US-Soil Plot Foiled?

[Titan6]

Back in the late '80s-early '90s, a soldier waited for morning PT on a wooded hill. When the formation assembled, he opened fire. I want to say this was in the mid-West, but could be wrong. I remember several were killed/severely wounded, including in the rush to take his position unarmed.

You mean the shooting of 21 people at Fort Bragg, NC in 1995? Including the murder of the Brigade S-2. Never happened. Just ask Len.

Total fabrication:

Fort Bragg, N.C.

Soldier Killed in Shooting
ONE paratrooper died and 20 others were injured in a late October shooting incident in the 82nd Airborne Division area at Fort Bragg, N.C.

Maj. Steven Badger, an intelligence officer with the 82nd's Headquarters Company, 2nd Brigade, was killed when a soldier fired on troops during morning physical training.

Of the 20 injured soldiers, 18 sustained gunshot wounds. One soldier fell as he tried to leave the scene, and another was hurt helping to apprehend the suspect.

Nineteen of the 21 soldiers injured or killed in the incident were from the 82nd Abn. Div. Two others were assigned to U.S. Army Special Operations Command, also at Fort Bragg.

The shooting suspect, Sgt. William Kreutzer, was from 4th Battalion, 325th Infantry Regiment. He was apprehended by Fort Bragg soldiers and is being held at a confinement facility at Camp Lejeune, N.C.

See related story, "Violence at Work," beginning on page 28. -- XVIII Abn. Corps and 82nd Abn. Div. Public Affairs Offices

 

[budney]

You mean the shooting of 17 people at Fort Bragg, NC in 1994? Including the murder of the Battalion S-3. Never happened. Just ask Len.

You're putting words in my mouth. Anyway, I can't find a reference to the incident you describe. Please post a link.

--Len.

 

[Titan6]

Link and edit above. My memory is fuzzy also.

http://www.army.mil/soldiers/dec95/p6.html

Yes those felines at the 82d Airborne. You know how they are.

 

[budney]

Titan6, thanks for the link. Your story illustrates what I'm talking about: a trained soldier who knew his way around the base and knew actual tactics, only managed to kill 1 and wound another dozen and a half.

The six Muslims in question apparently "trained" by shooting paper at a range in Eastern PA, using pistols and semi-auto rifles. They have no known training in team tactics, or even one-man tactics. I'd expect them to kill a few people, but their attack would be short-lived and the body count low. It would certainly be an unhappy day, but as a blow against the United States it would be insignificant.

--Len.

 

[rev214]

It would certainly be an unhappy day, but as a blow against the United States it would be insignificant.

i think the MSM would report it a bit differently...

 

[Titan6]

only managed to kill 1 and wound another dozen and a half.

Well at least I know who the fans of the military are. He was shooting a .22RF rifle at a range of over 100 yards. Turn that into and AK-47 or AR-15 and you have a whole other ball of wax. The soldiers that eventually stopped him charged his position unarmed and were all shot on the way to get him.

The six Muslims in question apparently "trained" by shooting paper at a range in Eastern PA, using pistols and semi-auto rifles. They have no known training in team tactics, or even one-man tactics. I'd expect them to kill a few people, but their attack would be short-lived and the body count low. It would certainly be an unhappy day, but as a blow against the United States it would be insignificant.

Some of this is not true and some this you have no way of knowing but none of it is correct. I suggest until you know what you are talking about to stop making inflamatory statements. Otherwise this is futile.

 

[budney]

i think the MSM would report it a bit differently...

Well sure! Aside from any bias that might come into it, there's the simple fact that sensationalism sells. They'd make a huge deal of it. Unfortunately, that's why their goals line up with those of the terrorists: both want us to be afraid, though for different reasons.

For that matter, government officials want us to be afraid too--for yet a third reason. Namely, so they can whip us into a frenzy and motivate us to vote for them.

--Len.

 

[budney]

only managed to kill 1 and wound another dozen and a half.

Well at least I know who the fans of the military are.

That's not a very high-road remark, and I can't think of a high-road reply to it. I don't think it's necessary to point out what's wrong with your comment.

Once again, the point is that folks on this thread are talking about dozens of soldiers being killed, or describing them as "unarmed as elementary schoolers," or just generally suggesting that these six dunces could have built up a "pile of corpses."

By contrast, I point out that a soldier who knows what he's doing set out to kill his fellow soldiers, and managed to kill exactly one.

I could argue that the folks who think a basefull of soldiers will go down like a bunch of little girls are real "fans of the military." I'm saying that these soldiers are honest-to-goodness men and are capable of dealing with the threat from a bunch of untrained yahoos.

I suggest until you know what you are talking about to stop making inflamatory statements.

There's a certain amount of speculation on this thread, but for some reason you only object to the guy speculating that trained soldiers can take on untrained nincompoops. You're perfectly fine with speculation to the effect that the nincompoops would be able to pull off a sizable massacre.

--Len.

 

[Titan6]

I agree completely. For you to attempt to minimize and dismiss those killed and wounded is NTHR and disgusts me.

I could argue that the folks who think a basefull of soldiers will go down like a bunch of little girls are real "fans of the military." I'm saying that they're honest-to-goodness men and are capable of dealing with the threat from a bunch of untrained yahoos.

Again you do not understand the threat.

 

[AZTOY]

I disagree!

If the six yahoos opened fired on a Battalion formation with AKs, a lot of solders would die!:banghead:

 

[budney]

For you to attempt to minimize and dismiss those killed and wounded is NTHR and disgusts me.

That's a pathetic argumentum ad hominem. We're discussing the effectiveness of an attack by six guys armed with pistols and semi-automatic rifles, with no tactical training.

One way to discuss the effectiveness is to compare their proposed attack with an actual attack. You originally claimed that seventeen soldiers were killed in the actual attack, but it turned out that only one was killed and not seventeen as you originally thought.

That's certainly informative: it tells us that a trained soldier actually assigned to that base, in attempting to kill many of his fellow soldiers, was unable to do so. It suggests that untrained individuals with small arms are unlikely to succeed at creating the bloodbath that you and others think they could.

Nothing in that discussion makes me glad to see anyone die, so your attempt to suggest otherwise is simply a cheap attempt at argumentum ad hominem.

--Len

 

[budney]

If the six yahoos opened fired on a Battalion formation with AKs, a lot of solders would die!

Maybe, but it's hardly a foregone conclusion that many would die. In the actual incident linked above, the soldiers were in formation and many didn't die.

--Len.

 

[Correia]

Maybe, but it's hardly a foregone conclusion that many would die. In the actual incident linked above, the soldiers were in formation and many didn't die.

Out of curiosity, do you know the difference between .22LR and 7.62x39?

Just so you know, if you shoot 18 people with a 7.62x39 at that kind of range, you don't get a 94% survival rate.

 

[Titan6]

One way to discuss the effectiveness is to compare their proposed attack with an actual attack. You originally claimed that seventeen soldiers were killed in the actual attack, but it turned out that only one was killed and not seventeen as you originally thought.

That is not what I said. What I said was:

You mean the shooting of 17 people at Fort Bragg

The number was higher. You feel this is better? You really do have issues.

We're discussing the effectiveness of an attack by six guys armed with pistols and semi-automatic rifles, with no tactical training.

All of the bold face parts are either unknown or untrue.

 

[budney]

The number was higher. You feel this is better? You really do have issues.

The number of dead was substantially lower. At no point have I ever expressed approval of the shooting of US soldiers (or anyone else). Your dishonesty is unbecoming.

We're discussing the effectiveness of an attack by six guys armed with pistols and semi-automatic rifles, with no tactical training.

All of the bold face parts are either unknown or untrue.

It would be nice if you'd point out exactly what is untrue, and provide sources. You can't of course, because you're wrong, but it would be nice.

First, there were six guys. The only weapons they actually possessed were handguns, shotguns and semi-automatic rifles. Their "training" consisted of watching jihadist videos, shooting for a week in Gouldsboro PA, and playing paintball.

