As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Terrorism in Italy and Europe as a whole. Is my roomie fulla shit?

Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
edited May 2009 in Help / Advice Forum
I got into an argument with my roommate about whether or not there is a substantial threat to the United States and its citizenry attached to the plan to move suspected terrorists out of Gitmo and into stateside prisons. He expressed certain worries and, to justify them, used more than a few flimsy arguments along the lines of, "Part of the reason we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11 is because we aren't imprisoning terrorists in the US," and, "Various articles I read state that moving suspected terrorists to the US poses a not insignificant threat to us, and so my position is common sense." I dismissed these out of hand, of course, but another point he used to support his argument stuck with me.

According to him, terrorists in Italy were planning to state a prison break in order to free fellow terrorists that were being kept in an Italian prison. Furthermore, he says there are other instances within Europe of terrorists receiving instruction from imprisoned terrorists through clandestine means and, again, working to free their imprisoned colleagues. Needless to say, these supposed events all fly in the face of the argument I put forth, which is that terrorist cells are designed to operate independently and would never be in such dire need of instruction that they would seek it from incarcerated higher-ups, especially when communication carries a significant risk of exposure. That said, I don't recall ever hearing that a terrorist cell's plan to stage a prison break had ever been foiled by Italian authorities, nor have I ever heard of any terrorist cell working with incarcerated terrorists or working to free incarcerated terrorists. Frankly, I'm inclined to think he's lying.

I haven't been able to find anything on the vaguely described incidents he referenced, but I'm not willing to confront him unless I'm as certain as can be. It'd be pretty embarrassing if I was wrong, after all, and apart from that I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt until all doubt has been removed.

What I'm hoping for from you is validation of his claims or, if you're reasonably certain he's just making stuff up, some assurance that he's just a liar or perhaps deluded enough to be making up his own world history. Thanks.

Robos A Go Go on

Posts

  • TexiKenTexiKen Dammit! That fish really got me!Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    There was this in Belgium in December of 2007:

    Belgium foils al-Qaeda jailbreak

    edit: and this in the UK

    I don't know about riots, but jails are often used as recruitment areas for all kinds of stuff, and radical islam is no exception. Some radical imams spew a lot of shit that people just ignore until it gets to be a problem. In Europe its a particular problem that has been brewing for the past few years, primarily in the UK and Germany.

    TexiKen on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    TexiKen wrote: »
    There was this in Belgium in December of 2007:

    Belgium foils al-Qaeda jailbreak

    I don't know about riots, but jails are often used as recruitment areas for all kinds of stuff, and radical islam is no exception.

    Great, thanks for saving my face. It's possible he just got Italy mixed up with Belgium, I suppose.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • RecklessReckless Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    A Jailbreak from inside maximum security American prisons, especially those that happen to be in stateside military complexes, seems to be the unlikeliest of scenarios to me.

    It's not like Penguin busting his guys outta Arkham.

    Reckless on
  • TexiKenTexiKen Dammit! That fish really got me!Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I found another link I put in my post, about a planned jailbreak in the UK involving a helicopter.

    TexiKen on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    TexiKen wrote: »
    I found another link I put in my post, about a planned jailbreak in the UK involving a helicopter.

    In response to the Belgium link, it seems like there was no evidence of a planned jailbreak after all. No bombs or plans, and the suspects ended up being released without charges.

    And the UK link is interesting, but I think it's worth pointing out that I don't really see how they could have made it to freedom after getting on the helicopter. I mean, what's more conspicuous than a getaway copter? You can't exactly sneak away after that.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • TexiKenTexiKen Dammit! That fish really got me!Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ........fly up? *rimshot*

    edit: googling "alqaeda jailbreaks in europe" into google has this thread on the first page.

    Also, there was a plan to riot/escape in Australia and one that happened in the Philippines

    TexiKen on
  • RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    The thing with virtually all of the terrorist activity in Europe is that it is all from domestic groups. The major terrorist attacks in the US (at least in recent history) have come from foreign terrorist organizations. Many European countries have major, organized domestic groups who were either a threat in the past or are a threat now (the IRA in Great Britain, ETA in Spain, and 17 November in Greece are all good examples). The US has a few domestic extremist groups, but nothing organized or on the same scale as the domestic groups in Europe. If the prisoners we were holding were US citizens and members of US extremist organizations, then yes there would be a danger of attacks where we were holding them. International groups aren't going to magically find the will and resources to attack the US again just because we're now holding detainees on US soil.

