View Full Version : Six Arrested in Alleged Fort Dix Murder Plot
Six Arrested in Alleged Fort Dix Murder Plot
Tuesday , May 08, 2007
Fox News
Six people were arrested on Monday in connection with an alleged plot to murder soldiers at Fort Dix, the U.S. attorney's office said.
Michael Drewniak, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey, said the men are from the former Yugoslavia and were planning to "kill as many soldiers as possible." Five of them lived in Cherry Hill, he said.
Drewniak said the six were scheduled to appear in federal court in Camden later Tuesday to face charges of conspiracy to kill U.S. servicemen.
During a secret meeting, the men allegedly attempted to purchase AK-47s from an arms dealer working with the FBI and were arrested in New Jersey after officials learned of the plans, a law enforcement source said.
The undercover investigation followed the men, three of whom are brothers, from New Jersey to the Poconos, where they allegedly practiced firing automatic weapons, media sources said.
Officials raided the homes of the men, described as Islamic radicals, and said there is video showing some of the alleged planning.
A law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity because documents in the case remain sealed, said the men were arrested as part of a joint federal and local investigation.
The officials said the attack was stopped in the planning stages.
A news conference was planned for 2:30 p.m. ET.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270601,00.html
Well, this is either a law enforcement issue or they were foreign agents in civilian cloths about to attack US interests during a time of war.
As long as it's a law enforcement issue and the ACLU backs people who should be put against a wall and shot we will lose.
On the offchance that they planned to coordinate attacks on multiple installations at the same time, I would think that everyone on/around a military base should be even more careful than usual.
Goggles Pizano
05-08-2007, 13:26
Well, this is either a law enforcement issue or they were foreign agents in civilian cloths about to attack US interests during a time of war.
As long as it's a law enforcement issue and the ACLU backs people who should be put against a wall and shot we will lose.
Right on target Pete. The reluctance of anyone at any level to call these people terrorists is the PC mindset on steroids. This is not, repeat not, a law enforcement issue it's an American security issue. For the life of me I don't understand why the tendancy to separate information and arrests into the "domestic or international" labels. The quote at the end of the article I read was "reminding everyone we are still at war". Good gracious they had plans to strike during the Army/Navy game-I believe that might have involved a few civilians as well! Sadly we have the dog and pony show years ago in an effort to find out why dots were not connected, and now we are afraid to stinking connect them! :mad:
The reluctance of anyone at any level to call these people terrorists is the PC mindset on steroids. This is not, repeat not, a law enforcement issue it's an American security issue.
What is achieved by calling it terrorism? What is the benefit of doing so?
How do you define terrorism or American security?
Tony Snow just said in press conference that "there is no direct evidence of a foreign terrorist tie." If they are self-starters and did not receive any assistance from the AQAM network, what makes them "terrorists" and Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold not?
Further, if we are at "war with terror" and if this group is an emergent phenomenon, does this imply anything about our strategy and efforts so far?
Will I call these guys terrorists? Yes, but for lack of a better term, knowing full well the word is malleable and loaded, and accompanied with a host of derogatory terms and explatives.
The Reaper
05-08-2007, 19:04
I generally define terrorism as using violence or the threat of violence to influence public opinion. JCS Pub 1-02 defines it as follows: terrorism — The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
Pretty clearly, the school-shooting punks you named were seeking revenge and self-aggrandizement, not to influence popular opinion. The terrorists who intended to attack US military personnel and their families on a US military base here in the US are just that, terrorists.
These arrests imply that since 2001, we have successfully prevented terrorist acts in the US. The policies in place have been adequate so far. But the bad guys only have to get lucky once, we have to get it right every time.
Make no mistake, these are definitely terrorists. They would also appear to be hate crimes to me.
TR
Goggles Pizano
05-09-2007, 07:39
What is achieved by calling it terrorism? What is the benefit of doing so?
How do you define terrorism or American security?
Tony Snow just said in press conference that "there is no direct evidence of a foreign terrorist tie." If they are self-starters and did not receive any assistance from the AQAM network, what makes them "terrorists" and Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold not?
Further, if we are at "war with terror" and if this group is an emergent phenomenon, does this imply anything about our strategy and efforts so far?
Will I call these guys terrorists? Yes, but for lack of a better term, knowing full well the word is malleable and loaded, and accompanied with a host of derogatory terms and explatives.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Seven animals seeking to take the lives of American soldiers/marines/airmen and civilians in an effort to sway the politics of the United States government is how I define terrorism. Murdering innocents in an effort to gain some twisted form of significance to your otherwise pathetic life is how I define terrorism. Many here swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from ALL enemies both foreign AND domestic. I call them like I see them and these indviduals (along with Richard Reid, Ted Kaczynski, Muhammed Atta, Timothy McVeigh, and others like them) all are disturbed, hostile, extremist, murdering bastards who we should not be afraid to call
T E R R O R I S T S!