--Len.

 

[Correia]

Thanks Budney, this has been a very informative thread. So far I've learned:

1. The government can never do anything right.
2. If it seems the government does something right, once in a great while, like break up a terror plot, then it must be fake.
3. Terrorists are made up, kind of like the boogey man to scare us into supporting the Patriot act.
4. If there are real terrorists, then we must assume that they will be incompetant.
5. If real terrorists actually accomplish something, then we must assume that it was by luck. (unless Dick Cheney actually planned it).
6. Six muslim men, who make a video of them shooting, and screaming Allah Akhbar and Death to America, were just enjoying the 1st and 2nd amendment rights. Any plans found in their possession, or confessions made to .gov informants should not be believed.
7. The 82nd Airborne is the same as a local Girl Scout Troop.
8. Even though the soldiers are disarmed, the above mentioned terrorists won't be able to hurt them, due to the terrorist's incompetance.
9. If we disagree with you, we must love the Patriot Act, and think that soldiers should be disarmed.
10. A lone whackadoo soldier, who attacks a formation with a .22LR is the ultimate in total lethality. But six motivated, suicidal, terrorists armed with superior weapons are not a threat. We can assume the casualty rate will be the same for both incidents.
11. One .22LR is more lethal than six AK47s.
12. When your argument is attacked, and the flaws in your logic are shown, you should pull out an even more bizzare strawman.
13. After three or four increasingly fairytale like strawmen, (i.e. taking over the Nimitz with boxcutters, the six guys were going to take over all of Fort Dix) start casting dispersions on others, question their patriotism and mandhood,

Sure. But concerned enough to sell away your habeas corpus, fourth and fifth amendment rights? To abdicate your rights as a citizen and beg daddy government to protect you?

then change the subject.
14. Jihadists would never attack a military force here. Jihadists have never attacked a US military force anywhere else either.
15. If you think that terrorism is a bonafide threat, then by default you must belive in eliminating Habeus Corpus, and dissolution of the entire bill of rights. If you believe in the Constitution, but you also think that terrorists are real, then you are wrong.
16. Committing mass murder on a military base is totally impossible, because armed men would be there in minutes. Whereas committing mass murder at any other location is possible, becasue armed men would be there in minutes.
17. When you say something is ridiculous and dismiss it, don't retract that when people start providing links.
18. Anyone who disagrees with you is a sheep.
19. When your argument has been taken out behind the barn, and put down like Ol' Yeller, don't hesitate to whip out the old "Rights are absolute!" card. (see #15). Because other posters shouldn't infringe on your right to make crap up.
20. Jihadists who's only training consists of shooting at paper targets are not a threat, and are easily stopped by CCW holders who's only training consists of shooting at paper targets.

Well, that's what I've got so far. This has been one of the most entertaining threads, at least since I learned that "people like me" are personally responsible for global nuclear proliferation, as you so helpfully pointed out in another thread.

Of course, feel free to come back with how this just shows I love the Patriot Act, George Bush, and strangling kittens.

 

[MD_Willington]

These guys being so stupid make me think that they were patsies for something else...

"watch the hands folks, smoke and mirrors"... they were probably set up to fail by much smarter individuals...

And if you think that they were the ones who lost, I'd do a double take on that... everytime they get caught, someone from .GOV starts squaking about having more control over this, that ot the other, and starts intruding on your freedoms because the bad scary men might use that same freedom you enjoy to do something bad...

 

[hotpig]

AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!

That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed -AD) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 25 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism.

America's military had been decimated and down sized/right sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.

Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.

Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait! , and America continues her slumber.

The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.

Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.

Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in1988, killing 259.

Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war. The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993 , two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The following month, February 1993 , a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the WorldTradeCenter in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

A few months later in June of 1996 , another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the KhobarTowers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.

They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000 , when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001 . Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.

In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high officials in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979 .

I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has been changed forever.. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said "... it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant." This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.

This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year this is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children in years to come.