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Charles Manson, a serial killer with a cult-like religious following, has been in prison for decades without any problems.

    Thanatos on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Thanatos on
  • ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2009
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    The thing with virtually all of the terrorist activity in Europe is that it is all from domestic groups. The major terrorist attacks in the US (at least in recent history) have come from foreign terrorist organizations. Many European countries have major, organized domestic groups who were either a threat in the past or are a threat now (the IRA in Great Britain, ETA in Spain, and 17 November in Greece are all good examples). The US has a few domestic extremist groups, but nothing organized or on the same scale as the domestic groups in Europe. If the prisoners we were holding were US citizens and members of US extremist organizations, then yes there would be a danger of attacks where we were holding them. International groups aren't going to magically find the will and resources to attack the US again just because we're now holding detainees on US soil.

    yeah, this is exactly what i was thinking as well. to perform a successful prison break, a foreign terrorist group would have to get into the country, formulate a plan that would actually successfully get them into and out of maximum security jails, acquire whatever funding and equipment their plan will need, actually manage to get to and through the jailbreak without being caught, and then flee our country which if i recall correctly is extremely large and crawling with cops.

    this is a scenario that is mostly likely in 90s action movies. fortunately, steven segal also is highly likely in 90s action movies, so we're safe on that front.


    as to whether or not it would increase the theoretical likelihood of attacks in an attempt to pressure for freedom for imprisoned comrades, well, why would it? i mean, it's no secret we had the prisoners at gitmo (and elsewhere). anyone who can read a newspaper knew that.

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    The argument that any sort of criminal organization can be led by a member who is in prison isn't without merit, without addressing the rest of the discussion. There's a big to do right now about wanting to be able to jam cell phone signals to prisons because some of the prisoners are still operating as high level leaders in their organizations, using cell phones they sneak around.

    Darkewolfe on
    What is this I don't even.
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2009
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    The argument that any sort of criminal organization can be led by a member who is in prison isn't without merit, without addressing the rest of the discussion. There's a big to do right now about wanting to be able to jam cell phone signals to prisons because some of the prisoners are still operating as high level leaders in their organizations, using cell phones they sneak around.

    Gang members and such, yeah - but those guys are in with the general population of the prison. What exactly is leading people to believe that people from Gitmo are going to be mixed in with everyone else? That would lead to a shit-ton of shankings.

    Doc on
  • kaliyamakaliyama Left to find less-moderated fora Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I got into an argument with my roommate about whether or not there is a substantial threat to the United States and its citizenry attached to the plan to move suspected terrorists out of Gitmo and into stateside prisons. He expressed certain worries and, to justify them, used more than a few flimsy arguments along the lines of, "Part of the reason we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11 is because we aren't imprisoning terrorists in the US," and, "Various articles I read state that moving suspected terrorists to the US poses a not insignificant threat to us, and so my position is common sense." I dismissed these out of hand, of course, but another point he used to support his argument stuck with me.

    According to him, terrorists in Italy were planning to state a prison break in order to free fellow terrorists that were being kept in an Italian prison. Furthermore, he says there are other instances within Europe of terrorists receiving instruction from imprisoned terrorists through clandestine means and, again, working to free their imprisoned colleagues. Needless to say, these supposed events all fly in the face of the argument I put forth, which is that terrorist cells are designed to operate independently and would never be in such dire need of instruction that they would seek it from incarcerated higher-ups, especially when communication carries a significant risk of exposure. That said, I don't recall ever hearing that a terrorist cell's plan to stage a prison break had ever been foiled by Italian authorities, nor have I ever heard of any terrorist cell working with incarcerated terrorists or working to free incarcerated terrorists. Frankly, I'm inclined to think he's lying.

