Terrorism

Jon Ronson

The author of "Them: Adventures With Extremists" discusses his time with Osama's London cohort, close calls with neo-Nazis and the undeniable humanity of the world's would-be monsters.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Jon Ronson

A few years ago, when British journalist Jon Ronson — who is Jewish — decided to spend a year trailing Islamic fundamentalist Omar Bakri (aka “Osama bin Laden’s man in London”), he had no idea how tragically relevant his work would be. Ronson’s profile of Bakri, originally published in the Guardian, spawned a book — “Them: Adventures With Extremists” — which hit U.S. bookstores last month amid a flurry of public outrage and controversy as well as a crop of rave reviews. Some readers and interviewers have questioned the ethics of the book, wondering how Ronson could present Bakri — who has been accused of radicalizing shoe-bomber Richard Reid and who publicly expressed “delight” at the attacks of Sept. 11 — as a lovable goof.

But Bakri is only the start. Ronson introduces us to Thom Robb, a KKK Grand Wizard engaged in an absurd attempt to make the Klan more mainstream (he wants his members to stop wearing their scary white robes and using the N-word); David Icke, the BBC sports commentator (and former football star), who wrecked his career after declaring himself the son of God on prime-time television and publicly insisting that the rulers of the world are actually giant lizards; Rachel Weaver, gun-toting daughter of Randy Weaver; and Big Jim Tucker, senior reporter for the Spotlight, our nation’s largest white supremacist newspaper. These wackos — whom Ronson doesn’t view in as dangerous a light as one might expect — are linked in their obsession with the Bilderberg Group, a semisecret organization that includes most of the world’s financial and political leaders.

A nebbishy, Woody Allen-like fellow, Ronson could not be further from the stereotype of the hard-boiled investigative journalist. On a recent trip to New York, he met with Salon in the lobby of the Tribeca Grand hotel to discuss how and why he tried to see the world through the eyes of Klansmen, neo-Nazis, conspiracy theorists and suspected terrorists.

“Them” was released in Britain a year ago and was an immediate bestseller. Nine months after the British release — and six months before the U.S. release — a bunch of guys who are quite possibly friends with one of your subjects, Omar Bakri, flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Was there any talk of not releasing the book, after Sept. 11?

Simon & Schuster never said, “Let’s not publish it.” But I expected them to. I was really surprised. I just left it in their hands. I said to them, “Whatever you want to do is fine by me.”

How is the book being received here in America? I know some reviewers have questioned the ethics of the book — have wondered how you could have spent all this time with Bakri and not, I don’t know, done something to sabotage his plans.

Well, it’s funny. I’m getting reviews in Canadian papers and they’re not mentioning Sept. 11 at all. Some of the reviews here in America have been a little … well … funny. It definitely hits closer to home for Americans. Especially here in New York.

This morning I was on this Fox television show and the audience was shouting things like, “Why didn’t you just get a gun and shoot the guy? Why didn’t you just do that? Why were you such a coward? How are you going to help us destroy the axis of evil?”

And yesterday, I was on “Fresh Air” and Terry Gross said, basically, “You portrayed these people as ludicrous, harmless buffoons but you were wrong, weren’t you?”

Is she right?

My view is that the book is accurate. The way I portrayed the people is accurate. Because they’re human beings and we have a kind of wonderful capacity to be absurd and ridiculous. It would be easy to portray them as one-dimensional demons, but I wanted to do the opposite. Just because they’re buffoons it doesn’t mean they can’t fly planes into the World Trade Center. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.

Right, but there were a few times when you were in a position to do something — and you didn’t. At the end of your year with Omar Bakri, for example, he asks you to watch the money he’s been collecting throughout the year — money for Hamas that, as you say, “will go to kill Jews in Israel” — and you think about taking the money.

Well, that was obviously a really difficult thing. When I was writing the chapter, I thought, This is an uncomfortable truth about what happens with this kind of journalism — when a journalist gets too close to his subject. It was a moment about journalism more than anything else. But now, after Sept. 11, I can’t help think that we’re in the kind of climate where you’d actually want me to take the money. If I had taken the money I probably would be selling more books here in America.

But not in Britain?

No, people back home don’t realize why there is this kind of need for heroes in America at the moment. People in Britain don’t really understand what’s going on here. They don’t understand why Camp X-ray exists. There’s a massive rift of understanding right now between Britain and America. And it’s only when you’re here, you think you understand why America is the way it is right now.

Your book is incredibly timely. How did you become interested in Bakri and the other extremists?

At first, I did stories on people who were maybe just eccentric. Omar was a natural progression from that. Here was somebody living among us [in London] who was trying to overthrow our way of life. It was inevitable that he was going to use our system to do it. I thought that was an interesting paradox. It wasn’t the fact that he was an Islamic fundamentalist. It was that he was trying to destroy us from within.

It sounds like the events of Sept. 11 have made you rethink your experiences with the extremists. Have they made you view your subjects differently? Did you have an inkling that something like the attacks was going to happen?

I did feel like they were telling me that something like that was going to happen. Not specifically — not that planes were going to be flown into the World Trade Center or anything like that — but in the general sense. You know, it’s a paranoid book. For me, it’s kind of all summed up in that David Icke chapter — about the lizards — because that whole episode gives you the sense that there really is a kind of cold war. There’s a sort of escalating paranoia on both sides — the extremist side and the secular liberal side (our side) — and that it was going to blow.

Of course, I didn’t recognize any of this at the time. I wasn’t in any way a kind of soothsayer or not surprised when Sept. 11 happened. I was absolutely shocked. But in retrospect it does feel a bit like the book reflects a burgeoning pressure, a kind of pressure cooker situation, which comes to a head in the David Icke chapter — which is great since it’s such a kind of burlesque, absurdist chapter but at the same time that is what it’s about: The extremists are getting crazier; so are our responses toward them; how is this all going to end?

In that chapter, you profile not just David Icke, but also his followers as well as a Vancouver anti-racist coalition, which believes that when Icke talks about lizards, he’s really talking about Jews. You regard the anti-racists with intense skepticism, but in the end, it turns out that they may be right. You overhear one of Icke’s followers refer to the anti-racists as “fat Jews.” So, is Icke a racist or does he really believe that lizards rule the earth?

Well, I was conscious of the fact that I was critically chronicling both sides and I really wanted to give the anti-racists the last word. I didn’t want people to think that just because the anti-racists came off as kind of silly, that they were wrong. So I thought it was important to put that line in at the end. Even if people on the liberal side are getting crazier — and the Anti-Defamation League does sometimes get it wrong — don’t forget that people like David Icke and his followers do sometimes use code words. That’s why I put that line in.

But is he a racist? I used to think he was too, you know, on the planet Mars to be a racist racist. But now I don’t know. He’s like a sponge. He accepts. You can say anything to David Icke and he will accept it and put it into his ideology. I tried it out once. Icke kept saying that Ted Heath, who was once the prime minister of Britain, was a lizard. I said to Icke, “Did you realize that an anagram of Ted Heath is ‘the death’?” And he used it. It became part of his spiel.

Yeah, but in the end his followers take what they want from his philosophy. Maybe it doesn’t matter what’s going on in David Icke’s mind. It’s how other people take him. If people want to take “lizard” as a code word for Jew, it’s dangerous. If people think he’s just talking about lizards, then it’s not dangerous.

Where does he get that whole lizard thing from anyway? Did he make it up?

I think he made it up. Though there’s that movie, “V,” which is all about how the secret rulers of the world are lizards. You see, David would say that maybe “V” was actually made by a whistleblower inside Hollywood who was getting the message out that lizards actually rule the world. He watches Hollywood movies for clues to the truth.

Who are some of the people he thinks are actually lizards?

A very strange assortment of people. Like Kris Kristofferson. I don’t know why he thinks Kris Kristofferson is a lizard. “Me and Bobby McGee” is my favorite song and it was not written by a lizard. But when you say to David Icke, “How do you know these people are lizards?” He says, “Well, I did his genealogy.” But why would he ever possibly think to ever check out Kris Kristofferson’s lizard genealogy in the first place? I asked him, “Well, have you ever done the genealogy of Dennis Healey, a founding member of the Bilderberg Group? And he said, “No, I haven’t done it.” So how come David Icke — who believes the Bilderberg Group rules the world — hasn’t done the genealogies of the founders of the Bilderberg Group, but he has done Kris Kristofferson’s genealogy?

Let’s talk about your time with the Klan. Perhaps the most shocking moment in that whole episode comes when you actually put on the robe and hood. Yet you don’t really say very much about how it felt to be a Jew wearing a Klan get-up. All you say is that you’re going to feel horribly guilty when Pat, the Klansman who gives you the robe, finds out you’re actually Jewish.

Well, that was my actual immediate response. It surprised me, at the time, to be thinking that. So I put it in. But the other thing I was thinking, which maybe I should have put in as well, was — well, as a kid, I definitely had nightmares about the Klan. The iconography of the robe and the cross burning was etched into my brain. So it was demystifying to put the robe on, and that was good.

It just felt like, say, putting on a bathrobe?

Yeah.

Really? It wasn’t strange or scary?

No, it just felt ridiculous. It was clownish, and I found that clownish-ness to be demystifying.

So you weren’t really afraid at all while you were spending time with Thom Robb and the Klansmen?

Well, I had nightmares when I was doing the Klan story all the time. I had a recurring nightmare of basically being exposed as a Jew inside the Klan compound.