I define American security as the United States military, and Law Enforcement. The benefit of those two hardworking and dedicated entities ensures the freedom of this country. Is this perplexing for you in some manner? Do you not feel the need to defend your country against these seven harbingers of hostility, or are you content to throw stones and scream "anarchy" from your dorm window?
Seven animals seeking to take the lives of American soldiers/marines/airmen and civilians in an effort to sway the politics of the United States government is how I define terrorism. Murdering innocents in an effort to gain some twisted form of significance to your otherwise pathetic life is how I define terrorism.
WELL SAID! I believe that definition will work for most.
The Reaper
05-09-2007, 08:46
All of the people involved are Muslims, at least a couple of them are here illegally. So much for us intervening in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq to help the Muslim people there.
Hmm, could there be a pattern here?
Maybe we should pass a law against that?:rolleyes:
I wonder if they went to the same mosque or had someone suggesting this to them?
TR
Daddy worked at a Pizza Place. I wonder if they made and served sausage and pepperoni pizza's?
Foot baths in airports, taxi drivers not picking up people with alcohol and ham sandwich on a school lunch table is a hate crime. I think CAIR needs to get after pizza joints and get them to stop with the pork products in pizza. After all, you never know when a "Good American":rolleyes: might touch it. Oh, wait, they can touch it if they have to.
Pete
Who is in a very sarcastic mood right now.
The Old Guy
05-09-2007, 09:59
Since I live next to a large military base and will live clsoe to another large military base upon my retirement, I have planned for just this event in the future.
I believe that actions such as these are the tip of the ..., with the continued polarizatrion of the United States and the political climate we are in for more terrorist actions. The public press and Hollywood icons continue to fuel the warped, and weak minded by giving giving more creative ideas to idiots.
Step up to my front gate, univited, and see how warm the greeting may or may not be.
I love my brothers and sisters in arms and pray for their safe return to a protected and free homeland, the USA!
TOG
Originally Posted by tk27
What is achieved by calling it terrorism? What is the benefit of doing so?
How do you define terrorism or American security?
Tony Snow just said in press conference that "there is no direct evidence of a foreign terrorist tie." If they are self-starters and did not receive any assistance from the AQAM network, what makes them "terrorists" and Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold not?
Further, if we are at "war with terror" and if this group is an emergent phenomenon, does this imply anything about our strategy and efforts so far?
Will I call these guys terrorists? Yes, but for lack of a better term, knowing full well the word is malleable and loaded, and accompanied with a host of derogatory terms and explatives.
So if for "lack of a better term" you'll call it terrorism, then I guess there's not a better term? So the purpose might be to use the word that actually describes the seven guys and their plans to attack innocent people to prove a political point in the name of Islam? Right? I for one am totally awstruck by your sophisticated look at the seemingly simple matter. At the risk of sounding like a simpleton, I might suggest that you're over thinking this just a bit. All of us who fight bad guys (can I call them bad guys?) in the name of freedom (I'm sure I'm going to get another lecture for using the word "freedom" here) really appreciate the lecture on the use of the word "terrorism", and we appreciate you taking the time to set us all straight about just how we should be looking at this "war on terror" that we're fighting. :p
Ret10Echo
05-09-2007, 11:53
So much for us intervening in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq to help the Muslim people there.
Hmm, could there be a pattern here?
TR
Now, now, we are not supposed to be putting these together to indicate any sort of pattern.....these are all disparate, unassociated events there is no pattern of young middle-eastern males that practice Islam attempting violent attacks against civilians in Western nations....
These are not the droids you are looking for.......
Yeah, makes me feel good about all that time in the Balkans....:mad:
Is this perplexing for you in some manner?
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
JCS Pub 1-02 defines it as follows: terrorism — The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
Both of these, as with all definitions of terrorism are ambiguous. I do not care for loose interpretations, I am not a liberal. Especially on matters related to Posse Comitatus. By your definition of “terrorism” being an American security problem we should have sent the Marine Corps after Patty Hearst and the Symbionese Liberation Army and SEALs after The Order.
So yes, it is perplexing; I have some concern about the Constitutionality of it.
Do you not feel the need to defend your country against these seven harbingers of hostility, or are you content to throw stones and scream "anarchy" from your dorm window?
Is there any middle ground between “anarchy” and “war on terrorism”?