    I haven't been able to find anything on the vaguely described incidents he referenced, but I'm not willing to confront him unless I'm as certain as can be. It'd be pretty embarrassing if I was wrong, after all, and apart from that I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt until all doubt has been removed.

    What I'm hoping for from you is validation of his claims or, if you're reasonably certain he's just making stuff up, some assurance that he's just a liar or perhaps deluded enough to be making up his own world history. Thanks.

    Here's an argument you can use with him if he keeps up this stuff. Even with his examples, it isn't really a reason to house them in off-shore gulags rather than the US. Doing so doesn't put us any more at risk, because it doesn't make us any more hated or more attractive a target for international terrorists - they hate us already. If anything, this would divert efforts from civilian targets to more hardened and secure security ones.

    kaliyama on
    fwKS7.png?1
  • Ebz123Ebz123 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    As someone who lives in the UK take it from me that you should be very sceptical about stories of foiled terrorist plots in the British media. More often than not they turn out to be complete rubbish, or 'planned' in the sense of on or two nut-jobs sitting around saying 'Wouldn't it be amazing if we did this'. Of course the papers usually devote a few inches of space to reporting that no-one has been charged or convicted when they had a front page extravaganza with the original story.

    There does seem to be a genuine problem with regard to actual potential terrorists recruiting in jail, which is linked to the fact that the British prison system is massively overcrowded, so isolating people from the same group across a number of smaller prisons is impossible as the system is already overstrained with all the disturbances that result from overcrowding.

    Ebz123 on
  • GrobianGrobian What's on sale? Pliers!Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    The first thing the German RAF did in 1970 was freeing Andreas Baader (one of the leaders) from prison. (They got him out of prison to give a fake interview and freed him then)

    The second RAF generation was basically formed because the first generation was in prison and one of their goals was the freedom of the first generation. They had contacs to the imprisoned first generation through their lawyers. The lawyers even smuggled in hand guns for the first gen. to commit suicide with, when all attempts to free them failed.


    Later the german Verfassungsschutz (a german Intelligence Agency) staged a fake prison break just to get undercover agents into the RAF.


    So in Germany imprisoned terrorists not only communicated with others outside, but they planned attacks from the inside and even recruited new terrorists (through their lawyers). This was of course the special case of home-grown terrorism that had a huge amount of support in the student and/or left wing scene in Germany.

    Grobian on
  • RocketScienceRocketScience Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Two greek criminals have been broken out of a maximum security prison using a hijacked helicopter twice in the last three years, most recently in Feb this year.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7904624.stm

    RocketScience on
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2009
    Two greek criminals have been broken out of a maximum security prison using a hijacked helicopter twice in the last three years, most recently in Feb this year.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7904624.stm

    What does this have to do with the state of US supermax prisons, and how terrorists will be kept there? Again, most of the issues people raise assume that they are going to be mixed in with the general prison population, which I strongly doubt will be the case.

    Doc on
  • locomotivemanlocomotiveman Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Also, at least in many cases the populations of the SuperMax prisons such as the one in Colorado have pretty well fixed personal ideologies that would not be compatible with radical Islam.

    locomotiveman on
    aquabat wrote:
    I actually worked at work on Saturday. Also I went out on a date with a real life girl.


    Can you like, permanently break the forums?
  • RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    As far as I know, the controversy involves holding detainees at federal jails so that they can be tried in federal courts, not at federal supermax prisons. The issue is that, for example, people living in Alexandria, VA aren't too keen on enemy combatants being held and tried in downtown Alexandria.

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    People in Alexandria are morons if that's what they're concerned about--we have rapists and serial killers being frogmarched into and out of the courthouse Monday through Friday. The larger issue (and the initial reason we started holding battlefield detainees outside of the 50 States) is that it was the former administration's opinion that they would have an easier time justifying the use of a parallel legal structure rather than folding them into the Federal crim justice system if they were held outside the jurisdiction of any existing civilian court of law. The two benefits they saw from this, from a legal process standpoint:

    1. They felt that they wouldn't have to follow due process with the same attention to detail -- hearsay evidence would find wider acceptance, detainees would have fewer avenues to challenge their detention, anonymous sources and classified information could be used, etc. In short it would be easier to build a case.