What about when you visited the Aryan Nations camp in Idaho? It seems as though you were in grave danger. The neo-Nazis surrounded you and were threatening to kill you.

That was a big mistake. They didn’t invite me. I didn’t even tell them I was coming. I just showed up. I kind of figured if I just jumped out of the car and said, “Hi! I’m a friend of Randy Weaver’s!” they would welcome me and it would all be OK. But it wasn’t. Obviously it wasn’t. I mean, I passed all the “No Jews” signs going up the drive. It would’ve been my own stupid fault if something had happened. Luckily, that guy got involved to alleviate the tension. I think he was an undercover fed. There are so many undercover feds in that world.

It would’ve looked really terrible if they killed a visiting British journalist.

But the thing is, they had no reason not to. You know Thom Robb and Omar Bakri and the Bilderberg Group obviously have good reasons not to harm me. But Aryan Nations actually had no reason whatsoever. They’re just completely out there. They’ve got nothing to prove. They do kill people. Plus, they were about to be bulldozed into extinction, you know, because they were going through this court case with Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Three or four months after my visit to Aryan Nations it got bulldozed into the ground. They had absolutely nothing to lose. That was a dumb mistake.

Were you nervous before you went to the Aryan Nations camp?

Yeah, really nervous. I’m not what you’d call a fearless type of person.

How did you get up the nerve to do it?

I just kind of felt like I had to. It was the same as infiltrating the Bohemian Grove. That was, again, the last thing in the world I wanted to do. They weren’t going to kill me and throw me into the belly of the owl. But they might have me deported from America or have me spend the night in jail. I didn’t really feel like doing that either. Without sounding too pretentious, I was sort of a slave to the narrative. When the narrative cracks in, I have to go where it takes me. I had to go to the Bohemian Grove. It was the obvious end to the book.

Did the Klansmen ever ask you about your ethnicity or religion?

At one point, Flavis — Thom’s deputy — asked me if I was Jewish. He actually said, “I don’t mind if you’re a Jew. Are you a Jew?” I wanted to tell them I was Jewish, but I didn’t want to tell them right then. Because I felt that if I told them I was Jewish, they were going to close up. I knew them well enough to know that they weren’t going to harm me, but I knew that they wouldn’t be as open with me. I always intended to tell them on the fourth and final trip. And then there was no fourth and final trip. It was tactics. But when Flavis said, “I don’t mind,” it was kind of like I had my answer. When I did tell them — had I told them — that’s how they would have responded. They wouldn’t have gone, “Oh, after all this, you’re Jewish!” They wouldn’t have changed toward me. They just would have been more taciturn.

You spent a lot of time with these people. Did you ever feel like you were becoming one of them?

Well, I never stayed with any of them for more than one week at a time. Most people in my position, I guess, would have been with them for five weeks or six weeks. I would be with Thom Robb for five days, then I’d go home for a few weeks, then I’d go back to Thom. The longest I was ever away was two weeks.

Doing the trips in small doses really helped me maintain my sanity. Though in Portugal — when I was with Big Jim Tucker, trailing the Bilderberg Group — I really did go a bit crazy, thinking the Bilderberg henchmen were following me. What was scary was when the two worlds began to bleed into each other. There was a little while after I returned to London when I was utterly paranoid about what the Bilderberg Group might do to me. Not that I thought they were going to kill me, but I thought they might be surveilling me or something. Which isn’t that crazy to think. I began to get kind of panicky. It made me realize how easy it is to cross the line. It only takes a couple of minor car chases to turn into David Icke, believing that the rulers of the universe are a bunch of lizards. I didn’t like that at all.

But there was something nice about being in a Klan compound on Thursday and being at Legoland with [my son] Joel on Saturday. I remember being with the Klan in Missouri. We’d been together really intensively for three days. We’d been together every minute, because we were driving across America together. We checked in to this motel and I turned on the television and flipped channels and “Sesame Street” was on. I actually found myself bursting into tears watching “Sesame Street.” I was thinking, These are my people! What am I doing with these Klan people? These are my people. I was really moved by Big Bird. It’s funny — spending time with these people can affect you in a subconscious way that you don’t even recognize. It does have an impact. It’s like having those nightmares that you’re being lynched by the Klan. On a conscious level you’re rationalizing things, but it seeps into your unconscious.

So when you were traveling with the Klan or Big Jim Tucker, people must have taken you for a Klansman or what have you. Did this make you uncomfortable? Did you ever feel the urge to unmask yourself?

