It was “just luck” that Police Chief Gary Maitland was
lunching with two law-enforcement leaders when the FBI agent showed up
at his office Dec. 6, he said.
The timing meant that South Beloit Police Chief Larry Schultz and
Winnebago County Sheriff Dick Meyers learned together that the FBI had
thwarted a terror plot set for CherryVale Mall.
"Just luck"-- That's a good one. Remember that for later, will you?
Maitland shared
details Tuesday of his department’s reaction and minimal involvement in
last week’s terror scare with the village Public Safety
Committee."
"Minimal"?? That's putting it kindly, is it not? Unless you
mean "minimal" as in "negligible"...
Federal
officials said Derrick Shareef, 22, was plotting to set off hand
grenades in garbage cans in CherryVale Mall. By the time local
officials were told, Shareef already had been arrested.
So
... "minimal" as in "none". And it's something of an issue in Rockford,
according to several references in this special section of the Rockford
Register Star.
But this is no surprise.
The story continues:
Although
some booed the FBI’s secrecy, Maitland understands why local officials
were left out of the loop. If he’d heard of the threat before the
arrest, he would have put extra patrols around the mall. Doing so might
have interfered with the federal investigation, Maitland said.
In
my "model" of this so-called "terror plot foiled", I see Gary Maitland
as something of a diplomat. There's at least a finite chance that he
was righteously steamed to find out what had been going on under his
nose, and look at how he found out: after the fact, and not even in
private but also in the company of other police chiefs. What could he
say about the FBI, especially there and then? Nothing but nice things,
right?
it
was “just luck” that Police Chief Gary Maitland was lunching with two
law-enforcement leaders when the FBI agent showed up at his office Dec.
6
but it may have been something else, too. Appearances can be deceiving.
And
that aspect of the story was interesting, as were some other spots I
will point out in a little while, but it was the Editorial that really
engaged me. It's called "A scary thought: Threat of terror in our backyard", and it opens with some classic sleight-of-hand.
Whether
or not Derrick Shareef was capable of pulling off a terrorist attack or
multiple attacks he’s accused of, it’s unnerving to think that some of
us walked alongside him and an FBI informant at CherryVale Mall as
Shareef talked about how to detonate grenades to kill the most people.
Remember
that last phrase, will you? "to kill the most people." We'll be coming
back to that later. But first the sleight-of-hand. In my view,
Whether or not Derrick Shareef was capable of pulling off a terrorist attack or multiple attacks he’s accused of
is
the essential question. Or at least that's the essential small
question. The sleight-of-hand appears in the way it's included in the
opening phrase, the "whether or not" intro, the "let's all sweep this
part under the rug" preamble, as if to say, "Let us move past the
physical realities of the case, let us not tolerate any outrageous conspiracy theories, let us move along to things we can all agree on."
When
I see this happening, I always think "Let us try to prevent the next
big attack without ever really understanding the previous one." But I
digress.
When Webster Tarpley looks at a terrorism case, he uses
a simple question to differentiate perpetrators from patsies: "Do they
have the physical and technical ability to cause the effects observed?"
In the event of a "foiled terror plot", I ask a similar question: Did
he have the physical and technical ability to cause the effects being
claimed? In other words, "Could the defendant have committed the crime
for which he is accused?"
Whether or not Derrick Shareef was
capable of damaging anything at all is an open question, and whether he
could or could not have exploded grenades in the mall is central in my
view. So slipping this aspect of the story under the rug is a natural
opening move for an editorial of this sort. It was well done, but of
course you can't fool all the people all the time.
When did we lose our ability to think clearly?
Rember that phrase, too, will you? "When did we lose our ability to think clearly?"
The editorial continues:
We
have to be grateful for the informant’s decision to notify authorities
when, according to the charges, Shareef shared his intention to wage a
one-man jihad against America.
Is that so? Grateful for the
informant’s decision to notify authorities? In my view, that's no
reason to be especially grateful. That's the informant's job, to sell information.
You'd
have to expect the informant to keep the authorities notified all along
the way. That's how these things work. How else could you do it?
I mean, how could they give him his instructions unless the he sent them regular status reports?
After that, authorities say, there was never any danger that Shareef would be able to create the mayhem he spoke about.
The editors and I agree here, but I would go even further:
There
was never any danger that Shareef would be able to create the mayhem he
spoke about, period. He wouldn't have even been speaking about it if
not for the FBI informant.
