult to predict:
As I said, maybe I just have too fertile of an imagination, but one thing is certain: over a period of just seven weeks, that arrest triggered the British arrests that set off a fear-of-terrorism panic that gave President Bush extra ammunition to pressure Congressional Republicans, who then rushed through passage of an anti-terrorism billAhem. A so-called anti-terrorism bill. Please. There's no evidence -- not even a hint of a suggestion -- that any aspect of the Military Commissions Act will deter, prevent or otherwise mitigate terrorist attacks in the USA or indeed terrorism in the world generally. The Act in effect codifies some of the most grievous transgressions Bush and his junta have been claiming the right to commit -- and actually committing! -- since September of 2001. Or, as David Wallechensky describes it, it's the Act
that transferred new powers to the executive branch while, at the same time, immunizing President Bush and others from prosecution for their violations of the U.S. War Crimes Act.Indeed.
Some guys have all the luck.They sure do.
Rockford's suddenly famous "Air Grenadist", Derrick Shareef, appeared in court Wednesday, December 20, but did not speak as his attorney waived twice. One: No, the Federales were not required to present any evidence against him. Two: No, the judge was not required to deny Derrick Shareef bail.CHICAGO — Through his attorneys, Derrick Shareef, the 22-year-old Rockford resident charged with plotting to detonate explosives at CherryVale Mall during the Christmas shopping season, waived a pair of hearings that had been scheduled for today in federal court.But the prosecuting attorneys aren't promising anything, except that the arraignment will happen "in the future".
Prosecutors had been expected to outline evidence against Shareef, and the defendant’s attorneys had been expected to seek his release on bond. Instead, Shareef will remain in custody for the time being.
The next step in the process is an arraignment at which Shareef will enter pleas to the charges against him. That’s likely to occur in late January or early February, according to his attorneys.
CHICAGO - A Muslim convert accused of plotting to wreak havoc at a Rockford mall by blowing up garbage cans with grenades remained in custody Wednesday after a short hearing in federal court.Ironic, is it not, how the AP manages to spin in two directions at once. Playing up the "Muslim convert" angle feeds into The Phony War, and is therefore to be expected. But the "garbage can" angle is one of the phoniest-sounding details in a very phony-sounding story. So that was unexpected, except in an ironic way.
Winnebago County Sheriff Dick Meyers, who said that regardless of Shareef’s competence in actually executing a plan and regardless of the reasons behind it, the result would have been the same if he had been successful.Kudos to Mike Wiser for asking the question that prompted this very interesting response.
“It doesn’t make a difference. ... The end result would have been mass casualties,” Meyers said. “I don’t think it was overblown at all.”
it’s possible that even though Shareef didn’t, in the government’s words, pose an imminent threat, he could have if the person he was dealing with wasn’t, in fact, a government agent.I don't understand this as analysis, although I do understand it as propaganda. As analysis it makes no sense to me, because if left to his own devices, Shareef would never have thought of bombing a shopping mall.
Weapon Of Mass Destruction
(2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; and
Destructive DeviceAccording to this law, the US invasion of Iraq was justified, and UN arms-inspector Hans Blix is an idiot. Clearly Saddam Hussein had at least one hand grenade; that's a weapon of mass destruction, just the same as any bomb, any mine, and all but the smallest rockets and missiles. In fact this law appears to classify as weapons of mass destruction all weapons which can hurt people from a distance, except for firearms (here we see the long reach of the 2nd Amdendment and the even longer reach of the NRA), crossbows and slingshots (and these loopholes will certainly be closed in the next version of the law).
(4) The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
Use of weapons of mass destructionSo it does appear likely that Derrick Shareef is going to have to resort to the first word that came into my head when I heard of his case:
(a) A person who, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction —-
(1) [...]
(2) against any person or property within the United States, and
(A) [...]
(B) such property is used in interstate or foreign commerce or in an activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce;
(C) [...]