Well, I did. When I thought I was in serious danger, in Portugal, I asked the British embassy to please pass on a message to the Bilderberg Group, saying that I may be with Jim Tucker, but I’m not of Jim Tucker. Also, for instance, when the Klan were being interviewed by a television reporter, Chris Cox — the Asian woman that they called “the High Yellow” — and we walked through the corridors, the people at the television station obviously thought I was a Klansman. Because, you know, it was just the Klan and me. How would they know I wasn’t a Klansman? I didn’t tell the reporter that I wasn’t a Klansman. I was just kind of sitting there. And she just assumed that I was one. Then I saw her the next day, at the Klan rally, and I explained who I was to her. And I did feel the urge to do it. Definitely. I did feel the urge to make her realize that I wasn’t one of them.

Was she surprised?

No. She said that she had been perplexed — because I didn’t strike her as a Klansman. She was wondering what I was doing there.

Did you have any trouble getting the extremists to allow you to trail them, sometimes for months at a time? Were they worried that you would mock them?

No. The people who were really difficult were the people on our side of the fence. Like, I heard that the Rockefeller Foundation was teaching a philanthropy course for billionaires, so I tried to get in on it. They just looked at me like, why the hell would we let you in on this? What possible reason could we have to let you in? But on the extremist side I didn’t get any rejections at all. Everyone agreed to talk to me.

Interesting, considering their distrust of the Jewish media conspiracy.

Maybe they’re just really optimistic. Maybe they think that this time it will be better. And you know, in a way, this time it was different. They don’t come out of it all that well, but at least they’re not portrayed as demons. The book doesn’t isolate them as freak shows. It puts them into the context of the real world. The nicest quote I got was in one of the British papers. The reviewer said that the book doesn’t just show that the extremists are weird; it shows that their fantasies take sustenance from the real world. It was really important to me to show that. Otherwise, the book would have been about an ironic outsider with an arched eyebrow. And that would have been a rubbish book, I think.

I say that I was trying to see our world through the extremists’ eyes and I’m not being arch. I really was trying to do that. Which is why the [Anti-Defamation League] chapter is so important, the Ruby Ridge chapter is so important. There are the times when we begin to understand what motivates the extremists, what gets them into the whirlpool of paranoia. Because at Ruby Ridge, you know, the federal government acted just like the extremists expected them to. Ruby Ridge is where all conspiracy theories come true.

The whole semiotics of it, the whole getting away with it by calling him [Randy Weaver] a white supremacist, I thought that was really kind of shocking. And for me that makes the book more than just a good, fun adventure story. We have to understand how the extremists got the way they are. Without that kind of understanding, we’d never really get to know them. I put in nothing about their childhoods. But what I have put in is stuff about the weird symbiotic relationship between us and them.

After Sept. 11 there was a strong desire to see the world through the eyes of the terrorists, wasn’t there?

The interesting thing about Sept. 11 is that it took a bunch of fanatics to teach us that we do have a belief system. At the beginning of the book I say, “The extremists say that the Western liberal cosmopolitan establishment is itself a fanatical, depraved belief system. I like it when they say this because it makes me feel as if I have a belief system.” And I think one legacy of Sept. 11 is that we’re now saying, “Fuck you, OK? Our secular, liberal belief system might be fanatical. But fuck you.” Which I think is progress. It’s taught us how to see ourselves through their eyes, but it’s also taught us that we have something worth protecting.

Joanna Smith Rakoff is a writer in New York.

Senate Democrats heroically fund TSA

Democrats score the dumbest political victory of 2012

  • more
    • All Share Services

Senate Democrats heroically fund TSA (Credit: Reuters/Frank Polich)

On Tuesday, a Senate Appropriations Committee vote effectively highlighted everything that is stupid about politics.

The Transportation Security Administration, a universally loathed government agency, is facing a shortfall, despite its more than $8 billion budget. Instead of having a debate over what effective airport security might actually look like and how much should reasonably be spent on the honestly rare threat of commercial-air-travel-based terrorism, there was a debate over how best to come up with the money needed for all the radioactive naked picture machines and bomb-sniffing dogs. The Democrats suggested passing on the cost of ineffective, cumbersome and intrusive security theater to citizens, via higher fees on airfares. The Republicans, even more predictably, suggested cutting spending that directly helps poor people to ensure there is enough to spend on stopping imaginary future 9/11s.

The newspaper account of the debate in The Hill just reinforced the Republican spin, highlighting the Democrats’ decision to make people spend more money on the hated TSA and downplaying the actual existing Republican alternative to the proposal, which was not “spend less on the hated TSA” but rather “raise money for the hated TSA by slashing needed aid to states.” The Democrats won, or “won,” and now they will earn the fruits of that victory: well-deserved scorn from everyone. And Ben Nelson (D-Troll Town) voted with the Republicans. (Though surely having users pay the fees for supposedly necessary security measures is perfectly conservative, isn’t it? Am I missing something here? I mean besides the fact that the two sides in this debate weren’t actually “liberal” and “conservative” but rather “people who want to come up with a way of paying for the oppressive and useless national security state” versus “people who want there to be an oppressive national security state but hate government spending on feeding and sheltering impoverished people.”)

