Saudi man arrested for plotting to bomb GW Bush

[The Annoyed Man]

Saudi man arrested for 'buying bomb-making equipment and targeting home of ex President George W. Bush'
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 5:48 PM on 24th February 2011
DailyMail.co.uk

A Saudi Arabian man has been arrested for allegedly buying chemicals and equipment to make a bomb and researching U.S. targets, the Department of Justice said today.

Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, 20, a legal resident of Texas, was arrested last night and faces charges of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction.

Among the targets he is alleged to have researched was the Dallas home of former President George W. Bush.

According to an arrest affidavit, Aldawsari had been researching online how to construct an IED using chemicals.

He has also allegedly described his desire for violent jihad and martyrdom in blog postings and a personal journal.

Excerpts from the journal allegedly indicated he had been planning to commit a terrorist attack in the U.S. for years.

I actually posted this story because it begs several questions not necessarily having to do directly with either this suspect, his motives, or former President Bush, and I honestly don't know how I feel about them. I would be curious to know what you all thought about it.

Should government be able to arrest you for saying that it would be your desire to assassinate a government official, or former official, or foreign dignitary? At what point does free speech - no matter how obnoxious or seditious or dangerous - become a crime? Let's say that I'm a farmer who is mad as hades at the Department of Agriculture because I believe that they regulate too much of my life, and I start blogging about how I wish that the department were entirely eliminated. Further, I post that if I had the wherewithal, I would do it myself. And then I go buy several hundred pounds of fertilizer for my crops and 200 gallons of diesel fuel for my tractors. Let's add that I have spent some time online, and among other things I'm looking at, I read pages on how to make a hyperbaric bomb.... ....but I never actually make a bomb. I've expressed a desire. I've purchased bomb-making materials, but I haven't carried anything out. Should I be arrest-able and prosecutable for that? Before I actually have the chance to use the fertilizer on my crops and the fuel in my tractor?

BTW, I have no doubt that the "prince of a fellow" in the linked article is guilty as sin. I believe that he probably did all those things he is accused of, and I believe that he would have likely carried out his plot if he had not been intercepted.

But that said, these are things that could affect each one of us. Let's say for instance that I had made a passing reference to assassinating a president or congressperson because I was really angry, and then I later go out and buy a new Remington 700 heavy barreled .308 and 1,000 rounds of match ammo. The rifle and ammo could be completely unrelated to my words; and in fact, my words might have been nothing more than a temporary flare up of temper against government in general. Who hasn't felt that at one time or another, in all honesty, regardless of which part of the political spectrum you hail from?

Anyway, those were just a few random thoughts that occurred to me. I am in no way advocating anything. But I do see us getting closer and closer to the "thought police" that George Orwell wrote of in "1984." Just a couple of days ago, a 10 year old boy was arrested in Colorado and institutionalized because he had drawn a stick figure drawing of himself shooting a teacher. He was diagnosed a long time ago with ADHD and his therapist advised him to draw it out when he was angry about something, as an exercise in dissipating his anger in a non-violent matter. In fact, he was already feeling better and had thrown the picture away when it was discovered and he was arrested. (SOURCE) The boy didn't do anything to anybody. He had an angry thought, and he gave expression to it in a defused manner, much more safely than if he had actually carried out his anger against the objects of his anger. Basically, he was locked up for having an angry thought.

How far is too far? I would really be interested in what others have to say about this.

[Keith B]

It boils down to one thing; threats. Threats are NOT 1A rights. When you have threatened the life of an individual, then the line has been crossed. Up to that point, expresing desires that people were not in office, suggesting ways to remove them from their position via legal methods (voting out, impeachment, etc.) or rallying to have them removed from power via legal methods is OK.

My example is, If you don't like me, and say you wish I would move out of the neighborhood, that is fine. But the minute you threaten to get rid of me me, my family, my home, litterlaly, via a non-legal and violent method, that is a threat and I should have the right to stop you by whatever means neccesary to prevent that from happening.