I happen to think other efforts where the government has declared “war on” something ill defined, like drugs and poverty, it has been A.) driven by domestic politics, and B.) a horrible failure. I think immediately after 9/11 the efforts of the Agency working in tandem with Special Forces were immensely successful. And I think since we launched our “war on terror” campaign, with the Pentagon at the helm, creation of DHS, and the pork grab of congress and industry, it has all been downhill.
I am anti big government, this makes me a conservative, not an anarchist. I read Bill Buckley not Bill Bennett, Edmund Burke not Sean Hannity, and detest what has become of the conservative movement. Again this does not make me an anarchist.
I think the authoritarian impulse to try to control everything has been the downfall of many a man and nation. I think we have walked into Osama’s trap, just like a bear swatting a flee. Our economy responded quickly to the effects of 9/11, but it has not rebounded to the effects of our response, AQ can never destroy us but our deficits and spending will. This was Osama’s intent all along.
I think we are giving common cause and meaning to otherwise disparate groups with our “war on terrorism”. I think this is a mistake, the more they have in common, the less time they have to kill each other. Our “Freedom Agenda” boggles my mind, dictatorships like Syria are fantastic at killing Salafi, Mubarak does not need elections – he needs to stay in power. I think it is nonsensical to say we are in a “war on terrorism” and do absolutely nothing with Saudi Arabia.
I imagine agency and SF unconventional warrior types need little meaning in unifying buzzwords like "global war on terrorism" and cheerleading from the public to do their jobs. Had we stuck with what was working, instead of finding meaning, "we're going to change the world", "fight terror", "spread freedom", we would have been much better off.
dr. mabuse
05-09-2007, 12:54
Like my 11 year old said after looking at some of the comments on this particular thread,
"Some people just don't get it."
From the mouths of babes indeed :rolleyes:
Team Sergeant
05-09-2007, 13:20
Both of these, as with all definitions of terrorism are ambiguous. I do not care for loose interpretations, I am not a liberal.
Is there any middle ground between “anarchy” and “war on terrorism”?
If you find the definition of terrorism as defined by JCS Pub 1-02 "ambiguous" I suggest you find a High School Senior for the interpretation or maybe rosie O.
If you think you are going to sit and type such unintelligent posts on a board filled with Special Forces soldiers, that each day go toe to toe with those same defined "terrorists" you're sorely mistaken.
If you find it difficult differentiating between a terrorist and a crazed high school kid, seek help.
You are really getting on my nerves with such bullshit like;
Is there any middle ground between “anarchy” and “war on terrorism”?
Time for you to go and bother others, elsewhere.
Your post IMO, is not worth viewing or discussing. You've crossed the line as far as intelligent discussion especially with the members assembled on this website.
If you think I'm going to listen to any more of this crap, again, you're sorely mistaken. Take it somewhere else, you are done here.
Team Sergeant
Jack Moroney (RIP)
05-09-2007, 13:32
I imagine agency and SF unconventional warrior types need little meaning in unifying buzzwords like "global war on terrorism" and cheerleading from the public to do their jobs..
Apparently you know absolutely nothing about "SF unconventional warrior types" as unconventional warfare is but one of our missions. It has been the SF folks that have been the few that have correctly defined this not as a buzz word but the fact that this is a war against Islamic Fundamentalism. I do not need cheerleading from the public to do my job and I certainly do not need some one who knows absolutely nothing about me, my former profession, my comrades, or my current calling to attempt to insult, belittle, or attack me or those with whom I have stood over four decades so that you can get your jollies tapping a keyboard to vent your spleen hurling invictives against folks with whom you have not stood nor, apparently, ever will. You have a right to your opinion, and the likes of those against whom you rail will continue to stand for you regardless of you inability to deal with reality.
I happen to think other efforts where the government has declared “war on” something ill defined, like drugs and poverty, it has been A.) driven by domestic politics, and B.) a horrible failure.
I agree with you here. The GWOT is a P.C. term that fights a method and does not identify the actual enemy. I say call it “The War to Stop the Radical Islamist and their attempt to impose Sharia Law on us all!”
AQ can never destroy us but our deficits and spending will. This was Osama’s intent all along.
Disagree. Maybe a method, not the intent. Listen to them – they will clearly tell you their intent!
I think we are giving common cause and meaning to otherwise disparate groups with our “war on terrorism”.
There maybe some differences but the commonalty is painfully obvious.
Had we stuck with what was working, instead of finding meaning, "we're going to change the world", "fight terror", "spread freedom", we would have been much better off.
You seem to toss these words around rather flippantly.
Have you served your country?
Have you traveled outside the CONUS?
Thank God for men who are fighting this good fight and when they do use the words like “freedom” they have a noble and sacred tone.
x SF med
05-09-2007, 13:50
Both of these, as with all definitions of terrorism are ambiguous. I do not care for loose interpretations, I am not a liberal. Especially on matters related to Posse Comitatus. By your definition of “terrorism” being an American security problem we should have sent the Marine Corps after Patty Hearst and the Symbionese Liberation Army and SEALs after The Order.