I don’t know of anyone not employed by the TSA or some other arm of Homeland Security that believes the TSA does a good job and deserves its massive budget, but everyone in Washington apparently feels differently (and is terrified of being blamed for “voting to cut TSA funding” if there is another terrifying and deadly underwear bomber, of course). This is why everyone hates politics and Congress and Washington. This and Iraq. And the drug war.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Police arrest artist setting up ‘I Love NY’ work

The installation included a plastic bag with a battery inside of it, hanging from a tree

  • more
    • All Share Services

Police arrest artist setting up 'I Love NY' work (Credit: http://tmiyakawadesign.com/)

NEW YORK (AP) — An artist who was setting up an “I Love New York”-themed public art display in Brooklyn was arrested after the wired contraption was mistaken for an explosive device.

Takeshi Miyakawa, a visual artist and furniture designer, was arrested Saturday after placing the installation in two separate areas of the same New York City neighborhood. His lawyer and employer both called the arrest a misunderstanding.

The first apparatus was found Friday morning after a caller reported a suspicious package to police. It consisted of a plastic bag that contained a battery and was suspended from a metal rod attached to a tree. The bag, which had the classic “I Love New York” logo printed on it, was connected by a wire to a plastic box that contained more wires.

The area was evacuated for two hours until a bomb squad determined that the device was not dangerous.

At about 2 a.m. Saturday, a police officer discovered Miyakawa on a ladder not far from where the first contraption was found. Police said he was tying a similar “I Love New York” bag to a public lamp post.

Miyakawa was charged with two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment, two counts of placing a false bomb or hazardous substance in the first degree, two counts of placing a false bomb or hazardous substance in the second degree, two counts of second-degree reckless endangerment and two counts of second-degree criminal nuisance.

A judge ordered him held pending a psychiatric evaluation. His lawyer, Deborah J. Blum, said Monday that she is filing for emergency relief to have Miyakawa released. A court date was set for June 21 to review the results of the evaluation.

“He’s still being held,” Blum said Monday. “I believe that it was a gross misunderstanding and other than that I don’t have any other comment.”

Miyakawa, who was born in Tokyo and is about 50 years old, has worked for a New York-based architect Rafael Vinoly for the last 20 years and also has an independent design practice.

Vinoly’s firm released a statement Monday praising Miyakawa for his “extraordinary brand of professionalism” and said he has been a mentor to generations of young architects.

“Takeshi is a fabulous human being and a person of extraordinary talent,” Vinoly said. “We hope this misunderstanding is cleared up as quickly as possible.”

New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman said in a statement that the charges sounded “like a wild overreaction.”

“It’s hard to understand why a light-up bag in a tree would be treated as an attempted terrorist act unless there’s more to the story than has been reported in the press thus far,” she said.

In 2007, an artist touched off a terror scare in Boston by placing electronic devices around the city as part of a marketing stunt for Cartoon Network. The city closed bridges, roads and public transit before authorities realized the signs were not bombs.

On an average day, the NYPD receives nearly 100 reports of a suspicious package. Last year, there were more than 4,000 such reports. The number generally rises following any word of terror threats in New York and around the world.

Continue Reading Close

Behind the underwear bomb

The latest airplane terror plot wouldn't have been foiled without airport security -- but not the kind we all know

  • more
    • All Share Services

Behind the underwear bombTravelers line up at a TSA checkpoint at Los Angeles International Airport. (Credit: Reuters/Danny Moloshok)

Another deadly plot taken down in the planning stages. This time, thanks to the work of a CIA double agent, officials were able to infiltrate a Yemen-based al-Qaida plot to destroy a U.S.-bound jetliner using a nearly undetectable underwear bomb.The moral of the story: Airport security works!Am I being facetious?  Not necessarily.  It depends on your definition of airport security.

In my mind, the key to keeping airplanes safe is, and always has been, stopping acts of sabotage while they are still in the planning stages. Here in the age of the TSA checkpoint, with its toothpaste confiscations and obsession with pointy objects, we tend not to think this way, preoccupied instead with a kind of airport Kabuki — the tedious, fanatical screening of passengers and their carry-ons. Real airport security takes place offstage, as it were. It is the job of the folks at the CIA and the FBI, working together with foreign authorities. And while TSA has an important role here too, we can do without the spectacle of airport guards rifling through innocent people’s bags in a pathological hunt for what are effectively harmless items.

The concourse checkpoint needs to be there.  Just the same, chances are good that once an adversary has made it to the airport, he or she has engineered a way to outwit the system.  And spend as we might, there will always be a way to outwit the system.  ”Even if our technology is good enough to spot it,” said California Rep. Adam Schiff, commenting on the news of the latest underwear plot, “technology is still in human hands and we are inherently fallible.”