[TxKimberMan]

You make some very good points, and it's good food for thought. However as I understand the law, if I threaten you with my fist (even if I don't strike you) that's assault.

He has also allegedly described his desire for violent jihad and martyrdom in blog postings and a personal journal.
Excerpts from the journal allegedly indicated he had been planning to commit a terrorist attack in the U.S. for years.

Edit: KeithB beat me to it!

[Beiruty]

How about the pro-union lawmaker that said on the TV, "be bloody when needed" while promoting protests against the government.

As for the OP, The burden of the proof is on the FBI and their prosecutor to prove a case beyond a shadow of doubt or this is what they say.


I guess talking too much and doing something that can be perceived as plot in making is nothing but stupidity.

[Keith B]

'Being bloody' is not a specific threat against someone/something, and could be construed as taking a beating yourself while legally fighting against those that are threatening you. I have used they phrase 'got beat up' or 'got a bloody nose' when describing how I was taken to task and overruled on a project or proposal through work.

[4copas]

I would say if enough of the right pieces fit together, something should be done. For example, Jared Loughner, where nothing was done. Just my 2 cents.........

[WildBill]

I would say if enough of the right pieces fit together, something should be done. For example, Jared Loughner, where nothing was done. Just my 2 cents.........

I disagree. The crimes alledgedly committed by Jared Loughner, are tragic, heinous and dispicable, but they could not be prevented by our current legal system.

[ELB]

'Being bloody' is not a specific threat against someone/something, and could be construed as taking a beating yourself while legally fighting against those that are threatening you. I have used they phrase 'got beat up' or 'got a bloody nose' when describing how I was taken to task and overruled on a project or proposal through work.

I think there is little doubt that Rep Capuano meant for the union to shed someone else's blood, not their own. When he finally backpedaled from his own comments, it didn't even occur to him to claim claiming otherwise -- he just pleaded he was too "passionate." At the same rally he referred to some Tea Partier counter protesters as (paraphrasing) - a couple of nuts trying to take it all away from you (the union). One of his union supporters spit on a Tea Partier, and the police had to step in to prevent some fights. There is little doubt about Capuano's meaning. Note that just yesterday in Wisconsin one of the CWA union guys -- a rather burly guy -- struck a slightly built woman for having the temerity to videotape and argue with him. Pretty much any incident of violence at a Tea Party rally can be traced back to a union rep. (Remember Gladney?)

Which is just fine, of course, because Capuano is of the correct political persuasion to issue violent threats without fear of serious consequence. I watched nearly 8 years of the left wishing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and pretty much any American soldier (except those that might shoot their officers) violent or agonizing deaths. Even broadcasting on the air a suggestion to assassinate the President brought no repercussions at all. Her radio station went out of business, but that wasn't because she threatened the Prez, they just had lousy ratings overall.

However, the SPLC will tell you that "right wing hate groups" are growing exponentially in this country because of the President's skin color, and that the guy who shot Giffords was inspired to do so by right wing rhetoric. Then some inspired genius in one of the federal terrorism fusion centers can issue a report warning of domestic terrorism by NRA guys with assault rifles. (Note: FBI says "hate" violence was down 15% last year. But don't confuse the issue with facts.)

So it is not what you say, it is who you are and who is President when you say it. Wanna hang Bush in effigy, suggesting it should be done for real? Have him assassinated? Free speech. Want to say Obama and his union supporters are bankrupting the country at a Tea Party rally ? You are a violent racist.

If you can't tell, I am just a leeeetle cynical about the calls for "civil" speech and the like.

As for the jihadists like the guy in the original post, there is one thing I have to admire about them -- they say what they mean, and do what they say. It used to be the conventional wisdom that it was part of Arabic culture to engage in a lot of hyperbole when speaking, especially politically, but the violent Islamist folks have done away with that. When they say they want to wipe Israel off the map, they keep working until they get nukes to do it with. When they say they want to attack infidels wherever they are, they do so, at recruiting stations, airport lobbies, military bases, whatever. Build a Caliphate that runs the world? These guys are serious about it. Not always effective, but they keep trying.