So yes, it is perplexing; I have some concern about the Constitutionality of it.
Is there any middle ground between “anarchy” and “war on terrorism”?
I happen to think other efforts where the government has declared “war on” something ill defined, like drugs and poverty, it has been A.) driven by domestic politics, and B.) a horrible failure. I think immediately after 9/11 the efforts of the Agency working in tandem with Special Forces were immensely successful. And I think since we launched our “war on terror” campaign, with the Pentagon at the helm, creation of DHS, and the pork grab of congress and industry, it has all been downhill.
I am anti big government, this makes me a conservative, not an anarchist. I read Bill Buckley not Bill Bennett, Edmund Burke not Sean Hannity, and detest what has become of the conservative movement. Again this does not make me an anarchist.
I think the authoritarian impulse to try to control everything has been the downfall of many a man and nation. I think we have walked into Osama’s trap, just like a bear swatting a flee. Our economy responded quickly to the effects of 9/11, but it has not rebounded to the effects of our response, AQ can never destroy us but our deficits and spending will. This was Osama’s intent all along.
I think we are giving common cause and meaning to otherwise disparate groups with our “war on terrorism”. I think this is a mistake, the more they have in common, the less time they have to kill each other. Our “Freedom Agenda” boggles my mind, dictatorships like Syria are fantastic at killing Salafi, Mubarak does not need elections – he needs to stay in power. I think it is nonsensical to say we are in a “war on terrorism” and do absolutely nothing with Saudi Arabia.
I imagine agency and SF unconventional warrior types need little meaning in unifying buzzwords like "global war on terrorism" and cheerleading from the public to do their jobs. Had we stuck with what was working, instead of finding meaning, "we're going to change the world", "fight terror", "spread freedom", we would have been much better off.
Crank, meet track shoes.
tk27, buh bye....
While you are gone - read some books on Foreign Policy, International Relations and possibly some Mao and Stalin... they might give you a clue.
rubberneck
05-09-2007, 14:08
Crank, meet track shoes.
tk27, buh bye....
While you are gone - read some books on Foreign Policy, International Relations and possibly some Mao and Stalin... they might give you a clue.
Proving once again that a college education without experience is next to useless. I don't how many times in my early professional life I had to be told to disregard something a professor told me, as it didn't apply to the real world.
College is a great place to learn theories and talk in the abstract. The real world is where those theories are tested and either found wanting or kept. Sadly most college students today don't know enough (big picture wise) to realize to realize they don't know enough to intelligently comment on any given subject. For that I blame the professors who refuse to discard their pet theories regardless of how irrelevant they have been found in the real world. As a result we have a whole new generation that needs 5-10 years after college trying to unlearn all the BS that was fed to them over a 4 year peroid.
On a side note I think I am beginning to channel Don Rumsfeld.;)
The Reaper
05-09-2007, 14:20
Both of these, as with all definitions of terrorism are ambiguous. I do not care for loose interpretations, I am not a liberal. Especially on matters related to Posse Comitatus. By your definition of “terrorism” being an American security problem we should have sent the Marine Corps after Patty Hearst and the Symbionese Liberation Army and SEALs after The Order.
So yes, it is perplexing; I have some concern about the Constitutionality of it.
It would appear that you cannot differentiate between the definition of an act and the means to suppress it. Where is it writ large that the military has the lead in domestic counterterrorism?
Is there any middle ground between “anarchy” and “war on terrorism”?
I happen to think other efforts where the government has declared “war on” something ill defined, like drugs and poverty, it has been A.) driven by domestic politics, and B.) a horrible failure. I think immediately after 9/11 the efforts of the Agency working in tandem with Special Forces were immensely successful. And I think since we launched our “war on terror” campaign, with the Pentagon at the helm, creation of DHS, and the pork grab of congress and industry, it has all been downhill.
Again, you are myopically declaring that "the Pentagon" (and no doubt by your thinking, SecDef and the "neo-cons") are responsible for the "failure" in the GWOT. I would point out that first, "the Pentagon" includes SF, who did a pretty good job in OEF and could have done the same in OIF, given the opportunity, and second, that far from you (and the MSM) claiming that the GWOT is lost, that we are keeping the US free from domestic attacks so far. AQ does not have a lot of time to sit around the cave and plot with the current military operations against them.
I am anti big government, this makes me a conservative, not an anarchist. I read Bill Buckley not Bill Bennett, Edmund Burke not Sean Hannity, and detest what has become of the conservative movement. Again this does not make me an anarchist.