That’s one of the smartest things I’ve heard a politician utter in some time.

Getting a handle on this takes us all the way back to Sept. 11, 2001, the day that everything, and yet really nothing, changed.  I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: Conventional wisdom holds that the 19 hijackers exploited a weakness in airport security by smuggling box cutters onto four Boeing jetliners. But conventional wisdom is wrong. What the men actually exploited was a weakness in our mind-set — a set of presumptions based on the decades-long track record of hijackings and how they were expected to unfold. (In prior years, a hijacking meant a diversion, perhaps to Havana or Beirut, with hostage negotiations and standoffs; crews were accordingly trained in the concept of “passive resistance.”) The presence of box cutters on 9/11 was merely incidental. The men could have used almost anything — a deadly sharp can be fashioned from a broken first-class dinner plate or a ballpoint pen — particularly when coupled with the bluff of having a bomb. The success of their plan relied not on hardware but on the element of surprise. It wasn’t a failure of airport security that allowed those men to hatch their takeover scheme. It was a failure of national security — a breakdown of communication and oversight at the FBI and CIA level.

To put it succinctly: The success of the 9/11 attacks had almost nothing to do with airport security at all — a great and painful irony, of course, to any passenger forced to endure the checkpoint rigmarole in 2012.

Not that frontline guards don’t play a deterrent role.  And, in the opinions of some, the plot uncovered in Yemen underscores the value of full-body scanners — those controversial walk-through machines that allow guards to look beneath a passenger’s clothing. It’s a compelling argument, but the way in which these scanners have — and have not — been deployed is apt to make some of us cynical. For instance, the vast majority of body scanners are found at U.S. domestic airports. Overseas, where a bomb is far likelier to originate, they are rare. Is this really about safety, we wonder, or is it about billions of dollars going into the coffers of the companies contracted to build these machines?

And although the scanners are effective, where does the arms race end?  Not long ago, the idea that passengers would be marched through body scanners and photographed naked before being allowed to board an airplane, would have seemed outrageous. Yet here we are. What might be next?  The stubborn truth is, we can turn airports into fortresses if we want (in some respects we’re well along that path), yet we’ll never be entirely safe. Airport screening alone, no matter how thorough, how expensive, and how technologically advanced, will never defeat a relentless enough, resourceful enough adversary intent on downing a plane.

That isn’t capitulation, it’s reality.  And acknowledging this reality would go a long way toward warding off panic and overreaction when the next successful attack occurs.

Regrettably, too, we often forget that commercial air travel has long been a target of terrorist extremists.  The 1970s and 1980s in particular were, as I like to describe them, a Golden Age of Air Crimes, comparatively rife with bombings, hijackings and other deadly assaults against airplanes and airports. Over one five-year span between 1985 and 1989 we can count at least six high-profile terrorist attacks, including the horrific bombings of Pan Am 103 and UTA 772; the bombing of an Air India 747 over the North Atlantic that killed 329 people; and the incredible saga of TWA Flight 847.  And let’s not forget what might have been, such as the so-called “Project Bojinka,” the 1994 scheme masterminded by Ramzi Yousef (nephew of Kalid Sheikh Mohammad), in which impossible-to-detect (at the time) liquid explosives were to be used to simultaneously destroy a dozen U.S. airliners over the Pacific Ocean. Fortunately the plot unraveled and Yousef was arrested.

While we can argue, quite persuasively, that many of the current-day security measures have done little if anything to make us safer, we’ve nevertheless introduced measures that have been useful and effective, from explosives screening of checked luggage to the sorts of trans-border partnerships that broke up the most recent plot from Yemen. Whether in spite of, or because of, the attention we’ve lavished on All Things Terrorism, the past decade has seen fewer attacks against commercial air travel than any since the 1950s.What we need to remember, though, is that our success has had more to do with the security measures we don’t see than those taking place in plain view. And if our luck is to hold, we need to better rationalize and streamline our entire approach to airport security. For instance, if we’re going to have those body scanners, let’s put them where they’re needed. If this requires negotiating with foreign authorities whose airports are beyond TSA’s jurisdiction, so be it. Meanwhile, here at home, TSA’s one-size-fits-all approach, in which every single person who flies is seen as a potential threat, is simply unsustainable in a country where close to 2 million people fly daily. Things like taking snow globes from children, haggling over tiny container sizes, or confiscating a dessert fork from a uniformed, on-duty airline pilot (it happened to me) serve no useful purpose whatsoever. On the contrary, they divert valuable time and resources away from the things that could make us safer.  Let’s scale back that concourse Kabuki and retrain guards in the finer points of a more sensible, risk-based assessment of passengers and their belongings.