If you believe in this please forward it to as many people as you can especially to the young people and all those who dozed off in history class and who seem so quick to protest such a necessary military action. If you don't believe it, just delete it and go back to sleep.

- -------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----------------------------- (Comments: You have to read the catalogue of events in this brief piece. So ask yourself how anyone can take the position that all we have to do is bring our troops home from Iraq, sit back, reset the snooze alarm, go back to sleep, and no one will ever bother us again....?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[budney]

Correia, none of your characterizations are accurate. That being the case, discussion appears relatively futile.

I repent: six guys with semi-automatic weapons attacking a fortress is good enough reason to suspend habeas corpus, protection from search and seizure, due process, the right to a speedy trial, and all the rest of it. What could I EVER have been thinking.

--Len.

To be more specific:

1. The government can never do anything right.

That's actually close to my actual view, but not exactly. All initiation of force is immoral; government is synonymous with the initiation of force; therefore, government is immoral. In addition to being immoral in that high-level sense, however, they're also inefficient and corrupt.

2. If it seems the government does something right, once in a great while, like break up a terror plot, then it must be fake.

NO. The plot was real enough. I never said otherwise. Well, for some definition of real, anyway; their aspirations were real. It's only their competence I question.

3. Terrorists are made up, kind of like the boogey man to scare us into supporting the Patriot act.

NO. The terrorists are real enough. Threat inflation is used to increase public support for things like USA PATRIOT, but that doesn't make the threat fictitious.

4. If there are real terrorists, then we must assume that they will be incompetant.

NO. The 9/11 guys were certainly competent enough to get the job done. And the government failed to stop them, despite all sorts of advance intel that might have tipped them off. My real position on competence is two-fold. First, the competent ones will generally thwart the government DESPITE these draconian measures. Second, the government hasn't interdicted any competent terrorists recently, because if they had we'd have heard about it.

5. If real terrorists actually accomplish something, then we must assume that it was by luck. (unless Dick Cheney actually planned it).

NO. I never said that. And bringing Cheney into it is a feeble attempt at painting me as a liberal. Luck certainly helps, of course. Even the 9/11 guys benefited from a bit of luck: for example, it was lucky for them that intel on Muslims in flight schools was bungled so badly by the government.

6. Six muslim men, who make a video of them shooting, and screaming Allah Akhbar and Death to America, were just enjoying the 1st and 2nd amendment rights. Any plans found in their possession, or confessions made to .gov informants should not be believed.

NO. Never said that. I never said these guys weren't sincere. Just that they're idiots.

7. The 82nd Airborne is the same as a local Girl Scout Troop.

NO. I said the opposite. It was someone else who likened them to elementary schoolers, and I parodied their slander by mentioning Brownies. I believe that they aren't Brownies, but rather are competent adults who know how to handle military situations.

8. Even though the soldiers are disarmed, the above mentioned terrorists won't be able to hurt them, due to the terrorist's incompetance.

I'll give you that one, your sarcasm aside. So far you're 2 for 8. They're in a fortified compound with armed guards. Unless those armed guards are incompetent--which is more in line with your view than mine--they will respond quickly. So the fact that there are unarmed men in the base is countered by the fact that the place is crawling with heavily armed guards trained to respond to incursions.

9. If we disagree with you, we must love the Patriot Act, and think that soldiers should be disarmed.

NO. That's pure slander. At least some people regard the threat as much more serious than I do, yet agree with me about the MCA and USA PATRIOT.

10. A lone whackadoo soldier, who attacks a formation with a .22LR is the ultimate in total lethality. But six motivated, suicidal, terrorists armed with superior weapons are not a threat. We can assume the casualty rate will be the same for both incidents.

NO. I never said any of that. I only pointed out that the precedent advanced in support of the lethality of the "Dix Six" was a poor precedent, because it actually militates the other way.

11. One .22LR is more lethal than six AK47s.

NO. Never said any such thing.

12. When your argument is attacked, and the flaws in your logic are shown, you should pull out an even more bizzare strawman.