You are a hater, tk. You claim to be a conservative, but loathe all of the other members who also claim to be conservatives. You want all conservatives to conform to your opinions. Ain't happening. I do not agree with everything William Buckley, Bill Bennett, Edmund Burke or Sean Hannity might say, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, or even Newt Gingrich, but I can respect their opinions and appreciate their support for the cause itself. I would characterize your position significantly to the left of center, tending towards anarchy from libertarian.
I think the authoritarian impulse to try to control everything has been the downfall of many a man and nation. I think we have walked into Osama’s trap, just like a bear swatting a flee. Our economy responded quickly to the effects of 9/11, but it has not rebounded to the effects of our response, AQ can never destroy us but our deficits and spending will. This was Osama’s intent all along.
I do not think that the economy is as bad as you keep crowing about. Most of the experts I read are relatively happy with the current economic status. I bemoan the loss of heavy industrial capacity, but it would appear that we are evolving.
I think we are giving common cause and meaning to otherwise disparate groups with our “war on terrorism”. I think this is a mistake, the more they have in common, the less time they have to kill each other. Our “Freedom Agenda” boggles my mind, dictatorships like Syria are fantastic at killing Salafi, Mubarak does not need elections – he needs to stay in power. I think it is nonsensical to say we are in a “war on terrorism” and do absolutely nothing with Saudi Arabia.
Syria is no friend of the US, despite what you and Speaker Pelosi might claim. I think we could be much better at making our own spin on things known to the international audience, and we could coordinate our efforts better, but we are a long way from losing this GWOT, as you seem to think.
I imagine agency and SF unconventional warrior types need little meaning in unifying buzzwords like "global war on terrorism" and cheerleading from the public to do their jobs. Had we stuck with what was working, instead of finding meaning, "we're going to change the world", "fight terror", "spread freedom", we would have been much better off.
Your opinion, and you are entitiled to it. We are not the target audience of this war, the people are. They need simple sound bites and opunch lines to help them understand. As afr as the evolving mission requirements, we call that "mission creep". I think that we are safer in this country today than we were in December of 2000 or 12 Sep 2001, but that is based on 30 years of study and critical analysis of US security policies.
Adios, tk. I am sure that you will find a nice left wing blog to post on where you will find lots of like-minded sheeple to agree with you and share the hate. Damn, I never saw a college bartender who was so smart, knew so much about everything, and was so convinced of his own righteousness, while having done little and been nowhere in his life. Best of luck to you and have a very SF day.
TR
Soldiers on a military installation (that follow the law) are essentially defenseless to an armed attack by a motivated foe. MP's/DOD police would be the force to meet any armed threat and would take too much time to react and respond. How many wives and kids would die at the PX or pool or Burger King before these assholes were killed. Highly restrictive gun regulations prohibit soldiers from carrying or having ready access to a personal firearm. How many installation commanders are ready to review/relax the personal weapon regulations on our Fort's and bases so we can better protect our families?? Looking back at the tragedy that was VA TECH how wise and or practical is it to reley on LE/MP etc for our saftey and the saftey of our families. They can not be every where and I believe we must bear the burden of protecting our loved ones and ourselves....I know I do.
The Reaper
05-09-2007, 16:53
Not going to happen, IMHO.
Too much career risk if something goes wrong, the commanders and CSMs would rather run the risk of losing significant numbers of dependents that to allow soldiers to be armed on post.
Damn shame, too.
TR
Team Sergeant
05-09-2007, 17:01
Soldiers on a military installation (that follow the law) are essentially defenseless to an armed attack by a motivated foe.
Not necessarily........... you just never know where we might be.....;)
(Short hijack......)
Sniper kills 1, wounds 20 at military base
October 27, 1995
Web posted at: 11:45 p.m. EDT
FORT BRAGG, North Carolina (CNN) -- One soldier was killed and 20 others were hurt Friday when a sniper opened fire on an athletic field at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The sniper allegedly fired on his unit as they prepared to start a morning run, a Fort Bragg spokesman said.
Moments after the soldier opened fire from a wooded area, a group of unarmed Special Forces soldiers wrestled him to the ground. "We came under fire and we moved into the tree line because we realized we were the only ones who could do anything about it," said Staff Sgt. Anthony Minor.
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9510/sniper/am/index.html
Not going to happen, IMHO.
Too much career risk if something goes wrong, the commanders and CSMs would rather run the risk of losing significant numbers of dependents that to allow soldiers to be armed on post.
Damn shame, too.
