There are some reports suggesting that authorities may have just scratched the surface of the alleged Denver-based NYC terrorism plot:
ABC News reported Sunday that federal investigators are looking at the possibility eight more people may be involved in the ongoing terror investigation centering on Aurora and New York City.
Four may have ties to Colorado, the other four to New York.
ABC’s Chief Investigative Correspondent, Brian Ross, tells 7News the eight could be part of the same cell, but operating in two different areas.
Late Saturday, the FBI arrested 24-year-old Najibullah Zazi of Aurora … Ross said Zazi is believed to be one of just two people who may know the players on both sides of the cell. The other person is a man believed to have accompanied Zazi to Pakistan in 2008. Ross said investigators are concentrating their search for him in Colorado.
Frankly, I’m still not sure quite how seriously to take this. Cue the New York Times:
The central figure in what authorities describe as a widening inquiry into a possible plot to detonate explosives in the United States had been trained in weapons and explosives in Pakistan and, according to court papers released Sunday, had made nine pages of handwritten notes on how to make and handle bombs.
The court papers, released after the arrests in Colorado of Najibullah Zazi and his father, as well as that of an imam in Queens, showed that during a search in New York of the younger Mr. Zazi’s rental car on Sept. 11, agents found a laptop computer containing an image of the notes. According to a criminal complaint, the notes “contain formulations and instructions regarding the manufacture and handling of initiating explosives, main explosives charges, explosives detonators and components of a fusing system.”
Court papers also show that in F.B.I. interviews, Mr. Zazi, 24, told agents that during a 2008 trip to Pakistan, he attended courses and received instruction on weapons and explosives at a Qaeda training camp in a tribal area.
The arrests late Saturday indicated the case was rapidly accelerating and provided for the first time — in a sometimes confusing week of events — an explanation of why authorities have focused on the men, even as it shed little light about the alleged plot still under investigation in the United States, Pakistan and elsewhere.
“It is important to note that we have no specific information regarding the timing, location or target of any planned attack,” David Kris, assistant attorney general for national security, said early Sunday.
Veteran counterterrorism officials said they were convinced the plot was potentially serious, based largely on their emerging suspicions about Mr. Zazi, his training in explosives, his travel to Pakistan tribal areas where Al Qaeda is influential and the apparent ease of his movements within the United States.
But these officials, in Washington, New York and Denver, acknowledge that they could be overstating Mr. Zazi’s significance because they know little about his precise intentions and may never know completely what he might have been planning. But as the investigation has progressed there appear to be few doubters within the government.
Once upon a time, that might have been enough for me, but after the various instances since 9/11 where the government has announced the unraveling of a major terror plot — only to see subsequent developments make the “plot” seem like a lot less than meets the eye — I guess I’m a little gunshy when it comes to believing what the authorities say about this stuff. Which I suppose is good: skepticism of government is healthy, and citizens are entitled to a genuine presumption of innocence (not just lip service paid thereto).
Mr. Zazi’s arrest, it should be noted, is not for bomb-making or attack-plotting or anything like that: it’s for simply lying to investigators during the course of his voluntary interview session last week. Specifically, according to the Times: “he falsely said he had never seen the handwritten notes and told agents that he had not written them.” That’s interesting — I wonder how they were able to come so quickly and definitively to the conclusion that that claim is a lie?
In any case, using this sort of process-based charge as a vehicle to arrest the guy does not prove he’s innocent of anything more serious, contrary to the insinuations by CAIR and other civil-liberties types. But presumably, at some point, prosecutors will charge him with some actual terrorism-related crime, rather than pursuing the allegations of terrorism him through public statements and leaked documents. Right?
The Times article says yes: “Government officials said the charges, which carry a maximum penalty of eight years in prison, were preliminary and were likely to be followed by an indictment with more detailed accusations as the investigation continues.” Let’s hope so. For now, though, as the Denver Post notes: “No evidence has been presented to substantiate the international plot that FBI agents announced in arrest affidavits.”
Quoting again from the Times, I do sympathize with the authorities on this point:
What has troubled federal prosecutors and the F.B.I. is the belief that Mr. Zazi embodies what concerns them most: a Westernized militant, trained by Al Qaeda in Pakistan, whose experience and legal resident status in the United States give him the freedom to operate freely, yet attract little attention.
But the questions about Mr. Zazi’s significance continue to persist in part because the surveillance of him and others, including wiretaps and physical surveillance, was interrupted before authorities had obtained crucial information, like the intended target or the timing of any plot. …
In a sense, the case reflects the tension that has grown between intelligence and law enforcement agencies since the September 2001 attacks. Some intelligence officials are prepared to disrupt a group as soon as its activities are discovered, while more case-oriented law enforcement agencies seek to surreptitiously track or infiltrate a suspect group, uncovering all of its members, until there is compelling evidence to charge the plotters with a crime.
In this case, officials say, Mr. Zazi and his confederates were apparently deterred before any plot had a chance to take shape and before investigators were able to clearly understand what the men were planning. That left prosecutors to charge the three men with proxy offenses of making false statements rather than crimes directly involving terrorism.
Some officials said they had moved quickly, fearing that Mr. Zazi’s plans might have been more advanced than they realized, at the same time counterterrorism officials in New York were preparing for major events like this week’s meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, to be attended by President Obama and other leaders.
It’s a tough dilemma, and I certainly don’t have all the answers. But authorities do need to consider that “crying wolf” about these things — with high-profile arrests that turn out to be duds — has negative security-related consequences, too.