And lastly, if only as an aside, let’s behold for a moment the term “underwear bomb.”  That was the operative phrase in literally hundreds of articles and broadcasts over the past several days, and nowhere did it raise a snicker.  What does it say about our country, I wonder, that such a preposterous expression is instantly understood and effectively taken for granted?

Strange times indeed.

Continue Reading Close

Hiding 9/11′s last secrets

The military tribunal for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed means the American people will never know what drove him to terror

  • more
    • All Share Services

Hiding 9/11's last secrets (Credit: Reuters//Brennan Linsley)

After a Navy SEAL team killed Osama bin Laden at his Pakistan hideout a year ago this week, it flew his body to the Arabian Sea, weighted it down, and slid it silently off an aircraft carrier into the watery depths.

For many Americans, the secret raid provided a measure of revenge and catharsis for the strikes of Sept. 11, 2001. But it didn’t provide the kind of justice and official reckoning that the country needs to gain real closure. Now the government has a chance to achieve that through a full, fair and open trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-defendants, so the world can finally see the evidence against him as the true architect of the attacks on New York and Washington. The trial kickoff — an arraignment for the men — is scheduled for this Saturday at the U.S.-run detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

This should be our Nuremburg, the defining trial of the 9/11 era and a fitting coda to it.

Unfortunately, the U.S. government appears to be on the verge of squandering this opportunity, and with it, the best, and perhaps only, chance for the public to understand not only how the attacks came to be, but why Mohammed waged a relentless war against America and how we might stop the next would-be terrorist mastermind.

The problems lie within the reformed military-tribunal system that the Obama administration put in place after losing its fight for a civilian trial in New York. Political compromises have resulted in a flawed military commissions process that from outward appearances is not only rigged against the defense, but hyper-choreographed, censored and hermetically sealed.

“The process is designed to achieve a conviction, and to do it with as little revelation as humanly possible, but with the veneer of due process and justice,’’ said one participant who said restrictive gag orders prohibited him from talking publicly. “You’re talking about the most heinous crime ever, and we’re going to afford them less due process, less discovery, less of everything than we would the guy who shoplifted a pack of gum from CVS.’’

Obama administration officials say their reformed military commissions system is a vast improvement over the Bush administration’s version, which Obama moved to shut down on his first day in office in 2009.

Defense lawyers disagree, and insist they have been hamstrung in their efforts to mount the kind of aggressive defense needed to do their jobs including full and unfettered access to evidence, witnesses and even the accused themselves.

Four of the five legal teams had so few of their key players in place in recent months that they did not file the “mitigation submissions’’ that the government said it needed to decide which of the five men should face the death penalty and other key issues, such as whether to try them together or individually. They recently filed motions asking that the charges be thrown out because of fatal flaws in the system, which they say make it impossible for them to defend their clients.

“It’s window dressing,’’ Mohammed’s defense lawyer, David Nevin, said of the government’s improvements. “I am not all satisfied that it is a fair process. In fact, it is not a fair process.’’

Many of the defense lawyers have quit out of frustration or for other personal reasons stemming from the many delays in the process. Only a few have been there long enough to even begin to understand their clients’ case, not to mention the convoluted military commission process.

And they say they will be unable to effectively challenge confessions obtained when their clients were coercively interrogated in the CIA’s black site prisons, if they can broach the subject at all. This is important for the four men accused of helping Mohammed with the logistics of the plot. Several claim they have been wrongly accused, tortured into confessing, or both.

It is also important with regard to Mohammed, who confessed to dozens of plots while being waterboarded 183 times, and has said he may plead guilty even before the trial begins. Few U.S. counterterrorism officials believe all of his often boastful confessions, and it is important for the public to hear what, exactly, evidence the government has with regard to what he did and didn’t do, and whom he might have been protecting.

The team of Defense and Justice Department officials overseeing the military commission process, and the presiding judge, should quickly address the defense lawyers’ complaints, or a proceeding that some call “The Trial of the Century’’ will be delayed further by legal wrangling — and forever tainted by accusations of being unfair.

A full, fair and transparent trial, above all, will benefit the public. There is much the public doesn’t know about Mohammed, including the details of how he devised the plot, convinced bin Laden to let him do it and then orchestrated it “from A to Z,’’ to use his own words. It was Mohammed who masterminded dozens of other plots and attacks, some while staying a step ahead of the largest-ever criminal manhunt.

Mohammed, not bin Laden, was the one who traveled the world as a kind of “Johnny Appleseed’’ of terrorism, establishing alliances and creating a network of cells and lieutenants that in some cases remains today. And it was Mohammed who personally recruited young jihadist prospects much like a baseball scout, many of them Westerners, tapping into their grievances to turn them to his cause.

The U.S. government has kept the details of what Mohammed did — and how and why he did it — hidden in its most classified files since his capture in Pakistan nine years ago. The government should set the record straight on that, because there is an important lesson to be learned from the largely untold tale of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: It isn’t some monolithic group like al-Qaida that poses a continuing threat, it’s the one intelligent and energetic person who can emerge from nowhere and orchestrate a 9/11 while the world focuses elsewhere.

