Hank Kalet

Terror alert, II

This post from the Columbia Journalism Review touches on what I wrote earlier about the Fort Dix terror case:

It’s hard for the press not to run with stories of possible domestic terrorism, and for good reason — it’s serious and scary business. That said, not all plots are created equal, and lumping them all together into one grab bag of thwarted domestic terrorism cases is something reporters should avoid, especially given some of the absurd plots that have been uncovered over the last couple years. This is not to say that all leads shouldn’t be investigated — they should — or that anyone discovered in any stage of planning an attack shouldn’t be scooped up — they should– but we’ve seen a couple of cases in the last few years be blown way out of proportion, and that makes us wonder what the Fort Dix story will become.

Those cases, Paul McLeary writes, should have remained in the front-brain of reporters as they entered the vortex of the story.

The Bush administration’s Justice Department has a vested interest in portraying every “plot” it busts as the next 9/11, regardless of how embryonic or feeble. It serves as a distraction from the administration’s failures in Iraq and elsewhere, it perpetuates the state of fear that has served this White House well in recent years, and it justifies the massive Homeland Security bureaucracy. Journalists, meanwhile, are at a decided disadvantage when trying to determine the seriousness — or lack thereof — of the threat, because the government holds all the cards. That’s why a healthy dose of skepticism — given this administration’s track record with truth — is crucial to the press’s handling of stories like Fort Dix. These would-be terrorists in New Jersey should be taken seriously, at least until we have reason to believe they
shouldn’t. We’re only a couple of days into this story, but it’s never too early to watch for the hype, and watch for how the press either runs with it, or turns a skeptical eye.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here.

Consider this a reminder on MOM line

Things have been quiet on the MOM line front for a while, but as we reported a few weeks back, a rally is scheduled for Friday in Manalapan designed to get the ball rolling on the train line again.

The Asbury Park Press weighs in today with its standard editorial supporting the project and encouraging rail supporters to turn out in force.

It essentially mirrors our argument of a few weeks ago, when we called for MOM opponents to set up their own counter rally. To my knowledge, however, nothing’s happening.

That’s unfortunate — and foolish. The Manalapan rally will help create the impression of grassroots support that will have no counterweight without an anti-MOM rally.

That could give gives MOM supporters a leg up, as we argued in April:

What is needed is a competing rally, bringing residents of the three Middlesex County towns together to remind NJ Transit that the western route is not only the most expensive but also faces serious opposition.

The key is to remember that:

Supporters are hoping to control the terms of debate. Opponents in Middlesex
County shouldn’t let them.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here.

Terror alert

I resisted the urge to comment yesterday on the Fort Dix terror arrests, but having had some time to think about what happened and having heard Keith Olbermann’s comments, I thought I’d weigh in.

First, if the information released by the feds is correct, then the six men arrested should face some jail time — significant time.

Second, and this is where the Olbermann comments come in, there was a breathless quality to the reporting yesterday, taking what were a half dozen somewhat ineffectual terrorist wannabes and elevating them to mastermind status. As I said, these guys deserve jail time, but we shouldn’t turn this into more than it was.

Consider the basic facts as reported:

A suspect brings a videotape of some of the men “shooting assault weapons at a firing range, shouting in Arabic and calling for jihad, or holy war” to a South Jersey video store. The clerk reports the tape’s contents to police and the FBI becomes involved. The group spends time discussing its plot — which at various times included attacks on Fort Dix and the Army-Navy football game — and engages in a second weapons training in the Poconos.

Based on what has been reported, The FBI and police acted appropriately — they cannot afford to take chances — though the announcement was not made without the kind of hyperbole that has come to characterize the Bush administration’s approach to terrorism investigations. Consider this comment from yesterday’s press conference (above photo from New York Times):

“This is a new brand of terrorism where a small cell of people can bring enormous devastation,” Christopher J. Christie, the United States attorney for New Jersey, said at an afternoon news conference at the courthouse here.

And this:

“Today we dodged a bullet,” J. P. Weiss, special agent in charge of the F.B.I.’s Philadelphia office, said at the news conference. “In fact, when you look at the type of weapons that this group was trying to purchase, we may have dodged a lot of bullets.”

Mr. Weiss added: “We had a group that was forming a platoon to take on an army. They identified their target, they did their reconnaissance. They had maps. And they were in the process of buying weapons. Luckily, we were able to stop that.”

