Friday, July 31, 2009

More News on Local Arrests

Since I was trying to get news on the IAR Open House (which was last Saturday), I had set some Google Alerts, because of which I heard very early about the arrests of 7 local Muslims who were indicted on some vague charges on suspicion of terrorist plotting.

And my inbox has just been overflowing with that kind of news. I wanted initially to start posting that news, so I've been reading it myself, and then I got lazy about posting it, and now I'm really just sick of reading it.

The media seems to be trying very hard to get "Muslim perspectives" on the incident so it can talk about how "shocked" we all are. The main suspect, Daniel Boyd, has really been flayed the most by the media overall, and I've seen some members of the community making statements.

However, the local mosque offered an official statement indicating that they cannot comment on an ongoing criminal investigation. And I think that was a wise move on their part, and the more "news" I see on the issue just shows the suspects being quite literally tried by the media and most often being found guilty. It's just so sensational to get to talk about "terrorists" who were "home-grown" and plotting "violent jihad," even though these charges have not been substantiated.

So I'm going to remove my post with the news listings on it, along with my commentary, less anyone misconstrue my remarks in the future.

I might post particular relevant updates later on, but for now I think it's better for me to just stay out of it. I have heard that the court date for the suspects has been set to Tuesday morning (8/04) at 9:30am at the Federal Courthouse in downtown Raleigh, if anyone would like to attend. It's recommended to arrive early (around 8am), and remember that cell phones aren't allowed in so just leave it in the car. Personally I'd love to go but unfortunately I'll be sitting a final exam for my summer class from 9-11am.


Anonymous said...

I noticed the media claimed Daniel Boyd received "terrorist training" in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but look at the dates he was there; from 1989 to 1992. This was when the U.S. was down with Jihad and promoted it. Guess who funded the "terrorist training" he received? Shouldn't these people be indicted also? Charlie Wilson, George Bush and postmortem Ronny Reagan. The hypocrisy is quote astonishing...

Amy said...

You're right about that.

Some of the media acknowledged that, reminding readers that the US supported the Afghans then, who were fighting the Soviets.

I'm thinking that if someone receives any kind of "training" in Pakistan or Afghanistan, then it must be "militant" or "terrorist" training.

I think they're bringing it up just because people nowadays associate Afghanistan and Pakistan with "terrorism." So just by mentioning it, they're prejudicing the people against the accused. E.g., "He went to Afghanistan? Then he must be with Al-Qaeda."

Ignorance, and jumping to conclusions, and the media is only helping.

Yusuf Smith said...

As-Salaamu 'alaikum,

Did you notice that the police pulled some cruel stunt on the family, getting them to come to the hospital on the pretext that one of their family had been injured in a car crash, and telling them that they were arrested only when they got there? They lost a son to a car crash a few years ago. I fail to see why they didn't just go to the house and arrest everyone, which is what they normally do.

Amy said...

Wa alaykum as-salaam

Glad you noticed that. I thought it seemed really strange and a huge waste of time. It's not something that makes logical sense, but I wonder if we'll ever figure out why they'd pull a stupid stunt like that.

Anonymous said...

I would suppose that they used the hospital because they would be able to control that situation whereas if they went to the house for the arrest they could have no idea what they were up against. Remember, whether the allegations are true or not, the officials have to act on the assumption that they are terrorists.

Amy said...

Anonymous--the trick was not to arrest the men who were accused, but rather to arrest the women--Boyd's wife, daughter, and daughter-in-law.

They weren't indicted, accused of being terrorists, etc. They're women. But they were arrested and interrogated, after the elaborate ruse taking them two or three counties away in the first place before bringing them back. It's very weird.

Ali Zelmat said...

Actually, the point was not to arrest the women. They were only detained and questioned. (and then released) It is not uncommon to use a ruse to move suspects (or 'persons of interest') to a more neutral location. However, this 'ruse' was used to put the women in a state of severe distress. Had it been simply to remove them from the location of the house, the ruse would have been complete once they were in the police car and driven away from the house. Instead, the 'tactic' was used to create an emotional state more likely to lead to them speaking in a state of distress and therefore more likely to 'let slip' useful information.
(my humble opinion)

Amy said...


To "detain and question" rather than to "arrest." That's an interesting opinion though (about the mental distress to induce them to speak freely), thanks for sharing.