I highlight this article about US lawyer Brandon Mayfield’s possible involvement in the Spanish bombings despite its preliminary nature for a few reasons. First, it doesn’t seem to be getting much notice (at least as of this writing). Second, if he was involved, it highlights the international and ideological nature of the threat.
24 thoughts on “US Citizen Implicated in Spanish Bombing”
Comments are closed.
If he is involved, it demonstrates that there are Americans who are involved in al-Qaeda (though, reading to the end of the article, I see that the only evidence is a possible fingerprint match that the Spanish police are still dubious about). Which we knew already.
Hey, if we invade America, will we get universal health care and better schools? This could be a great strategy.
Actually, this story was on the WaPo’s frontpage this AM.
Second, if he was involved, it highlights the international and ideological nature of the threat.
Should we be surprised? No. If we’re really honest, we’ve known all along that terrorism and its adherents operate across national borders. That’s why combatting terrorism is a law enforcement vice a military function. Unless, of course, you’re proposing we invade and occupy Oregon.
Jes,
Regarding the CAIR report (looks like the folks at Weekly Standards have been reading my yesterday’s posts 🙂 ):
If someone merely emails CAIR with a message to the effect that they were the victim of bias, another “hate crime” is tallied, no matter its seriousness or credibility.
It’s almost humorous what tiny offenses pass as worthy of complaint in the CAIR report. That a student at the University of Houston “saw flyers and posters with false and degrading statements about the Qur’an and the prophet Muhammad” is apparently a civil rights matter. That a College Republican at Roger Williams in Rhode Island wrote in a student publication that “a true Muslim is taught to slay infidels” is treated with similar gravity.
Read the whole article. I wonder if the arrest of Brandon Mayfield will make it into the next year’s report as a hate crime…
That Al Qaeda has ties to the U.S is obvious but isn’t it really stretching it to say that they could have had ties to Iraq?
Oregon is clearly where Muslim fanatics originate.
If we could just put some kind of police force in that area the problem would be taken care of and we could all sleep safely.
Oh… you say Oregon has a police force…
I wonder if the arrest of Brandon Mayfield will make it into the next year’s report as a hate crime…
Quite possibily and with good reason.
Let’s not forget that right now Mayfield is only alleged to havesome connection with the bombings. According to the WaPo article, “Mayfield’s fingerprints were found on a bag containing bomb material connected to the Spanish attack” but that officials remained uncertain about any role Mayfield may have had.
It’s not entirely clear if Mayfield’s fingerprints were on the actual bomb(s) or just on a bag.
Quite possibily and with good reason.
What would that good reason be?
Look:
Brandon Mayfield, a US citizen, was taken into custody on Thursday on a material witness warrant, said a senior law enforcement official in Washington DC.
Sounds pretty reasonable, given that Mayfield’s fingerprints were found on materials related to the Madrid bombings, said a second senior law enforcement official.
Stan LS – I don know from hate crimes but I it wouldn’t surprize me if this wasn’t a harrassment case. It’s way to soon to figure if they have anything on this guy – right now he’s being held as a material witness – but we’ve jumped ahead of the facts in the Wee and the Lee cases before, and they turned out to be nothing.
OinRTP: I’ll assume the point went over your head.
If we are to assume all terrorism is state-sponsored, Iraq would have been close to the bottom of the list of Middle Eastern nations with a history of ties of terrorism.
However, if we are to logically follow your premise that we must move militarily against those nations or areas where terrorists (or suspected terrorists) are found–then we should attack Oregon.
Fabius,
Finally, something which I can agree with you on. A wait and see approach seems reasonable. I makes sense to give him the benefit of the doubt before calling him guilty. If only we could extend this application of logic to everyone.
Jade,
must move militarily against those nations or areas where terrorists (or suspected terrorists) are found–then we should attack Oregon
Oregon is a nation? Cool.
Jade,
I’ll assume my point went over your head, also.
…
If we are to assume all terrorism is state-sponsored
…
And who has said that? Certainly not the Bush Administration!
Who has tried to say that fighting terrorism is only a military function? Please provide to me any information that you can find that anyone has said that fighting terrorism doesn’t involve a strong police effort between countries.
…. Iraq would have been close to the bottom of the list of Middle Eastern nations with a history of ties of terrorism.
…
And that means what… that Iraq was a bad starting point for the WOT.
I wonder if you think we should have invaded Germany first in WW2. They were the real root of the problem weren’t they?
Odysseus,
I wonder if you think we should have invaded Germany first in WW2…
A bit off topic, but if we invaded Germany in 1930’s (when they weren’t complying with the Versailles Treaty) there wouldn’t be a WW2. Although, we’ld probably go down in history as an aggressor, etc.
Actually, OinRTP, the meme that the War on Terrorism is a military function is a Bush 2004 campaign theme:
John Kerry has stated in the past that under a Kerry administration, the fight against terrorism “will involve the military now and then,” but it will be “primarily an intelligence gathering, operation and law enforcement.”
As others before me have asked “Can terrorism be defeated with subpoenas, dialog and nuance, or are bombs and bullets required”?
President Bush administration has obviously chosen the bombs and bullets path and nothing will stand in their way to protect U.S. Citizens from harm. John Kerry on the other hand has said he wants to use the power of law enforcement to bring the terrorist to their knees. It will bring them to their knees alright, because they will be laughing too hard at John Kerry’s plans for them to stand on their feet.
Jade,
You are way off point here. I never implied that there was not a strong push for military action by the Bush administration. There is and it is not arguable… see Taliban… Iraq… the Phillip…
You claimed:
…
If we are to assume all terrorism is state-sponsored
…
But no one has made that claim, except you. You seem to imply the Bush admin has and you offer no proof of it.
Are you trying to make the argument that the Bush administration is not pursuing law enforcement side also. That is what you seem to imply and that simply is no where near accurate.
To quote myself again with emphasis because you seemed to have missed it:
Who has tried to say that fighting terrorism is “ONLY” a military function? Please provide to me any information that you can find that anyone has said that fighting terrorism doesn’t involve a strong police effort between countries.
“Second, if he was involved, it highlights the international and ideological nature of the threat.
Should we be surprised? No. If we’re really honest, we’ve known all along that terrorism and its adherents operate across national borders. \”
Well sure if we are honest! But many haven’t been. And the problem with terrorists who operate across national borders is that they can plan and organize in states where the policing is worse, and then act in states even where the policing is better. They could recruit and train in hypothetically a Taliban controlled state (lets call it neverexistedstan) but make attacks in hypothetical other nations (lets call it 911didnothappenica). Or a hypothetical peacful state which had invaded its neighbor only a decade ago might have hypothetically been harbouring Islamist terrorists such as the one who not so hypothetically killed Americans as ‘part of’ the Palestinian struggle. It might have provided training to terrorist groups other than Al Qaeda. A police role in such a hypothetical situation would be pure interdiction, much like the successful only in hypotheticals ‘drug war’.
Too bad none of the above is only hypothetical.
Odysseus – totally offtopic, but thank you very much for figuring out a way* of indicating who you are quoting and marking your quotes off from the the rest of your post.
*I still think you should learn HTML, though!
Finally, something which I can agree with you on.
OdyssiusinRTP – Had to happen sooner of later. I look forward to next time.
OinRTP: The rationale for the invasion of Iraq was based on two premises: that Iraq was awash in WMD and that Iraq was actively sponsoring groups like Al Qaeda.
It is a Bush campaign theme that the war on terrorism cannot be prosecuted via law enforcement and that military pre-emption is what’s needed. I’d also refer you to Condi Rice’s 9/11 Commission testimony where she stated it was this administration’s opinion that law enforcement was ineffective in the WoT.
Mr. Holsclaw: Nobody disputes Al Qaeda was part and parcel of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. And I don’t believe you’ll find too many who believed our actions in Afghanistan weren’t warranted or necessary.
Instead, the problem is that too many think Arab=Muslim=Terrorist and that attacking any Middle Eastern nation will be striking a blow against terrorism.
“Nobody disputes Al Qaeda was part and parcel of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. And I don’t believe you’ll find too many who believed our actions in Afghanistan weren’t warranted or necessary.”