So if you get a young jihadi saying the President should be killed and buying a large amount of fertilizer, it is a pretty safe bet that he is not a farmer.

[G26ster]

This is a tough one. Lemme see, 2+2=? Gee...ah dunno.

[The Annoyed Man]

So if you get a young jihadi saying the President should be killed and buying a large amount of fertilizer, it is a pretty safe bet that he is not a farmer.

Which is why I said that I think he is probably guilty as sin. But I worry about the larger issue too - not just the specifics of this case. We live in angry times. People are justifiably angry - or at least some are - but people are often not discreet enough to prevent their anger from spilling over into their words in such a way that they won't later regret opening their mouths. I would like to see a more civil society where people of one confirmed opinion quit acting like it is their right to bully other people who refuse to convert to their opinion, but neither do I want to surrender my free speech rights or see someone else have to surrender theirs.

And the illustration of the young boy I gave in my OP is a perfect example of authority refusing to take into consideration the context in which something took place. Absence of context is one of the most egregious errors made by people who seek to interpret the Bible. It is no less egregious in current times when people who stand in judgement of others refuse to take context into account. And I am decidedly NOT making a pitch for situational ethics here.

[Texas Dan Mosby]

I would like to see a more civil society

That's not going to happen.

It boils down to one thing; threats.

I would agree with that.

Direct threats are fairly simple to recognize, regardless if conveyed figuratively, or literally.

[Oldgringo]

I seem to have misplaced my 10' pole. While I look for it, y'all may ponder the following poem by Paster Martin Niemoller:

First They came...

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Does this apply in our day and time or no?

[Apophis]

I seem to have misplaced my 10' pole. While I look for it, y'all may ponder the following poem by Paster Martin Niemoller:

First They came...

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Does this apply in our day and time or no?

great quote, that many fail to realize. We give up our freedom for "security" we are fools and deserve neither.

[The Annoyed Man]

I would like to see a more civil society

That's not going to happen.

Maybe not, but there is no doubt that things are worse now than they used to be... or at least, that is my perception of it. I agree that it's not likely to change, but it could change if enough people were enough tired of it too. After all, if it changed in one direction, why not change in the other? All it takes is for enough people to decide they've had enough.

It boils down to one thing; threats.

I would agree with that.

Direct threats are fairly simple to recognize, regardless if conveyed figuratively, or literally.

They are simple to recognize IF one uses judgement. The example with the 10 year old boy I mentioned above is a clear example of someone not using judgement. If I say "So and so is really gonna get his butt whooped if he doesn't quit being such a jerk;" that isn't a threat, it is a comment that somebody is going to whoop his butt, and it should only be taken at face value. It doesn't mean that I intend to whoop So and So's butt. But people jump to all kinds of conclusions, and I don't have to try too hard to imagine a situation in which an intellectually challenged individual might take that as a threat from me, even though it is nothing of the kind.

I would like to think that everything is black and white, but often it isn't. When something falls into the gray, then it requires the individual to practice discernment. Too often, people are lacking that trait. Even so, lack of discernment on the other guy's part doesn't make it OK for him to retaliate against me for a wrongly perceived threat, when I made no such threat.

I know that is a convoluted example, but I have no faith that a lot of people are able to "easily" discern what is a threat, and what isn't. I believe that you are able to do so, and I know that I am able to do so, but that doesn't mean that discernment is globally available to everyone.

[Oldgringo]

Now from another point of view:

We should all be glad that this jihadist wannabe was scoped out when he was. As for the alleged shooter named Lochner in Tucson, he gave off enough wierdo signals that someone should have had a serious chat with him...before the fact.

As for me, I'm cool and mean no harm to nobody.