"Jihadi Jane" Sentenced to Ten Years

"Jihadi Jane" aka Colleen La Rose, has been sentenced in Philadelphia to ten years in prison for her role in the planned attack on Danish newspaper cartoonist Lars Vilks.

Prosecutors depicted Ms. LaRose as a “lonely and isolated” woman who sought excitement by joining the jihadist cause. She was flattered to get an assignment to kill a foe of Islam.

The original indictment is here. Rose has already served four years, so she has about four more years to do. She cooperated with authorities to avoid a life sentence.

“The fact that out of boredom, or out of being housebound, she took to the computer and communicated with the people she communicated with, and hatched this mission, is just unbelievable,” Judge Tucker said.

Still to be sentenced in the case: Jamie Paulin Ramirez, originally from Colorado, who became a mail-order bride for alleged co-conspirator Ali Damache, an Algerian national in Ireland who pleaded guilty there during trial to sending a menacing message by telephone to an American Muslim activist. [More...]

He was sentenced to time served, but immediately arrested by the FBI and facing extradition. An FBI press release of Ramirez' arrest is here.) Also awaiting sentencing: Mohammed Khalid — a minor and honor student from Baltimore (and U.S. lawful permanent resident) who pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists.

The FBI press release of Colleen Rose's guilty plea is here.

Here's a January, 2013 Congressional Research Report on "home grown terrorists" with a list of the major cases, including stings.

< Upcoming Site Changes | Spanish Programming and Subtitle Purgatory >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    forget the highly trained, foreign (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:49:49 PM EST
    terrorists, it'll be the home grown, bored nutjobs that will do us in.

    First thing (none / 0) (#2)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 04:31:51 AM EST
    to keep in mind about almost all types of terrorist actions, they pose no practical threat.

    no practical threat (none / 0) (#3)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 08:03:33 AM EST

    That is no threat if discovered before their plans come to fruition.  The Boston bombing and the Fort Hood shootings are but two examples that show what terrorist actions can do if unchecked.

    Fort Hood ? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 06:31:01 PM EST
    The DOD classified that shooting as workplace violence, not an act of terrorism.  A Texas representative introduced legislation to get it classified as combat related so the victims will receive full benefits and purple hearts.

    So your comment really boils down to the a threat that is barely even probable.  According to THIS article, you are almost twice as likely to be killed by a gun wielding toddler than a terrorist in 2013.  The article was written in May, and since, no more folks were killed by terrorists and but the toddlers marched on and put a couple more notches on their diapers.

    In 2013, you or I, were about 4 times more likely to be shot and killed by by a gun wielding toddler than being killed by a terrorist.

    FYI, 6 days before the Boston Bombings, which killed three people, the exact same number of folks were killed by gun wielding toddlers.

    • 4/9/13: 4-year-old shoots, kills 6-year-old friend Brandon Holt, Toms River, NJ.
    • 4/9/13: 3-year-old shoots, kills self, South Carolina (no further details).
    • 4/9/13: Josephine Fanning, 48, shot & killed by her 4-year-old son, Wilson County, TN.

    I guess toddlers weren't privy to the "guns don't kill people" memo, or they willfully killed.

    Unless you consider dieing at the hands of a toddler a practical threat,  Mikado Cat's point remains strong.

    Since 1985, just under 3500 people have died in the us from an act of terrorism, that is 125 a year.  Making the odds of dieing at the hands of a terrorist 1 in 2,400,000/yr.  Since 2002, 1 in roughly 15,000,000.  In 2013 1 in 100,000,000, I can't even find something less likely to die from, what common cause killed less than 3 people in the US in 2013, yet someone is tracking ?

    To put this in perspective, even though a meteor has never killed a human being, the odds are calculated at 1 in 1,430,000 million of being killed by a meteor, making it more likely than being killed by a terrorist in the US.  Lighting is 1 in 2,000,000, still more likely.

    I do find it very puzzling that people who vote for folks who continually claim the federal government is a inefficient waste of resources, will claim that same government is somehow capable of taking practical threats and reducing them down to statistically insignificant threats.  Seems to me that a government with those kinds of skills should be praised like no other and expanded to tackle every problem in the US, maybe the world, has, and will ever have.

    Or, terrorism isn't the boogaboo that same government, backed by the military complex &s, keeps telling us it is.  

    Which do you think is more likely ?

    I didn't include any comparative gun stats, because I am not trying to start a gun debate, this is about the terrorism threat in the US, not guns.  Take it up with the toddlers if you got issues with that aspect.


    No practical (none / 0) (#5)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 03:40:18 AM EST
    threat, as in hit by lightning is dangerous, but highly unlikely for most people to have happen to them.

    If TSA could prevent you from being struck by lightning, do you think it would be seen as "good"?