From the Rule of Law to Madness and Anarchy
Mohamed Osman Mohamud is a Somali born teenager who immigrated to the U.S. in 1991 and attempted to detonate a truck bomb in Portland at a Christmas tree lighting attended by thousands. The FBI uncovered and foiled this plot following a tip from the bomber’s father in 2008 regarding the contacts his son was conversing with over the internet.
The FBI opted to monitor Mohamud and his cyberspace activities over bringing him in and speaking with him as some have suggested was the more appropriate and responsible approach. By monitoring Mohamud’s activity online, the FBI was able to set up a sting by presenting one of their agents as a fellow radical. This “radical”, then proposed the attack strategy, assembled a fake bomb, and provided Mohamud with the cell phone number that would detonate the bomb during the lighting ceremony of the town’s Christmas tree.
The government is taking the position that by monitoring Mohamud, it was able to gain valuable intelligence information that it might not otherwise have gotten. It is important to note that Portland, Oregon, a city further left than New York City in political leanings and political correctness, refused to participate or cooperate with the FBI joint terrorism task force. The fact is that Portland, Oregon is the only city in the nation that refused their cooperation citing concern for the civil liberties of the Muslim community.
In fact, the article by Jihad Watch makes the argument that Mohamud by have been encouraged by Portland’s preference for political correctness over public safety.
‘”In the Mohamud case, it appears that Portland’s anti-law enforcement stand might actually have influenced Mohamud’s decision to undertake an attack in the city. According to the FBI affidavit, the undercover agents asked whether he worried that law enforcement would stop him. “In Portland?” Mohamud replied. “Not really. They don’t see it as a place where anything will happen. People say, you know, why, anybody want to do something in Portland, you know, it’s on the west coast, it’s in Oregon, and Oregon’s, like you know, nobody ever thinks about it.”‘ [ED: who thinks about Billerica as a terror target?]
To quote by paraphrasing Fox News anchor and legal contributor, Gregg Jarrett:
“Political correctness disguised as concern for selective civil liberties can be naïve, dangerous and deadly.”
Predictably, the ACLU applauded Portland’s decision:
“Portland’s decision to pull out of the FBI joint terrorism task force strikes a blow for liberty.”
Speakers from the left such as Leslie Marshall now claim that the circumstances facing Portland 5 years ago are different than they are now, and that if the decision were posed to current leadership, the result of a vote to join the FBI terrorism task force would be different. That begs the question, aside from the attempted bombing and the associated publicity surrounding what could have been; what has changed, philosphically, that would prompt leaders to act more cautiously?
It is vital that everyone remember that terrorism, unlike conventional warfare fought within the framework of treaties and laws agreed to by international law, knows no boundaries. Terrorists deliberately target the public as well as their enemies on the field of combat. They spread terror and fear by demonstrating that they have no compunction when it comes to killing innocent women and children. They have no compunction about killing those first responders who arrive on scene to save lives and to minimize the overall destruction of property. In fact, terrorist deliberately target innocent women, children and aid workers as a means of demoralizing those who might otherwise stand behind their government or their military response to terror.
Merriam-Webster defines terror as the following:
Definition of TERROR
1: a state of intense fear
2a: one that inspires fear :
scourge
scourge
2b: a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion>
2c: a cause of anxiety :
worry
worry
2d: an appalling person or thing; especially:
brat
brat
4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands terror>
Nowhere in this definition is an association with the word honor or the concept of necessity, and that is because there is nothing honorable or necessary about terrorism and its indiscriminate and abhorrent methods of violence and intimidation be it through public beheadings or mass bombing in heavily civilian populated areas such as markets, mosques or churches, symbolic buildings, holiday celebrations, or schools.. War is a state declared between governments. Those who declare a state of war without the blessing and consent of government are nothing more than criminal combatants subject to the fate of their own actions and the will of their enemy when captured. Their is no room for political correctness in the existential battle with terrorists and their supporters.
From the “Denver Libertarian Examiner”:
“Timothy McVeigh admittedly slaughtered Americans because he felt the heavy hand of the Federal government was overwhelming and needed to be stopped at all costs; including the blood of innocents. He targeted the building as a large symbol of Federal power as well as housing large DEA, FBI and ATF offices.”
In the article, the author agrees that McVeigh’s act was abominable and unjustified out of one side of his mouth, but then, out of the other side, he seems to suggest that McVeigh beef is perhaps understandable and predictable given government’s proclivity for secrecy or selective truth telling:
“It (the selective release of information by the government, even under the pressure of legislation such as the Freedom of Information Act) kind of brings you back to McVeigh’s main beef that put him over the edge; the Waco Seige and subsequent cover-up. It angers freedom-loving Americans when their questions aren’t answered and detracting evidence disappears or is burned.”
The author’s implication is that the government never has a right to withhold what it considers sensitive information when that information is sought under statue(s). If true, then the entire Wikileaks fiasco and pursuit of its leader would have no justification, even though such a leak embarrasses world leaders and puts the quality of U.S. promises to keep sensitive information secure from risk of unauthorized disclosure.
Failure to secure data from unauthorized release ultimately weakens access to information from sensitive sources regarding things such as terrorism, weapons development and movement, and the true desires of individual nations and leaders regarding alliances and political positions that help U.S. security interests.
Extreme thinking and actions are always dangerous if allowed to come to fruition. If there is a chance of preventing other attacks by allowing a person who made the choice to participate and actuate an act of terror to fall into a trap that also provided many chances to escape by backing out, then so be it. How many chances do you suppose Al Qaeda gives suicide bombers to change their mind once a mission is set?
Mr. Mohamud had many opportunities to back out of this criminal enterprise, but he consciously chose not to. He also derided local law enforcement for having their heads in the sand and used that as an inspiration to further embolden him to proceed. Local politics deserves some of the blame and would have shared in the blood and carnage that would have resulted had Mr. Mohamud been successful.
Mr. Mohamud chose his course of action, and now, at some point, a jury of his peers will chose his fate. Hopefully, voters will think long and hard and choose the fate of those politicians who chose political correctness over common sense security measures. That is the rule of law in America. Whatever his fate becomes, it will certainly be better than what it would have been had he been suspected of a similar crime against those he chose to support. Whatever the fate of the politicians who chose to ignore the possibility of a local attack; it will reflect strongly on the quality of voters and the choices they make.
