home

Report: Gov't Statistics Show Terror Trials a Bust

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Trials
Posted on Sat Jun 11, 2005 at 07:51:54 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Washington Post has completed an analysis of the Administration's claim that it has obtained convictions of 200 terrorists. Here are the results:

An analysis of the Justice Department's own list of terrorism prosecutions by The Washington Post shows that 39 people -- not 200, as officials have implied -- were convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security.

Most of the others were convicted of relatively minor crimes such as making false statements and violating immigration law -- and had nothing to do with terrorism, the analysis shows. For the entire list, the median sentence was just 11 months.

Taken as a whole, the data indicate that the government's effort to identify terrorists in the United States has been less successful than authorities have often suggested. The statistics provide little support for the contention that authorities have discovered and prosecuted hundreds of terrorists here. Except for a small number of well-known cases -- such as truck driver Iyman Faris, who sought to take down the Brooklyn Bridge -- few of those arrested appear to have been involved in active plots inside the United States.

< More on the Blair Iraq War Briefing Memo | Sign the 'Howard Dean Speaks for Me' Petition >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Report: Gov't Statistics Show Terror Trials a Bust | 16 comments (16 topical)
    Re: Report: Gov't Statistics Show Terror Trials a (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:56 PM EST
    I wonder what the pricetag on all this will turn out to be. Probably way too depressing to calculate.

    Re: Report: Gov't Statistics Show Terror Trials a (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:56 PM EST
    Even in the Iyman Faris case (which, seemingly because of typeface ambiguity, is often referred to as Lyman Faris), the government's case seems to be based entirely upon his confession. After having several "terror" cases break down, and knowing the "interrogation" methods used by US authorities, it seems quite possible that Faris, too, had been railroaded.

    Re: Report: Gov't Statistics Show Terror Trials a (none / 0) (#3)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    Was Bush aware when he said "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted" that only 39 of the 200 were actually convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security? In other words, the majority of convictions were for crimes unrelated to terrorism, like immigration violation. If Bush was aware of this, then he is guilty of misleading the American people by playing fast and loose with the facts (does anyone besides me see a pattern here?). If Bush wasn't aware of this, then he is guilty of incompetence. One of the problems with confusing nonterrorist related activity as terrorist activity is that it creates faulty analysis. As the head of the national security program of Harvard pointed out "The problem is that it's not good to cook the numbers. . . . We have no accurate assessment of whether the war on terrorism is actually working." Faulty analysis leads to faulty planning which leads to faulty implementation. (Once again, I think I see a pattern here.)

    Re: Report: Gov't Statistics Show Terror Trials a (none / 0) (#4)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    John H writes:
    "If Bush wasn't aware of this, then he is guilty of incompetence."
    Having been on the receiving end of briefings to prepare myself for meetings and presentations, I would say that Bush got the information from a staff brief. So, tell us why he is incompetent? Failure to disbelieve staff? I would say that if he finds errors, or if they are pointed out, he will quietly make the person involved ex-staff. BTW - I would suspect that the Harvard person is as biased as you. But, just for grins, how you would you measure the progress if the war?

    Re: Report: Gov't Statistics Show Terror Trials a (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    I don't think the WP's methodology is entirely scientific. Cases are often plea bargained down from the original charges. The final charges that a defendant pleads to may or may not have anything to do with the actual crime committed (if any!). This is the game played every day in criminal courts, and the truth probably lies somewhere inbetween.

    Re: Report: Gov't Statistics Show Terror Trials a (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    Pretty simple. If he has incompetent people working for him, and he's the boss, it's his responsibility. Unless of course, having "incompentent staff" to blame everything on is so politically convienient that it keeps the boss from ever being held responsible for anything. As far as measuring progress in a war, this is almost as intelligent a way as the "body counts" of Vietnam. A more effective way of measuring it? Easy. How many terrorist incidents have occured since the "War on Terra" started? More or less than the years before? As the objective is to reduce terrorist incidents, this would seem to be the only logical measure. Looking around the world (as it is a "global" war on terror), sadly, it doesn't look too good right now. According to the US Govts. National Counterterrorism Center, attacks tripled between 2003 and 2004, from 175 to 655. We've gotten lucky in that nothing on the scale of 9/11 has occurred, but in the long term, the death of a thousand cuts leaves you in the same condition.