(D) the offense, or the results of the offense, affect interstate or foreign commerce, or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce;
"I did not kill my wife; she killed me!"
Then how did you wind up in the living room with her dead body?
"Her dead body in the living room? Come on! I would have noticed it, wouldn't I?"
And how did you get blood on your hands?
"Blood on my hands? That was ketchup!"
And why did the DNA in that blood match your wife?
"DNA? No, that can't be right. There's no DNA in ketchup."
Well then how did you get ketchup on your hands?
"What ketchup? I never had any ketchup."
But you just said you you had ketchup on your hands.
"Ketchup on my hands? That's an absurd assinuation!"
(So then you must be innocent of all wrongdoing?)
(Exactly... now run along before I declare you an enemy combatant!)
The unforgettable green eyes of this young Afghan girl stared out at the world from the cover of National Geographic magazine in 1985, making her one of the world's most famous faces.You don't believe me? Click here.
Photo by Steve McCurry/Magnum
Digital 16" x 20" print signed by the Magnum photographer.
16 x 20 Signed: $4,500.00
16 x 20 Signed & Framed: $4,675.00
Police in Poland have launched a nationwide hunt for a man who farted loudly when asked what he thought of the president.This is not covered under freedom of speech, is it? Hmmm...
Hubert Hoffman, 45, was charged with "contempt for the office of the head of state" for his actions after he was stopped by police in a routine check at a Warsaw railway station.
He complained that under President Lech Kaczynski and his twin brother Jaroslaw, the country was returning to a Communist style dictatorship.
When told to show more respect for the country's rulers, he farted loudly and was promptly arrested.
Hoffmann was [...] released on bail but failed to turn up at a Warsaw court early this week to be tried, and the judge in the case rejected an appeal by defence lawyers to throw the charges out.Interpol!! Interpol?? Shouldn't they be doing something more useful??
...
Instead the court ordered the police to start a nationwide hunt for the man, and interpol have been alerted.
Interpol is the world's third largest international organization, after the United Nations and FIFA, with 186 member countries financed by annual contributions of about €41.7 million from its member countries.I've read the list over and over and I just don't see how farting fits here, unless you consider it politically-motivated farting in which case I guess it makes sense to mobilize the third largest international organization in the world; at the very least I believe it's quite clear that neither the UN nor FIFA would have been interested in the case.
...
Because of the politically neutral role Interpol must play, its constitution forbids any involvement in crimes that do not overlap several member countries, or any political, military, religious, or racial crimes. Its work focuses primarily on public safety and terrorism, organized crime, war crimes, illicit drug production and trafficking, weapons smuggling, trafficking in human beings, money laundering, child pornography, white-collar crime, high-tech crime, and corruption.
First, I wish for minds that can deal with the complex nature of truth.Yes, it's necessary. Yes, it's possible.
...
My second wish is for many more [people] who accept diversity as a virtue.
...
My third, and last, wish is that [people] learn to value and nurture creativity.
...
We have to wake people up and get them politically engaged again.
...
We can change for the better. We can be like other nations on this planet. We can make responsible choices for who should govern us. We can bring justice to our people. We can be a decent civilized, peaceful, well-informed, educated people. It’s only a question of trying and getting our act together. That is the task before all of us, young and old.
The International Herald Tribune says:Nearly 1,000 insurgent and sectarian attacks were carried out against American and Iraqi targets every week over the last three months, the highest level ever recorded, according to a Pentagon report on security trends in Iraq that was issued Monday.That last was a compound sentence, and the "while" messed up the impact. So let's try that again.
The report, which covers the period from early August to early November describes a worsening security environment in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq.
The rise in attacks, to a weekly average of 959, was a jump of nearly 200 compared with the previous three months. As a consequence, civilian casualties reached a record high, more than 90 a day, the report said. While the majority of attacks were directed at U.S. forces, most of the casualties were suffered by the Iraqi military and civilians.