As a close study of the
affidavit makes clear, Shareef would never have spoken about
hand-grenades or shopping malls, would never have been to CherryVale
even once, had it not been for the informant, who led him along every
step of the way.
The FBI set up a bizarre swap of two stereo
speakers for some phony grenades, a pistol and some nonfunctioning
ammunition. When the swap was made, Shareef was arrested.
A
bizarre swap indeed. What was the FBI-connected fake arms-dealer going
to do with a pair of speakers? Use them as evidence, of course.
Derrick
Shareef had no idea that he was being set up. He didn't have any money,
he didn't have a car, he didn't have any friends, and he didn't have a
clue. He even thought he could get four functional hand grenades, a
handgun and functional ammo for the gun, all for a pair of speakers.
They must have been some speakers!
But
He’s in jail now, held without bond and facing federal charges, including one involving use of a weapon of mass destruction aimed at people and property.
Use of a weapon of mass destruction? Are they serious? It's difficult to see how that particular charge could ever stick.
Aside from the question of whether a hand grenade -- or even a set of four -- constitutes a weapon of mass destruction, Derrick Shareef never used any weapon. Derrick Shareef never even obtained any weapons, if by "weapon" you mean a functional instrument of violence.
Surely
a box containing four "phony grenades, a pistol and some nonfunctioning
ammunition" does not constitute a weapon of mass destruction; and
moving that box from the trunk of the FBI-connected fake-arms-dealer's
car to the trunk of the FBI-connected informant's car does not
constitute "use" of said so-called "weapon" in any way shape or form,
especially considering that all this happened in a store parking lot
full of federal agents who, as the editorial correctly states, were set
to arrest Shareef as soon as they could also seize the so-called
"evidence" of his so-called "terror plot" in his so-called "possession".
The
news went all over the world about a terrorist plot against a mall in
Rockford, Ill., not exactly the kind of public relations this city
relishes, but it could have happened anywhere, really.
Creating
the news itself, and sending it all over the world, were the main
points of this exercise. Derrick Shareef's future is a non-issue to the
feds. They don't care whether they have to drop the charge about "use
of a weapon of mass destruction"; if this case goes according to the
usual pattern, that won't happen for another year or more.
By
then Derrick Shareef will have been forgotten by all but a few. And the
dropping of the charge will receive little or no attention. But the
damage will already have been done.
The editorial is absolutely correct on this point: It certainly could
have happened anywhere. It could have happened anywhere the FBI wanted
it to happen. This particular bogus terror alert could have happened
anywhere in the Chicago/Milwaukee area; it just happens that the
informant chose to take Shareef out to CherryVale. Or something...
The
FBI affidavit released by the U.S. attorney’s office details how the
counterterrorism squad documented Shareef’s actions and stated
intentions as the case against him was put together. It’s fascinating
reading, as it reveals the simplistic, dehumanizing nature of such a
person’s grievances, their self-aggrandizing martyr tendencies and the
apparent disregard for the sanctity of life. A scary combination,
indeed.
This is an insane reading of the affidavit, in my view. But then, I've read it twice. And I'm willing to link to it, so others can read it and make up their own minds.
Let's cut to the chase:
The
affidavit also reveals that Derrick Shareef had no car, no money, and
no clue. He was a loner, a few bricks short of a full load, just the
sort of person these sting operations focus on. Derrick Shareef was the
perfect target for an entrapment operation such as this.
The
affidavit goes on to reveal how it was the informant who started
talking about the mall, and it was the informant who started talking
about the grenades, it was the informant who started talking about
disrupting Christmas and killing as many people as possible.
It was the informant who brought Derrick Shareef to Rockford to "case" CherryVale Mall.
It could have been anywhere....
Right. It could have been anywhere...
But here's the thing: Have No Fear!
The grenades will always be phony, the ammunition will always be
non-functional, the parking lot will always be full of federal agents,
and the terrorist will always be hapless and helpless, toothless and
useless.
That's the pattern. That's how the FBI gets all these bogus terror arrests.
The
FBI did admirable work, as far as we can tell, with one rather obvious
omission: The agency did not notify local law enforcement until very
late in the game. Mayor Larry Morrissey and Rockford Police Chief Chet
Epperson said they didn’t know what was going on until the news was
breaking across the nation.