NO. So far, no logical flaws have been pointed out. In fact, the actual military guys in the thread have agreed with me that the body count would be low. The "attacks" on my argument have consisted primarily of naked assertions, ad homina and ridicule. Sort of like the ridicule in this list of yours.

13. After three or four increasingly fairytale like strawmen, (i.e. taking over the Nimitz with boxcutters, the six guys were going to take over all of Fort Dix) start casting dispersions on others, question their patriotism and mandhood, then change the subject.

NO. As I've already indicated, I've parodied the "Dix Six" to point out the inflation of threat here. The assumption that a base full of soldiers would experience a "mass murder" (others' words, not mine!) and a "pile of bodies" (their words, not mine!) and that "lots of soldiers would be killed," etc., represents a ridiculous level of fear. You're suggesting that our best and brightest are sitting ducks when attacked by six untrained men with small arms.

And I've certainly never changed the subject yet. I've been like a broken record.

14. Jihadists would never attack a military force here. Jihadists have never attacked a US military force anywhere else either.

NO. I never said that; of course they might. If they have triple-digit IQs, however, they'll attack our military using IEDs and sniping. A single "blaze of glory" assault by untrained men is an extremely poor use of limited manpower. Some damn fool might try that, of course, but that's great: if they all tried it, the terrorists would all soon be dead.

15. If you think that terrorism is a bonafide threat, then by default you must belive in eliminating Habeus Corpus, and dissolution of the entire bill of rights. If you believe in the Constitution, but you also think that terrorists are real, then you are wrong.

NO. I never said any such thing. As I've already said, terrorism is a real enough threat, but NO threat justifies the loss of our civil rights. Folks can believe it's real, and even inflate the threat, without believing in the loss of our civil rights. The two issues are independent. Unfortunately, too many believe that the threat justifies the loss of civil rights, or foolishly deny that civil rights have been lost in the first place.

16. Committing mass murder on a military base is totally impossible,
because armed men would be there in minutes. Whereas committing mass murder at any other location is possible, becasue armed men would be there in minutes.

NO. I never said either of those things. It's difficult to mass-murder in a military installation, because for some odd reason military installations and personnel are actually set up specially to deal with exactly such risks. Dealing with killers is their job. The reason it's easier in, say, a shopping mall, even if police response time is the same, is because (1) the civvies in the mall are hopelessly untrained, and (2) the police are no match for a bunch of MPs. But I never said anything about "possible" or "impossible."

17. When you say something is ridiculous and dismiss it, don't retract that when people start providing links.

NO. Give one example of this.

18. Anyone who disagrees with you is a sheep.

NO. I never said that either. A "sheep" is someone who is easily led. Folks on this forum mock the unarmed because they're "easily led" in the area of self-defense. Yet some, and I do stress SOME, on this forum, are easily led by the administrations claims about terrorism. That applies to domestic threat inflation, but also to the current build-up toward an invasion of Iran.

19. When your argument has been taken out behind the barn, and put down like Ol' Yeller, don't hesitate to whip out the old "Rights are absolute!" card. (see #15). Because other posters shouldn't infringe on your right to make crap up.

NO. This is a repetition of #12.

20. Jihadists who's only training consists of shooting at paper targets are not a threat, and are easily stopped by CCW holders who's only training consists of shooting at paper targets.

NO. I never said they "aren't a threat," only that the threat is inflated. Nor have I compared six jihadists with six CCW holders; I compared them with an armed populace. Six jihadists versus hundreds of armed CCW holders. That tilts the odds slightly in our favor, which raises the interesting question: if Bush really cared about the threat, why isn't he attacking the anti-RKBA laws in New Jersey?

Well, that's what I've got so far...

You're 2 for 20. Might need more practice.

This has been one of the most entertaining threads, at least since I learned that "people like me" are personally responsible for global nuclear proliferation, as you so helpfully pointed out in another thread.

Don't start that again. I merely pointed out that it's funny to talk about non-proliferation when you have a great big government-sized blind spot. Governments have actually used nukes--and our government has used them on civilians. Yet some of us believe that it's right and proper for government to (1) own nukes, and (2) decide who gets them.