Again, I don’t want to downplay the seriousness of a potential attack, but the rhetoric here seems to be way out of proportion with the facts. The New York Times, in its front page story today, offered a glimpse at the kind of self control that the media should have shown:

The arrests came after a 15-month investigation during which the F.B.I. and two informers who had infiltrated the group taped them training with automatic weapons in rural Pennsylvania, conducting surveillance of military bases in the Northeast, watching videos of Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers and trying to buy AK-47 assault rifles.

The authorities described the suspects as Islamic extremists and said they represented the newest breed of threat: loosely organized domestic militants unconnected to — but inspired by — Al Qaeda or other international terror groups.

But the criminal complaint that details the plot describes an effort that was alternately ambitious and clumsy, with the men at turns declaring themselves eager to sacrifice their lives in the name of Allah and worrying about getting arrested or deported for buying weapons or possessing a map of a military base.

Simple, to the point, the paper encapsulates the entire affair in a few paragraphs, giving the details of the arrests and plot, without blowing the plot out of proportion.

In the end, however, I think Keith Olbermann’s comments on the media storm are probably on target:

The ultimate premise of the war in Iraq and the ultimate premise, certainly, of the Republican presidential campaign ahead, counterterrorism. The FBI claims it has broken up a plot to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey. The flaw, though, in the breathless reporting of the purported terror cell, the bureau infiltrated the six-person group after its members took video of themselves practicing with assault weapons, brought the tape to a photo store, and had it transferred to a DVD.

The details of the supposed plot don‘t seem to hold together that well either, though that did not stop extensive and entirely credulous coverage on TV, the Internet, in print today. The men supposedly had plans to gain access to the base disguised as pizza delivery guys, then cut the power somehow, they, quote, “hit four, five, or six Humvees and light the whole place, and retreat without any losses.” And take the tape of yourselves practicing and have it copied at PhotoMat. In other words, the FBI has arrested six morons.

Perhaps a bit too strong, but then these were not the 9-11 hijackers and this was not the major coup that it is being painted as. What we have is a solid piece of law enforcement.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here.

War hits home

I guess there are some Americans who are sacrificing because of the war in Iraq. The sad thing is that they should have to sacrifice in this way.

A shortage of Kansas National Guard equipment will slow recovery efforts in tornado-ravaged Greensburg, state officials say.

Because of the war on terror, Kansas has only 40 percent of its allocated equipment, said Sharon Watson, a spokeswoman for the adjutant general’s office.

As a result, she said, the state is rushing to hire contractors to help clear debris.

The situation was no surprise to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who has warned for months that the National Guard was ill-prepared for a catastrophe because so much equipment and personnel were in Iraq.

And national experts say the problem is not confined to Kansas.

A congressionally sponsored commission looking into military readiness reported last month that close to 90 percent of Guard units in this country were “not ready,” primarily because of equipment shortages.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here.

Mixed decisions

Buried in Monday’s state Supreme Court decision upholding the death sentence of 29-year-old Brian Wakefield, who was convicted of the 2001 home invasion and beating deaths of Richard and Shirley Hazard in Atlantic County contained a kernel of hope for opponents of the death penalty.

The court ruled that the Wakefield trial and sentencing met all of the criteria under New Jersey law, that it was fair, the death sentence was properly imposed, and his death sentence is not disproportionate.

Justice Virginia Long, in a dissent, offered a concise rebuke not only to the courts immediate decision, but to the ethical underpinnings of the courts willingness to continue endorsing the death penalty. She said the state court in the 1980s relied on evolving standards of decency to uphold that ultimate sanction and that a changing moral climate required the state to reconsider its commitment to the death penalty.

Justice Long’s view of the death penalty is consistent with the recommendations made in a report issued by a state panel that had been charged with reviewing the state’s capital punishment statute.

The key finding of the report, issued in January, was that the the death penalty was inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in New Jersey and elsewhere in the country. The report also found that there is no evidence that the death penalty acts as a deterrent or “rationally serves a legitimate penological intent”; that there remains too much risk that felons who commit similar crimes will face different sentences or that the innocent will be executed; that it is more expensive than life in prison without parole; and there are better alternatives, including life imprison without parole.

Unfortunately, the court may not have the authority to follow Justice Long’s lead — Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto, writing for the majority, cited a 1992 constitutional amendment explicitly stating that the death penalty is not cruel or unusual punishment to explain why he believed the court did not have the constitutional authority to strike down the capital punishment statute.

But that does not mean the death penalty cannot be overturned by the state Legislature. With Thursday’s Senate hearing coming up, I am hoping that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee read Justice Long’s dissent and take it to heart.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here.