Well of course they didn't know
what was going on. Gary Maitland, Larry Schultz and Dick Meyers all
found out about it at the last minute, too, as noted above. And that's
the way it was supposed to happen.
In traps like this one, it's
seen as essential that the local authorities be kept completely in the
dark until the trap has been sprung, and for the exact reason Gary
Maitland mentioned. Had he known what was happening, he would have put
on extra patrols, which might have interfered with the FBI
investigation.
OOPS! What would have happened then? What if
Maitland's extra patrols were on duty -- and paying attention -- when
the FBI Informant brought Derrick Shareef out to Rockland case the
mall? That might have been messy, no? They might even have arrested the
informant!
Is this what the Mayor was wondering about, or was he thinking about something else?
Morrissey
said he was going to try to get some answers from the office of U.S.
Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald about why local law enforcement was kept
out of the loop.
The Mayor will no doubt get "some answers
from the office of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald" but whether they
will be reasonable ones, who can predict what answers he will get?
Well,
OK, I was lying; I can predict this one: the answers will be some
variation of "Hands Off, Mouth Shut!". The answers from Fitzgerald's
office may be phrased more delicately, of course.
If Larry
Morrissey isn't happy with the answers he gets from Patrick Fitzgerald,
please somebody send him a link to this article, or give him my email address.
I'd be thrilled -- chilled! -- to explain all this and much much more
to Mr. Morrissey, and indeed to anyone else -- mayor, congressman,
private citizen -- who is curious enough to ask. In fact, they don't
even have to ask; all they have to do is click against my wishes when I
say "please don't read my blog."
It’s
difficult to be too mad at the FBI, which identified and monitored a
potentially dangerous person and kept a lid on leaks until an arrest
could be made.
Is it? I agree that the FBI "kept a lid on
leaks until an arrest could be made". But is it really "difficult to be
too mad at the FBI"? And is it really true that the FBI "identified and
monitored a potentially dangerous person"?
Aside from the fact that we're all dangerous, how dangerous was Derrick Shareef, anyway?
He had no car; that's why he and the informant rode around in the informant's car.
He had no money; he couldn't even come up with a few hundred bucks for some grenades -- he had to trade in his speakers.
He was so ignorant about grenades that he wanted to have them detonate in garbage cans!
Never mind that the grenades would produce much more harmful effects if they were detonated in the open.
Never
mind that Derrick Shareef couldn't afford to buy real grenades,
wouldn't know where to get real grenades, didn't know the difference
between functional deadly hand-grenades and the phonies he bought -- or
obtained in a trade for a pair of stereo speakers -- in a store parking
lot crawling with federal agents.
Shareef might not be the brightest bulb in the jihad marquee, but he seemed bent on destruction and he had little to lose.
The conclusion that Derrick Shareef was "bent on destruction" seems questionable at best. A careful reading of the affidavit
reveals that -- especially on the topics of CherryVale and grenades --
Derrick Shareef was saying whatever the FBI-connected confidential
informant was telling him to say, doing whatever the informant was
telling him to do.
It's entirely possible that Derrick Shareef was
intent on destruction even before the confidential informant convinced
him to say enough to get his sorry young ass arrested. And I don't mean
to imply in any way that Derrick Shareef may have been a good guy, or a
harmless one. All I'm saying is:
Can we please keep this in perspective?
If
not for the FBI, Derrick Shareef would still be a dim-witted unknown
with a bad attitude and a pair of speakers. And he may not have much to
lose, unless you count his personal freedom. But in my view, this is not about Derrick Shareef.
This
is about America. This about the world. How many people have heard the
news that made its way around the world so fast, about the terror plot
that was foiled near Chicago, just in time for Christmas?
I'm sure you are. But are you relieved you've read this?
I'm
not relieved at all, to tell you the truth, and here's what alarms me:
the reactions of the sheep! Innocent as always, they bleat out their
praise for the ghastly machine that's herding them into the wrong pen,
as perfectly illustrated by the following Letter to the Editor:
To informant: Thanks
I would just like to say thank you to the person who notified the proper authorities leading to the arrest of Derrick Shareef.
You may always be unknown to all of us, but I feel that you are the true hero.
Thank
you for stepping up to the plate and for saving so many people from
being hurt and killed. Life is always so busy and we sometimes forget
to recognize the truly wonderful things that people do for each other.
I walk at CherryVale Mall and my family thanks you for helping to keep me safe, as well as our entire city.
God bless you always. You are a gift to all of us.