    Re: Report: Gov't Statistics Show Terror Trials a (none / 0) (#7)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    Adept writes:
    "If he has incompetent people working for him, and he's the boss, it's his responsibility."
    I will grant you that in a "global" view that is true, and that it sounds good. But in the real world it is simplistic and meaningless. Do you think senior managers interview everyone? Or that it is even possible? Can you understand the concept that maybe the staff person received bad information? Maybe the person who gave the staff person the information got it from a source that was inaccurate. Should the staff person be fired? Not until the thing is unraveled and blame understood. And even then there are other circumstances. As for your measurement, I have to grin. We are involved in a war, and guess what? We have more attacks! Quick! Tear down the front page. We have a new headline! Adept, you kinda claim to be fair and balanced. So does Fox News Channel.

    Re: Report: Gov't Statistics Show Terror Trials a (none / 0) (#8)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    PPJ, Now this isn't the first time that Bush has said things that didn't turn out to be factually correct, is it? The staff works for him, right? After 4 years in office, if the staff is still providing you with incorrect information then the problem is not with the staff. A leader who can't correct a problem is incompetent. Personally, I believe that Bush knows that he is providing misleading information but, at this stage, he needs to do this because if he was truthful people would not support his polices.

    Re: Report: Gov't Statistics Show Terror Trials a (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    DA, you got it. Jim, it's simple. You claim:
    I will grant you that in a "global" view that is true, and that it sounds good. But in the real world it is simplistic and meaningless.
    Really? Here's a perfect real-world example of what I am speaking about. In the US Navy, a captain is responsible for the conduct of All of his men on duty, even when he himself is not. Even if it's a 6000+ crew CV. What a shame the Navy operates in a manner that is "simplistic and meaningless", according to your view. I figured someone with your background in Naval Aviation would realize this. I forgot though, you believe in accountability for everyone except W. Don't like the measurement I came up with? Too logical? If the goal is to reduce terror attacks what other measure would you suggest? Something that can be better spun by the Right, I'm sure.

    Re: Report: Gov't Statistics Show Terror Trials a (none / 0) (#11)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    Adept - The Captain of your aircraft carrier wouldn't be bothered with a minor mistake by one of his crew. Got any examples that make sense? Wars are difficult to judge, as they are fought in battles. Using your method we would have surrendered at the end of the first day of the Battle of the Bulge. I see no reason to make a judgement at all. And frankly, I find that most of those who do are just anti-war people looking for a wedge issue.

    Re: Report: Gov't Statistics Show Terror Trials a (none / 0) (#13)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    Gee DA, it made such a splash that when I went over to the ABC News website I didn't find a thing. You'll just have to tell us who the RINO was.

    Re: Report: Gov't Statistics Show Terror Trials a (none / 0) (#15)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    DA - Hate to break the news, but the link doesn't open. Screwed up, eh? As for your usual snarky, nasty attack, please feel free to do unspeakable things to yourself! ;-) And enjoy this link which is about as on topic as yours, but doesn't consume BW, and gives a bit of local color.

    Re: Report: Gov't Statistics Show Terror Trials a (none / 0) (#16)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    PPJ, re: "I would say that if he (Bush) finds errors, or if they are pointed out, he will quietly make the person involved ex-staff." Just like the analysts who erroneously concluded that the aluminum tubes were for Saddam's rockets were punished (sarcasm alert). In this administration fixing evidence to support policy is not punishable, even if that evidence is later found dubious. As a matter of fact, in an administration that values political loyalty over the truth, you are likely to be rewarded.

    Re: Report: Gov't Statistics Show Terror Trials a (none / 0) (#18)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    DA - Do you really believe that BS? I thought you were smarter. Guess not. John H - And your point is what? Let me help both of you. Bush bad.

    Re: Report: Gov't Statistics Show Terror Trials a (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:00 PM EST
    Using your method we would have surrendered at the end of the first day of the Battle of the Bulge.
    Gee Jim, I supply a logical benchmark for measuring progress in the war on terror (more attacks or less), and you try to turn it into me calling for surrender. Something I have NEVER advocated. I used to think you were just someone who enjoyed playing advocatus diaboli, but no more. Your just an intellectually dishonest person, and if you are willing to simply make up things like this, there is no point in maintaing a dialogue with you. ...and your example (absurd as it is) would make a great deal more sense if you cited Kasserine Pass instead of the Bulge.

    Re: Report: Gov't Statistics Show Terror Trials a (none / 0) (#21)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:01 PM EST
    Adept - And I used to think better of you, but alas, reality has spoken. Dishonest is as dishonest does. And trying to use the number of terrorist attacks to measure anything is dishonest.

    Report: Gov't Statistics Show Terror Trials a Bust | 16 comments (16 topical)