To that end, the government should declassify as much evidence as possible, and explain how it obtained it. It should call numerous witnesses to testify, especially since the one who has been publicly identified, Majid Khan, claims he was tortured while in CIA custody overseas.

Instead of limiting access to a few closed-circuit TVs, it should consider televising the proceedings. It should ensure that censorship is minimized, and used only to protect intelligence sources and methods, not to save the government from embarrassment. And it should let Mohammed and the others testify at length on their behalf if they so desire.

By doing so, the Obama administration will be able to say it did its best to put on the kind of civilian trial it has wanted all along, and one with a similar outcome to that of the al Qaida members charged with blowing up two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998.

Those of us who witnessed that trial in Manhattan in 2001 saw the defendants squirm in their chairs as prosecutors introduced mountains of evidence against them. We saw eyewitnesses point the finger at the accused, and surviving victims glare at them from the pews.

We heard from the terrorists themselves, and learned a lot about why they did it, about how terrorist networks operate and about what might be done to stop people like them. And when the jury convicted them, there was no question that justice was done.

Continue Reading Close

Josh Meyer is the author, with Terry McDermott, of the new book, "The Hunt for KSM: Inside the Pursuit and Takedown of the Real 9/11 Mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.’’

FBI heroically locks up ridiculous anarchists on May Day

Feds stop inept radicals from carrying out a plot feds helped them conceive and carry out

  • more
    • All Share Services

FBI heroically locks up ridiculous anarchists on May DayU.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach, left, and FBI special agent in charge Stephen Anthony walk past a map showing the location of a bridge on Ohio Rt. 82. Five men, pictured on the wall behind the map, have been arrested for conspiring to blow up the bridge. (Credit: AP/Mark Duncan)

Happy May Day, fellow travelers! If you’re not currently disrupting capitalism and/or having your wrists zip-tied for exercising your right to freely assemble, you probably read about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s latest, not-at-all suspiciously timed terror sting. The Bureau, in an inspired bit of early-20th century nostalgia, has railroaded a bunch of dangerous anarchists. (Or “dangerous” “anarchists.”) America will not waver in the face of the Galleanist threat!

Five young men from Cleveland are now in jail, accused of plotting to “blow up a bridge in the Cleveland area,” according to the FBI’s triumphant press release/criminal complaint. As is always the case with FBI terror stings, the “sting” part involved the bureau’s informant/agent provocateur mostly inventing the plot the accused have now been arrested for. In this case, the five planned to detonate smoke bombs as a distraction as they “topple[d] financial institution signs atop high rise buildings in downtown Cleveland.” But the informant (as usual, a sketchy unnamed character with a checkered past) strongly pushed the group to seriously consider different, more extreme plots. At the end, some or all of them were going to plant C-4 on the Route 82 Brecksville-Northfield High Level Bridge over the Cuyahoga Valley National Park.

So what was initially a political action aimed at financial institutions somehow morphed into a supposed attempt to destroy or damage a piece of publicly owned infrastructure in a national park. Anarchists sure do hate bridges, and parks, I guess. (No parliament of men has the authority to designate which spaces are “national parks”! The whole world is the worker’s national park!)

The FBI’s affadavit suggests that there was never actually a serious “plot.” The gang tossed around the idea of “taking out” a bridge in order to stop people from getting to work, but they also thought maybe they could use their (pretend) C4 on a Klan rally, or a neo-Nazi organization, or an oil well, or the Federal Reserve Bank. They eventually decided to maybe sink a ship. All of their many plans were super serious and well-thought out. (“To prevent capture, he suggested getting tacks that they could throw out of the back of a car if they get in a chase.”) Eventually they settled on the bridge thing, sort of, and bought fake IEDs from the guy they already suspected was a cop.

In other words, these are a bunch of dumbasses even by the standards of amateur “black bloc” dumbasses. Do you know how I know these morons weren’t serious? They planned to download the Anarchist Cookbook and follow its notoriously awful instructions. Every experienced anarchist knows that the Feds have a mole in your group house, but these guys were mainly concerned with having someone’s “hacker friend” explain to them how bitcoins work. Without the FBI’s intervention the most damage these idiots would’ve ever caused is a broken Starbucks window. So thank god they’re off the streets, and congrats to the FBI for getting this tale of dangerous, bomb-planting anarchists onto the news broadcasts on the day of Occupy’s big May Day action.

(At least the Feds are branching out from only targeting Muslims in these ridiculous “stings.” Some day all Americans, regardless of creed or color, will have their circle of friends secretly infiltrated by a paid informant.)

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Page 1 of 159 in Terrorism