The Washington Post headline reads "Detainee's Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots", but when you read the article, that may not be the conclusion you reach. The lawyers at Power Line have a few observations on this artcle. The article states that no 'significant' plots were foiled. Does this mean that 'insignificant' plots were foiled? What is the definition of an 'insignificant' plot?
Paul Mirengoff at Power Line notes:
"One of Thiessen's main points is that Abu Zubaida provided information that led to the arrest of Jose Padilla. The Post acknowledges this, but argues that Padilla was never charged in connection with the "dirty bomb" plot which he was accused of heading. But Thiessen explains that Padilla had agreed to undertake a different, more realistic attack -- a mission to blow up apartment buildings in the United States using natural gas. Is this the plot that the Washington Post dismisses as insignificant?
Thiessen reminds us that, when Padilla was apprehended at Chicago's O'Hare airport -- thanks to iinformation provided by Abu Zubaydah -- he was carrying $10,000 given him by his al Qaeda handlers, along with the email address for Ammar al Baluchi, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad's right-hand man. According to former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, the night before his departure, Padilla had been feted at a dinner by KSM, al Baluchi, and 9/11 plotter Ramzi bin al Shibh. Apparently, they did not consider Padilla's mission insignificant."
Any plot engineered by terrorists to kill American civilians is significant. Talking down the 'War on Terror" and the threat it is to Americans will not make it go away.
Leave a comment