TR
I think you are right Sir, but hope your wrong. The cliche "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" comes to mind.
groundup
05-10-2007, 01:57
This news comes as no surprise to me. If food delivery personnel can come on to base, in to barracks, and even in to rooms with nothing more than an id - anyone can. Most of them don't even speak English. Security is far too relaxed. Been saying it as long as I have been going to Ft Dix (before joining the military). I thought it was amazing that you used to be able to drive through. I would not go in to any detail as the security vulnerabilities on Dix, McGuire, or Lakehurst but I am sure security is going to start to improve. I wouldn't be surprised if the Dept of Corrections was up-in-arms about it.
Slantwire
12-22-2008, 16:11
Convictions for five. The sixth pleaded guilty to gun charges earlier.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_re_us/fort_dix_plot
rubberneck
12-22-2008, 16:17
Convictions for five. The sixth pleaded guilty to gun charges earlier.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_re_us/fort_dix_plot
They'll only have to wait 4 to 8 years for their pardons. The new President seems to be fond of people who engage in such behavior.
yes, they were found guilty of conspiring....more or less, but now let's see what the good liberal folks of the Peoples Republic of New Jersey consider adequate punishment.
perdurabo
12-23-2008, 16:35
Not going to happen, IMHO.
Too much career risk if something goes wrong, the commanders and CSMs would rather run the risk of losing significant numbers of dependents that to allow soldiers to be armed on post.
Damn shame, too.
TR
Sir, this is interesting. In the early 90s USAF, we were allowed to have weapons, both long rifles and handguns, in the barracks. Many of us had Michigan CHLs and carried frequently.
Upon reflection, I'm not sure where or if official authorization came from somewhere, but it was certainly no secret. Our barracks sgt and NCOs were aware, at least.
The Old Guy
12-24-2008, 05:06
Soldiers on a military installation (that follow the law) are essentially defenseless to an armed attack by a motivated foe. MP's/DOD police would be the force to meet any armed threat and would take too much time to react and respond. How many wives and kids would die at the PX or pool or Burger King before these assholes were killed. Highly restrictive gun regulations prohibit soldiers from carrying or having ready access to a personal firearm. How many installation commanders are ready to review/relax the personal weapon regulations on our Fort's and bases so we can better protect our families?? Looking back at the tragedy that was VA TECH how wise and or practical is it to reley on LE/MP etc for our saftey and the saftey of our families. They can not be every where and I believe we must bear the burden of protecting our loved ones and ourselves....I know I do.
Without too much detail, during the earlier to mid-80's when Flint Kaserne became a hot spot for possible terrorism operations (hit) the CofC authorized weapons to be carried by soldiers 24/7 for a short period of time.
I know different time and place than what we know today, but you never know what is out there.
Ret10Echo
04-30-2009, 05:31
3 brothers get life sentences in Fort Dix case
By GEOFF MULVIHILL –
CAMDEN, N.J. (AP) — Three immigrant brothers involved in a plot to kill military personnel, possibly on Fort Dix, were sentenced Tuesday to spend the rest of their lives in prison.
The government had said the men were familiar with the Army post because their father's pizza shop delivered there, and it presented the case as one of the most startling examples of homegrown terrorism.
Dritan, Eljvir and Shain Duka professed their innocence in courtroom speeches before U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler handed down their sentences. Two other men were to be sentenced Wednesday.
All five were convicted by a jury in December of conspiracy to kill military personnel but were acquitted on attempted-murder charges. Four of them also were convicted on weapons offenses.
Two of the Duka brothers, Dritan and Shain, were given sentences of life plus 30 years because of one of the weapons counts against them.
Defense lawyers and the men's relatives said the sentences were expected, but the relatives also said they were unjust.
The men also were ordered to pay a total of $125,000 in restitution to the Army, which beefed up security at Fort Dix after hearing about the investigation into the plot.
In meting out the sentences, the judge agreed with prosecutors that the case was shocking.
"But for the intervention of the FBI, at some point in the future," he said, "they would have killed people."
Early in the daylong court proceeding, the judge asked Deputy U.S. Attorney William Fitzpatrick whether it made sense to sentence the conspirators to life in prison with no chance of parole given that people convicted of murder in most states at least have the possibility of parole.
"Yes it is," Fitzpatrick said. "The fact that they didn't have an opportunity to carry it out should not be a benefit."
The men were arrested in May 2007. Prosecutors say they had taken training trips to the Pocono Mountains in Pennsylvania and scouted out Fort Dix and other military sites.
Five service members in uniform sat in the back of the courtroom as the sentences were handed down Tuesday.
During the sentencing hearing, the Duka brothers told the judge they were innocent and were convicted because of their unpopular political views. They blamed the government's use of two convicted criminals as paid informants in the case, claiming those informants cajoled them into saying they would take up arms against the U.S.
"The innocent are in prison while the true criminals are being rewarded heavily," lamented Shain Duka, 28.