The majority of attacks were directed at U.S. forces.This is why we gotta get out now. All this bananarama about staying to provide stability is just that, bananarama. If we were interested in providing stability we would have provided it a long time ago. But we're not. We're only interested in staying. And this level of violence -- which we have deliberately created -- offers a perfect pretext.
Most of the casualties were suffered by the Iraqi military and civilians.
Chaos? Civil war? Bloodshed? We’ll take our chances -- just take your Puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go.
The vice president’s associations with Halliburton “raise concerns about the appearance of a conflict of interest or favoritism,” Judicial Watch argued, “particularly since the contract was awarded to KBR without a bidding process and because the contract was not announced to the public until after it was approved.”The way to stop raising the concerns, of course, would be to stop announcing the contracts, even after they're approved!
The Rockford Register Star celebrated the weekend with a special section on the Derrick Shareef story, named without any apparent hint of intentional irony "Terror In The Region: Plot Foiled".It was “just luck” that Police Chief Gary Maitland was lunching with two law-enforcement leaders when the FBI agent showed up at his office Dec. 6, he said."Just luck"-- That's a good one. Remember that for later, will you?
The timing meant that South Beloit Police Chief Larry Schultz and Winnebago County Sheriff Dick Meyers learned together that the FBI had thwarted a terror plot set for CherryVale Mall.
Maitland shared details Tuesday of his department’s reaction and minimal involvement in last week’s terror scare with the village Public Safety Committee."Minimal"?? That's putting it kindly, is it not? Unless you mean "minimal" as in "negligible"...
Federal officials said Derrick Shareef, 22, was plotting to set off hand grenades in garbage cans in CherryVale Mall. By the time local officials were told, Shareef already had been arrested.So ... "minimal" as in "none". And it's something of an issue in Rockford, according to several references in this special section of the Rockford Register Star.
Although some booed the FBI’s secrecy, Maitland understands why local officials were left out of the loop. If he’d heard of the threat before the arrest, he would have put extra patrols around the mall. Doing so might have interfered with the federal investigation, Maitland said.In my "model" of this so-called "terror plot foiled", I see Gary Maitland as something of a diplomat. There's at least a finite chance that he was righteously steamed to find out what had been going on under his nose, and look at how he found out: after the fact, and not even in private but also in the company of other police chiefs. What could he say about the FBI, especially there and then? Nothing but nice things, right?
it was “just luck” that Police Chief Gary Maitland was lunching with two law-enforcement leaders when the FBI agent showed up at his office Dec. 6but it may have been something else, too. Appearances can be deceiving.
Whether or not Derrick Shareef was capable of pulling off a terrorist attack or multiple attacks he’s accused of, it’s unnerving to think that some of us walked alongside him and an FBI informant at CherryVale Mall as Shareef talked about how to detonate grenades to kill the most people.Remember that last phrase, will you? "to kill the most people." We'll be coming back to that later. But first the sleight-of-hand. In my view,
Whether or not Derrick Shareef was capable of pulling off a terrorist attack or multiple attacks he’s accused ofis the essential question. Or at least that's the essential small question. The sleight-of-hand appears in the way it's included in the opening phrase, the "whether or not" intro, the "let's all sweep this part under the rug" preamble, as if to say, "Let us move past the physical realities of the case, let us not tolerate any outrageous conspiracy theories, let us move along to things we can all agree on."
When did we lose our ability to think clearly?Rember that phrase, too, will you? "When did we lose our ability to think clearly?"
We have to be grateful for the informant’s decision to notify authorities when, according to the charges, Shareef shared his intention to wage a one-man jihad against America.Is that so? Grateful for the informant’s decision to notify authorities? In my view, that's no reason to be especially grateful. That's the informant's job, to sell information.