— Kim Einhorn, Rockford
Does
Kim Einhorn have any idea of the deception and provocation that was
required -- and provided -- to create this "gift to all of us"? It's
hard to imagine.
It's hard to imagine that she has much of a clue about anything. None of these things, anyway.
And here's the saddest part: she probably represents the community much better than the editorial.
In other words: baaah, baaah, baaah, baaah....
~~~~
What were we supposed to remember? Do you remember?
"Just Luck"
Whenever
a news story starts with an disclaimer about how is was "just luck"
that a certain thing happenened, be very suspicious.
"To Kill The Most People"
We're always told the terrorists are trying to kill as many people as possible, because they want us all dead.
If
that were the case, wouldn't they "plot" to "explode" their "grenades"
in the open? Why would they contain the blasts in garbage cans?
And why would they choose such an off-the-beaten-track place to do it? Why wouldn't they attack downtown Chicago?
In
my view this is not about killing the most people at all. It's not
about killing anybody. It's about scaring us all senseless.
Why CherryVale?
Perhaps
it was chosen because it's small. The informant brought Derrick Shareef
to CherryVale twice and paraded him around, making sure some of the
merchants (and probably some of the other shoppers as well) noticed
them. In a big city it's a lot harder to get noticed.
Or maybe it was chosen because it's out-of-the-way. Just to enhance the "Shock-And-Awe" factor for the worldwide audience.
CherryVale
in particular? I don't know. But any out-of-the-way place would do as
well. People who don't live in big cities don't worry about terrorism
very much. It's entirely possible that the main point of this exercise
was to remind them to Be Very Frightened.
The Lifeblood of Society
One
budget after the next has robbed from everybody except the richest one
or two percent, and given to the War On Terror, and people are getting
tired of seeing everything around them breaking down except the
security police.
The bloom has come off the rose, so to speak,
and therefore there needs to be some bogus terror news every so often.
Otherwise the rose would vanish completely. So to speak. But that's
another story.
What else? There was one more thing we were supposed to remember ...
Therefore,
the readers' response, so far, has been favorable to the FBI. But the
level of understanding does appear somewhat limited.
Many readers appear to see the "informant" as somebody who happened to have a suspicion and called the FBI, as exemplified in this comment from Bob Ham:
Think
about what if that one person had turned the other way and said, it's
none of my business or what if I'm wrong and nothing is planned.
We
were very lucky someone was not afraid to point the finger at a
potential killer. I'd rather be wrong than right and say nothing.
As usual in these cases, nobody asked me what I'd rather do, but I'll tell you anyway.
I'd rather see the FBI investigating actual crime, rather than fabricating bogus terror events like this one.
Not because I hold any truck with Derrick Shareef. But because this case fits a familiar pattern.
Because
all these terror scares are being used for political purposes, to keep
us frightened, frightened to the point where we happily give away our constitutional rights,
our inalienable gift from God and/or the great American patriots of the
past, gifts which, were we in our right minds, we would certainly fight
to preserve.
We'll find out Shareef was retarded, or bipolar gone off his meds or some such. The FBI found the guy in a prison drub rehab program and set him up to take this dive.
All of this really started with Nancy Reagan. I firmly believe that the so-called War on Terror is actually just a bigger better version of the War on Drugs. The difference is that in the War on Drugs, only the rights of drug users and blacks and chicanos were trampled. Now the cops are going after everyone else.
What will happen when whitey wakes up and finds he's been tyrannized is anybody's guess. I'm not sure he'll EVER wake up. He's been voting to have himself locked up for a long time now. Maybe whitey has learned to like prison. . . .
We'll find out Shareef was retarded, or bipolar gone off his meds or some such.
you could be right ... I'll be watching!
The FBI found the guy in a prison drub rehab program and set him up to take this dive.
There is some evidence in the affidavit to suggest this may be what happened. Not enough to substantiate it but Shareef talks about going to the courthouse every month. Why does he have to do that? Hmmmm.
I firmly believe that the so-called War on Terror is actually just a bigger better version of the War on Drugs.
ka-CHING!
The difference is that in the War on Drugs, only the rights of drug users and blacks and chicanos were trampled. Now the cops are going after everyone else.
There are other differences of course but you are definitely onto something, Jimmy.
Connect the following dots: Afghanistan, Turkey, heroin, millions, Dennis Hastert, Sibel Edmonds.
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