--Len.

 

[Correia]

Accurate?



And you respond with this?

I repent: six guys with semi-automatic weapons attacking a fortress is good enough reason to suspend habeas corpus, protection from search and seizure, due process, the right to a speedy trial, and all the rest of it. What could I EVER have been thinking.

You should have thrown in the girl scouts, the Nimitz, boxcutters, and the patriot act, and you would have rehashed the whole thread! Don't hold back now.

I couldn't have made up a better quote to illustrate the problems with your argument. (edited to say, in fact, you used #15)


Edited to say disregard this post, since Budney went back and added about 1,000 words to his prior post.

 

[Titan6]

You are missing the point Len. Fort Dix is not a fortress. It is a military post full of mostly unarmed people. Six (or ten depending on which account you are following) armed with fully automatic AK-47s (or even semi-autos), acting in concert could easily kill hundreds of troops if they were massed in formations.

Public Law 107-56 has nothing to do with that. If you want to draw that conclusion you are two years too late. That said, it needs to go.

 

[hotpig]

Maybe we are talking about different terrorist. The ones that were going to attack Ft Dix were arrested while trying to buy full auto rifles. RPG's were reported to be on their shipping list also.

These guys were going to attack a base that is full of unarmed people. They would have met little resistance for the first few minutes.

All they needed to do to win the battle is to cause one casualty. Be that a MP at the gate or a 5 year old on a bicycle. Just doing the attack makes them martyrs.

 

[beaucoup ammo]

H. L. Mencken and Newton Minow..still correct after all these years!


Associated Press

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 - Updated: 04:26 PM EST

"DEBAR, Macedonia - Three Muslim brothers who allegedly helped plot to kill soldiers at a U.S. Army base have roots in one of Europe’s most pro-American corners - a region that remains grateful to the United States for ending the Kosovo war.

Dritan Duka, 28, Shain Duka, 26, and Eljvir Duka, 23, who were arrested in New Jersey this week in what U.S. authorities said was a bungled scheme to blow up and gun down soldiers at Fort Dix, were born in Debar, a remote town on Macedonia’s rugged border with Serbia’s Kosovo province.
****
Relatives in the ethnic Albanian-populated town of 15,000 said they had not seen the brothers in more than two decades, but expressed disbelief Wednesday that the three would attack the United States."

 

[budney]

Maybe we are talking about different terrorist. The ones that were going to attack Ft Dix were arrested while trying to buy full auto rifles. RPG's were reported to be on their shipping list also.

Right. They were trying to buy them from the FBI. That doesn't speak well of these particular guys' competence.

I can't comment on the availability of full-auto weapons in the US, but if they're gettable, they're most likely gettable from inner-city gang sources. I've never heard of a drive-by RPG shooting. In short, there's a big gap between wanting something and having it.

--Len.

 

[budney]

I repent: six guys with semi-automatic weapons attacking a fortress is good enough reason to suspend habeas corpus, protection from search and seizure, due process, the right to a speedy trial, and all the rest of it. What could I EVER have been thinking.

I couldn't have made up a better quote to illustrate the problems with your argument. (edited to say, in fact, you used #15)

So far you still haven't directly addressed anything I've said; here you're using ridicule to dismiss my sarcasm out-of-hand. In fact habeas corpus has been suspended in the MCA, and that plus USA PATRIOT has suspended the fourth-amendment protection from search and seizures without due process. Holding someone without habeas corpus nullifies the right to a speedy trial, or to confront one's accusers, or to know the charges against oneself. And so on. My characterization of the Constitutional situation is completely accurate.

If you regard the "Dix Six" as a potentially terrifying terrorist plot, but oppose USA PATRIOT and the MCA, then that's good news. We're mostly on the same page, and there's nothing left to banter about. Generally, folks who support the Iraqi invasion also support Bush's other measures, including the MCA. It is to those people, wherever they may be, that my sarcasm is addressed.

--Len.