I won’t argue about the precise number of people who opposed even Afghanistan. They existed in force and in my opinion were hampered mainly by the short amount of available organizational time rather than having such a small pool of people to draw from. I will however note that even in this case which you allege to be clear, the European governmental reaction has been quite underwhelming. The total number of troops from all non-British European nations combined has been right around 2,000. Not exactly a huge commitment even in the ‘obvious’ case. Note that this is before the French/Russian/Belgian diplomatic show of force on Iraq. I think the lack of commitment in even the case which you believe is clear suggests that the Europe isn’t much interested in dealing with the War on Terrorism except as a border control issue.
“attacking any Middle Eastern nation will be striking a blow against terrorism.
I’ll assume the ‘any’ is just for emphasis. I don’t think anyone would suggest that attacking say Kuwait would be helpful. I also suspect that even hardcore Republicans understand the difference between Muslims and our enemies–you don’t see much call for an invasion of Indonesia or northern India.
I will however note that even in this case which you allege to be clear, the European governmental reaction has been quite underwhelming. The total number of troops from all non-British European nations combined has been right around 2,000.
I think you’re confused.
There are currently ~15,000 to 20,000 US forces operating in and around Afghanistan. France had 2,000 military personnel in the region as of early November 2001. Japan, Germany, Italy and New Zealand have pledged to deploy ships and troops if needed. Turkey and Australia have announced that special operations forces would be deployed. Italy announced in early November that ships and aircraft, and up to 3,000 military personnel, would be deployed. The 3,900 Germans planned on deployement would include some 100 special operations troops. Turkey has committed 90 special forces troops and is prepared to send a peacekeeping force numbering about 3,000 if needed. By January 2002 special operations forces from Australia, Britain, France, Denmark, Germany and Turkey were on the ground in Afghanistan.
As of early March 2002 more than 17,000 coalition military personnel from 17 countries have deployed in the region since October 2001. A smaller number of these are actually operating in Afghanistan.
The total number of troops from all non-British European nations combined has been right around 2,000.
You should know that a lot of that is due to our own wishes; the NATO nations, for example, wanted to respond with considerably more in the way of troops, but we refused because that would have meant relinquishing control over the operations.
Janegold, I’m not sure where you are getting your numbers though I would love to see any accurate representation of forces. You seem to be quoting some old report. But I’m skeptical of even that because of this:
“France had 2,000 military personnel in the region as of early November 2001.”
That is true only if you count the 1,600 people in their completely useless to Afghanistan aircraft carrier. It couldn’t operate missions in Afghanistan. It was a token SHOW of force, entirely in line with what I was talking about.
I also note the following very dodgy sentence in your report: “A smaller number of these are actually operating in Afghanistan.” I am always skeptical of a sentence like that because it give me the impression of deception. It is much akin to gun death statistics about child deaths which define ‘child’ as 12-22 with a ‘smaller number of these deaths occurring in children under 17’ of course and the number of drug dealer shootings conspicuously ignored.
Jade,
..
It is a Bush campaign theme that the war on terrorism cannot be prosecuted via law enforcement and that military pre-emption is what’s needed. I’d also refer you to Condi Rice’s 9/11 Commission testimony where she stated it was this administration’s opinion that law enforcement was ineffective in the WoT.
..
What more can I say… I amazed at your spin…
Again you claimed:
…
If we are to assume all terrorism is state-sponsored
…
But no one has made that claim, even your own statement doesn’t say that.
Saying that the WOT cannont be prosecuted via law enforement doesn’t mean that law enforcement has no role. Condi stating that the Law enforement approach was ineffective was just stating a known fact. You attibute too much to the statement. Good grief.
Do you believe that the Bush Administration is not pursuing a law enforcement strategy? Do you believe we are not working with other countries to track terrorist? Do you believe we are not working on improving our own internal system to try and allow for better communication with own police agencies? Do you not believe even the public is know involved in the WOT?
Jes,
I know html almost as well as it can be known… I don’t have the inclination to use it here and it is not necessary to understand my post.
*I think you should get over it…