After that, authorities say, there was never any danger that Shareef would be able to create the mayhem he spoke about.The editors and I agree here, but I would go even further:
The FBI set up a bizarre swap of two stereo speakers for some phony grenades, a pistol and some nonfunctioning ammunition. When the swap was made, Shareef was arrested.A bizarre swap indeed. What was the FBI-connected fake arms-dealer going to do with a pair of speakers? Use them as evidence, of course.
He’s in jail now, held without bond and facing federal charges, including one involving use of a weapon of mass destruction aimed at people and property.Use of a weapon of mass destruction? Are they serious? It's difficult to see how that particular charge could ever stick.
The news went all over the world about a terrorist plot against a mall in Rockford, Ill., not exactly the kind of public relations this city relishes, but it could have happened anywhere, really.Creating the news itself, and sending it all over the world, were the main points of this exercise. Derrick Shareef's future is a non-issue to the feds. They don't care whether they have to drop the charge about "use of a weapon of mass destruction"; if this case goes according to the usual pattern, that won't happen for another year or more.
The FBI affidavit released by the U.S. attorney’s office details how the counterterrorism squad documented Shareef’s actions and stated intentions as the case against him was put together. It’s fascinating reading, as it reveals the simplistic, dehumanizing nature of such a person’s grievances, their self-aggrandizing martyr tendencies and the apparent disregard for the sanctity of life. A scary combination, indeed.This is an insane reading of the affidavit, in my view. But then, I've read it twice. And I'm willing to link to it, so others can read it and make up their own minds.
It could have been anywhere....Right. It could have been anywhere...
The FBI did admirable work, as far as we can tell, with one rather obvious omission: The agency did not notify local law enforcement until very late in the game. Mayor Larry Morrissey and Rockford Police Chief Chet Epperson said they didn’t know what was going on until the news was breaking across the nation.Well of course they didn't know what was going on. Gary Maitland, Larry Schultz and Dick Meyers all found out about it at the last minute, too, as noted above. And that's the way it was supposed to happen.
Morrissey said he was going to try to get some answers from the office of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald about why local law enforcement was kept out of the loop.The Mayor will no doubt get "some answers from the office of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald" but whether they will be reasonable ones, who can predict what answers he will get?
It’s difficult to be too mad at the FBI, which identified and monitored a potentially dangerous person and kept a lid on leaks until an arrest could be made.Is it? I agree that the FBI "kept a lid on leaks until an arrest could be made". But is it really "difficult to be too mad at the FBI"? And is it really true that the FBI "identified and monitored a potentially dangerous person"?
Shareef might not be the brightest bulb in the jihad marquee, but he seemed bent on destruction and he had little to lose.The conclusion that Derrick Shareef was "bent on destruction" seems questionable at best. A careful reading of the affidavit reveals that -- especially on the topics of CherryVale and grenades -- Derrick Shareef was saying whatever the FBI-connected confidential informant was telling him to say, doing whatever the informant was telling him to do.
We’re relieved they got him.I'm sure you are. But are you relieved you've read this?
To informant: ThanksDoes Kim Einhorn have any idea of the deception and provocation that was required -- and provided -- to create this "gift to all of us"? It's hard to imagine.
I would just like to say thank you to the person who notified the proper authorities leading to the arrest of Derrick Shareef.
You may always be unknown to all of us, but I feel that you are the true hero.
Thank you for stepping up to the plate and for saving so many people from being hurt and killed. Life is always so busy and we sometimes forget to recognize the truly wonderful things that people do for each other.
I walk at CherryVale Mall and my family thanks you for helping to keep me safe, as well as our entire city.
God bless you always. You are a gift to all of us.
— Kim Einhorn, Rockford
Think about what if that one person had turned the other way and said, it's none of my business or what if I'm wrong and nothing is planned.As usual in these cases, nobody asked me what I'd rather do, but I'll tell you anyway.
We were very lucky someone was not afraid to point the finger at a potential killer. I'd rather be wrong than right and say nothing.