"Being in prison and knowing you are innocent is a great feeling in the sight of God," said Eljvir Duka, 25.
Relatives and a neighbor of the men also spoke in the hearing, laying out how the brothers were brought to the United States illegally as boys from the former Yugoslavia as their parents sought a better life.
The brothers were raised for a time in Brooklyn, then moved to Cherry Hill, a comfortable suburb of Philadelphia, a dozen years ago after Dritan Duka, now 30, had gotten into legal trouble.
All three had criminal histories dating to their teenage years. Among them: drug offenses, eluding police and driving with a suspended license.
Michael Huff, a lawyer for Dritan Duka, said that becoming more involved in the Muslim faith turned them around.
The men, all school dropouts, owned a pizza shop together and later a roofing company.
Their father, Ferik Duka, told how they supported the family when he was injured in a car accident and were known for taking pizza to homeless people.
"I wish all the children of human beings," the elder Duka said, "are like my sons."
Ret10Echo
04-30-2009, 05:36
Bump................
Final 2 Ft. Dix defendants sentenced
By Troy Graham
Inquirer Staff Writer
A federal judge yesterday sentenced Mohamad Shnewer - often described as the lead defendant in a terrorist plan to attack Fort Dix - to life plus 30 years in prison.
The judge then gave 33 years to codefendant Serdar Tatar, the only one of five men convicted in the plot who did not receive at least a life term.
District Judge Robert B. Kugler, sitting in Camden, said he believed Tatar, unlike the others, was not motivated by radical Islamic views.
"That makes a difference," Kugler said. "He's the only one I have any hope for rehabilitation."
Tatar, 25, was the last defendant to be sentenced over two days, and his family gave lengthy and emotional pleas to spare him the punishments of his cohorts.
"When you give a life sentence, that's it," said his sister, Serpil. "We are all in jail for our whole lives."
On Tuesday, Kugler gave life terms to Cherry Hill brothers Dritan, Eljvir, and Shain Duka, and added 30 years to Dritan and Shain's sentences for gun charges.
All five men, foreign-born Muslims raised primarily in Cherry Hill, were convicted in December of conspiracy to kill U.S. soldiers. A jury acquitted them of attempted murder charges.
The Dukas strenuously argued their innocence during their hearings Tuesday, as Shnewer did yesterday, though less forcefully. Tatar said he took responsibility for his actions, but argued he had no intentions of harming anyone.
"I'm not an extremist, anything close to a radical," he said. "I'm a patriot. I love my country."
All the defendants intend to appeal their convictions.
None took the stand during trial, so the sentencings were the first time the public has heard from men once cited as the country's premier example of homegrown terrorism.
Prosecutors said the men, who all came to the United States as children and had no ties to terrorists overseas, were inspired largely by watching violent, al-Qaeda produced videos on the Internet.
They hatched a plan to strike back at the United States, fixating on Fort Dix as their main target, prosecutors said. They were arrested in May 2007, after Dritan and Shain Duka attempted to buy machine guns from a government informant.
Two informants infiltrated the group and recorded hundreds of hours of conversations, which were at the core of the government's case.
Prosecutors said yesterday Shnewer was at the "epicenter" of the conspiracy. They reminded the judge of some of Shnewer's proclamations, such as saying he dreamed of killing Jews in Israel and talking about how they could attack a column of humvees at Fort Dix and "light the whole place up."
Shnewer, whose attorney portrayed him as a bumbling, overweight outsider, took responsibility yesterday for making those statements, but said he never intended to carry out any attacks.
"I don't consider myself a jihadist," he said. "I might have spoken like a jihadist, but I don't have what it takes . . . because I could never see myself taking another life."
His family members described Shnewer, who turned 24 on Tuesday, as a gentle soul, and said he made his most inflammatory statements in an attempt to fit in with the tough talk of the informant, Mahmoud Omar.
"I'm sorry you didn't get to see the other part of my brother," said his sister, Inas, a Rutgers sophomore. "It's just sad to see him here. We're all just sure he's innocent."
Of all the defendants, Tatar's voice appeared the least on the informant recordings, and he had the smallest role in the conspiracy.
The jury fiercely debated his fate, according to one juror who spoke to The Inquirer. Kugler also said he wrestled with Tatar's sentencing, staying up most of the night thinking about it.
Born in Turkey, Tatar was working at a Philadelphia 7-Eleven at the time of his arrest. His main act in the conspiracy was supplying a map of Fort Dix, taken from his family's pizza shop, which delivered to the base.
Tatar, who applied unsuccessfully to become a police officer with several departments, also approached a Philadelphia police sergeant and told him that Omar had been pressuring him for the map.
