Sunday, December 03, 2006

Department of Pre-crime

bloombergNew York Times
From NY Times article:
“A police spokeswoman, Cpl. Michile Paradis, asked whether the group had actually had the three tons of chemicals in their possession, and if the police had ‘seized’ it, replied: ‘That’s difficult to answer. They made arrangements to have it delivered and they took delivery.’”
They cannot be charged with possession of these chemicals or actually engaging in a terrorist act.Instead the only thing they can feasibly be charged with is conspiracy. We will see what they actually are charged with.
Another from NY Times: “In court, he said, government lawyers broke with tradition and did not present a synopsis of the reasons for their chages, arguing that they had not had time to prepare it. It will, however, be presented at another hearing on Tuesday.”
Thats right you read correctly: Lawyers at a loss for words.So “the crown” has not charged these individuals with anything yet.The papers allude to “anti-terrorism” charges based on a law passed in 2001.
These individuals never engaged in a terrorist attack. We still do not know where this “3 tons of ammonium nitrate” is or if it even existed.We do not know if it did exist whether or not the RCMP used it to dangle in front of them in order to arrest them. All articles state that the RCMP and FBI were watching this group of peope who attend the mosque of Qayyum Abdul Jamal.
More from NY Times:”One senior counterterrorism official said there had been extensive contact between American and Canadian authorities in the past several days”
If the ammonium nitrate does exist and was sold by terrorists:Why the fuck did they bust a buncha students? They should be following that vein wherever it goes. 3 tons of ammonium nitrate! Who is selling that amount of explosives? The threat is obviously far worse than they’re letting on and why did they bust these people? When they did they ruined their opportunity to take down an illicit arms network that can actually fence and move 3 tons of ammonium nitrate!
If the ammonium nitrate does exist and was sold by RCMP/RBI:This is an example of entrapment, there is no evidence that these individuals would have sought explosives if they had not been offered and entrapped by undercover agents.
If the ammonium nitrate doesn’t exist:Then they’re being charged for something they could never have done. Maybe a conspiracy charge could stick, but anything else is ridiculous.
My main concern is that being charged with breaking an “anti-terrorist” law is basically a catch-all. This threatens every person in Canada, the US, and the rest of America.
This whole scenario reeks of set-up, which means they could have been entrapped or without undercover involvement they never would have attempted to procure explosives.
If its not a set-up then there is a massive illicit arms network that has been allowed to operate and move on unscathed. Which means we have put ourselves in greater danger by arresting the small fish for PR, when the real threat exists in the arms network

No comments: