[Infowarrior] - The JFK Plot: Overstating the Case?

[Richard Forno]

This is a really good commentary......wish I'd written it......rf

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1628169,00.html

Times
Monday, Jun. 04, 2007
The JFK Plot: Overstating the Case?
By Amanda Ripley/Washington

On Saturday, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Roslynn
Mauskopf, went on TV with FBI and police officials to announce a victory.
Four men had been charged in what Mauskopf described as "one of the most
chilling plots imaginable." If successful, she said, the plot "could have
resulted in unfathomable damage, deaths and destruction." And just in case
there was any doubt about the gravity of the plot, she added, "The
devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just
unthinkable."

But the 33-page complaint against the men, issued by Mauskopf's office,
describes a plan that is somewhat less impressive. The four suspects,
Russell Defreitas, Kareem Ibrahim, Abdul Kadir and Abdel Nur, allegedly
schemed to blow up fuel tanks and a fuel pipeline at JFK Airport. This plan
did not target passenger terminals or airplanes. It was an attack on ... jet
fuel. Which would have been rather hard to pull off successfully. "Jet fuel
is flammable and can be made to explode, but it's difficult," says Richard
Kuprewicz, an independent energy consultant who has worked with pipeline
operators for 33 years. Even if someone did manage to blow up a fuel tank,
the resulting fire would not spread through the main pipeline, he says. "Are
they true terrorism targets that would shut down JFK for weeks or even days?
No."

Excerpts from taped conversations with the suspects, included in the
complaint, make it clear that, while they may have dreamed of pulling off a
major terrorist strike, they had very little idea what they were actually
doing. In the worst-case scenario, there might have been a fire — which
would have been contained to an unpopulated area of the airport, since
that's where the tanks and the pipeline are located. "This whole theory that
they were going to blow up this entire 40-mile pipeline shows naïveté in my
mind," says Roy Haase, spokesperson for the Buckeye Partners LP, which runs
the pipeline in question. "They were foolish."

Still, on Monday, Mauskopf's spokesperson stood by the strong language: "All
I would say to you is reread the complaint, and it's clear from what these
defendants have said what their plans were." When pressed, he defaulted to
the inevitable trump card: "The individuals that carried out the 9/11
attacks, if you were to talk about what they planned to do with plane
tickets and box cutters, take down the Twin Towers, that's an unbelievable
plot."

But the issue here is not that the plot is hard to believe. If it turns out
to be true, the authorities did an excellent job foiling a plot before it
happened. The problem is the fear mongering, the fact that all too often
these days, the rhetoric around these anti-terror arrests doesn't fit the
charges. It is hardly the first time we've seen officials get overstimulated
when announcing terrorism charges. Remember Jose Padilla? Or the
"more-aspirational-than-operational" Seas of David group?. So why is is
that, in so many terror cases, prosecutors seem to go out of their way to
make alleged bad guys sound scarier than they are?

1) Legal Gamesmanship

Even though the trial may be years away, it has already begun for the
prosecutor. The blockbuster press conference is a way to influence potential
jurors, judges and attorneys before they even get selected. "This is their
first best punch. It's the first time the prosecutor has an unobstructed
shot at reaching the public and jurors, too," says Brian Levin, a specialist
on terrorism prosecutions and an associate professor of criminal justice at
California State University San Bernardino. "Prosecutors know that this is
the one time they'll be able to make their case live with very little
questioning. You're going to use great, nonspecific words to describe the
gravity of the case."

2) Fear

Anyone who prosecutes terrorism cases knows that the U.S. is going to be hit
again. When it happens, prosecutors — and FBI agents and police — will feel
much better knowing that they hit suspected terrorists hard, even if only
rhetorically. Otherwise, after the next attack the public will legitimately
ask for their heads.

3) Pressure From Above

"There's incredible pressure to bring high-profile cases that show that the
government is doing its job," says Levin, who trains prosecutors and is
himself a former New York City Police Department officer. Since 9/11,
prosecutors have been forced to act pre-emptively, making arrests earlier
than they ever would have before. But they still use the same scorched-earth
rhetoric when talking up their cases.

4) Belief

The suspects in this case had malicious intentions, according to the
complaint. One of them allegedly told the government's informant that he
hoped to outdo the 9/11 attacks and devastate the U.S. economy. Even if he
was delusional, his ambitions were nasty: "Anytime you hit Kennedy, it is
the most hurtful thing to the United States," Defreitas allegedly told the
informant. "They love John F. Kennedy like he's the man." Prosecutors are
charged with protecting Americans from terrorists, so they wouldn't be doing
their jobs if they didn't find this kind of talk appalling.

5) Careerism

Of course, a high-profile counter-terrorism success is also great resume
builder, too. It's probably worth mentioning that Mauskopf's nomination to
the federal bench has been stalled by Senator Russell Feingold, who seems to
think she is too cozy with the Bush administration when it comes to death
penalty prosecutions. A big terrorism case can boost a prosecutor's
reputation in Congress.

6) Money

Nefarious plots help justify more federal counter-terrorism resources. "Once
again, would-be terrorists have put New York City in their crosshairs," NYPD
Commissioner Ray Kelly made sure to note at the press conference. The next
day, New York Congressman Peter King put a finer point on it: "It certainly
demonstrates that New York needs more money, and that New York is the No. 1
target."

7) Ego

There are simpler forces at work, too. Many cops and prosecutors like to
turn their targets into superheroes. It helps to justify their hard work and
make life more interesting.

8) No Downside

And finally, the best reason to overstate the case? Because there's no risk.
Prosecutors do not tend to get rebuked for using strong language when
describing would-be terrorists. And they figure that if they later find out
they were wrong, the public record will show that the charges were dropped.
No harm done, right?

Except that there is harm done. Two days after the press conference, the New
York Sun ran a story under the headline, "JFK Pipeline is 'Ticking Time
Bomb.'" Residents were quoted fretting about the coming Armageddon. But the
pipeline has been around since 1966, and there has never been an explosion.
It pumps eight million gallons of fuel around New York City every day, and
it does so far more safely than trucks or trains ever could.

The larger penalty is even more insidious. This time, the Washington Post
and Los Angeles Times ran front-page stories repeating Mauskopf's
superlatives. Next time, when the complaint actually supports her claims,
they may not. No one wants to look like a chump twice. Not even regular
citizens. So every time the government is found to be embellishing its case,
members of the public lose a little bit of faith. They might eventually
begin to think the terrorism threat is not very serious after all. They
might understandably discount what authorities say. And that kind of
complacency, even if it is indirectly caused by good attorneys who are just
trying to do their jobs, is, well, "chilling."