By then, prosecutors said, Tatar had agreed to take part in the conspiracy, saying, "I'm in, honestly, I'm in."
He subsequently gave the map to Omar, then lied about it to the FBI - a decision that seemed to have sealed his fate. Prosecutors said lying showed Tatar hadn't gone to police as a concerned citizen.
"I do believe he went to the police to find out what he could about Omar's status as an informant," Kugler said yesterday.
But the judge also noted Tatar was almost never heard in the wiretaps espousing the radical views of Shnewer and the Dukas. Only once did he invoke religion, when he agreed to give the map to Omar.
"I'm doing it in the name of Allah," Tatar said.
Prosecutors argued yesterday Tatar wasn't heard on the recordings more often only because he did not know the informants well and did not trust Omar.
But Deputy U.S. Attorney William Fitzpatrick said Tatar's invoking of Allah as justification for giving the map demonstrated his radicalism. Kugler disagreed.
"I am simply not convinced that he was driven by any ideology or religious fervor," he said.
Kugler did not attempt to explain what might have been Tatar's motivation, leaving prosecutors wondering about the judge's thoughts.
"Mr. Tatar strikes me as somewhat of a follower," said acting U.S. Attorney Ralph Marra. "Maybe that's what the judge was thinking of."
Overall, Marra said he was "gratified" with the sentences, which he said sent a strong message to any potential homegrown terrorists.
"We're going to catch you and hopefully catch you before you do it," he said. "And we're going to punish you severely."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Being in prison and knowing you are innocent is a great feeling in the sight of God," said Eljvir Duka, 25.
Insha' allah
Allah must want you in prison.
Glad they finally got what they deserve.... Too bad we have to pay for it.
Can't wait for Bubba to make them his bit**s..... yeah, Allah willed it you to be in a cell with Bubba.......
We need to use the Turkish prison system... where the only way you get food is if your family brings it to you, and you're charged for being provided a cell and bed to stay in during your stay.
that may cut down on the crime rate.
God Bless Joe Arpaijo in AZ.
greenberetTFS
04-30-2009, 16:16
A federal judge yesterday sentenced Mohamad Shnewer - often described as the lead defendant in a terrorist plan to attack Fort Dix - to life plus 30 years in prison.
What does that mean life "plus" 30 years........:confused: Does it mean after your dead they'll wait an additional 30 years then remove you from your cell and then they bury you...........:eek: Sentences like that don't make any sense to me ,does it to you? :rolleyes:
GB TFS :munchin
Team Sergeant
04-30-2009, 16:38
A federal judge yesterday sentenced Mohamad Shnewer - often described as the lead defendant in a terrorist plan to attack Fort Dix - to life plus 30 years in prison.
What does that mean life "plus" 30 years........:confused: Does it mean after your dead they'll wait an additional 30 years then remove you from your cell and then they bury you........... Sentences like that don't make any sense to me ,does it to you? :rolleyes:
GB TFS :munchin
"Life in prison" means 20 years if you're a good boy.
Life + 30 (or "life and a day")means he'll never walk out alive.;)
It also depends on which prison system you get locked up in...
armymom1228
04-30-2009, 16:50
A federal judge yesterday sentenced Mohamad Shnewer - often described as the lead defendant in a terrorist plan to attack Fort Dix - to life plus 30 years in prison.
What does that mean life "plus" 30 years........:confused: Does it mean after your dead they'll wait an additional 30 years then remove you from your cell and then they bury you...........:eek: Sentences like that don't make any sense to me ,does it to you? :rolleyes:
GB TFS
Perhaps it garuntees he will never be eligible for parole? One can only hope so.
Personally I think we should follow thier laws and behead them on national television. It will send a message or as Moshe Dayan said, "It is not an eye for an eye, it is two eyes for one. " Until these terrorists and thier masters understand, fullly understand, that we, as Americans are willing and able to protect our land and our people in any manner that suits us and gets our point across then this crap will continue to happen. I hope Bubba puts sand in the vaseline. :mad:
greenberetTFS
04-30-2009, 16:56
"Life in prison" means 20 years if you're a good boy.
Life + 30 (or "life and a day")means he'll never walk out alive.;)
It also depends on which prison system you get locked up in...
OK, TS, But why don't they just say the sentence is life in prison "with no parole".:rolleyes: But, I got your point................;)
GB TFS :munchin
Can't wait for Bubba to make them his bit**s..... yeah, Allah willed it you to be in a cell with Bubba.......
That would be nice, but... They will find allies, and spread their messages behind bars, as well as recruit more to their cause. They will spent their lives educating others in their beliefs. They now have an audience, and a forum for their teachings.
Their heads should be on pikes lining the main entrance to Fort Dix.