    2. Because the military had jurisdiction over our overseas detention center, military judges would sit on the cases, and the juries would be comprised of military service members. This made handling the sort of classified information that is inseparable from these cases easier to manage. Some also speculated that the cards would be further stacked against a defendant in a military court, although some cases have shown that military judges and juries can actually be quite lenient.

    A lot of cases that emerged out of the Gitmo proceedings (chiefly Hamdi v. Rumsfeld) scuttled the military tribunal process by stating that the tribunals must comply with the Geneva conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It has since been suggested that since we don't get a due process pass when trying terrorism suspects overseas, we might as well bring them into the continental states and try them under Federal Law.

    A lot of critics of this plan are making noise about how this is a bad idea, although most of their objections are red herrings. The real problem we're facing is that we will probably lose a lot of cases; because we never expected to have to extend due process rights of any sort to many battlefield detainees, we weren't as careful about how we built our cases. A lot of supposedly air-tight cases suddenly get eviscerated when you have to observe Federal rules of evidence and due process rights.

    On an editorial note, the next time a Republican tells you that Obama's making America less safe, point out that if Bush and Cheney had erred on the side of caution and demanded that the DoJ/DoD build cases that could stand up to the scrutiny of a Federal court, we wouldn't be in this fucking mess in the first place.

    SammyF on
  • RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    SammyF wrote: »
    People in Alexandria are morons if that's what they're concerned about--we have rapists and serial killers being frogmarched into and out of the courthouse Monday through Friday. The larger issue (and the initial reason we started holding battlefield detainees outside of the 50 States) is that it was the former administration's opinion that they would have an easier time justifying the use of a parallel legal structure rather than folding them into the Federal crim justice system if they were held outside the jurisdiction of any existing civilian court of law. The two benefits they saw from this, from a legal process standpoint:

    1. They felt that they wouldn't have to follow due process with the same attention to detail -- hearsay evidence would find wider acceptance, detainees would have fewer avenues to challenge their detention, anonymous sources and classified information could be used, etc. In short it would be easier to build a case.

    2. Because the military had jurisdiction over our overseas detention center, military judges would sit on the cases, and the juries would be comprised of military service members. This made handling the sort of classified information that is inseparable from these cases easier to manage. Some also speculated that the cards would be further stacked against a defendant in a military court, although some cases have shown that military judges and juries can actually be quite lenient.

    A lot of cases that emerged out of the Gitmo proceedings (chiefly Hamdi v. Rumsfeld) scuttled the military tribunal process by stating that the tribunals must comply with the Geneva conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It has since been suggested that since we don't get a due process pass when trying terrorism suspects overseas, we might as well bring them into the continental states and try them under Federal Law.

    A lot of critics of this plan are making noise about how this is a bad idea, although most of their objections are red herrings. The real problem we're facing is that we will probably lose a lot of cases; because we never expected to have to extend due process rights of any sort to many battlefield detainees, we weren't as careful about how we built our cases. A lot of supposedly air-tight cases suddenly get eviscerated when you have to observe Federal rules of evidence and due process rights.

    On an editorial note, the next time a Republican tells you that Obama's making America less safe, point out that if Bush and Cheney had erred on the side of caution and demanded that the DoJ/DoD build cases that could stand up to the scrutiny of a Federal court, we wouldn't be in this fucking mess in the first place.

    The NIMBYism doesn't come from a distain for who would be tried in the courthouse, it comes from the fact that rapists and murderers don't belong to a organized movement bent on the destruction of the US. They fear that any courthouse or jail where detainees were tried or held would become target number one for whoever it is we're fighting against in the War on Terror(tm).

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    As I said: morons. People who strap their friends up with bundles of C4 and send them into crowded markets don't have a long track record for being concerned about what happens to their comrades. Terrorism as a tactic doesn't work like that. It isnt' about accomplishing discrete tactical objectives; apparent senselessness expressed through overwhelming, highly-visible violence is what makes it effective. Even in its most strategically-brilliant, cerebral applications, surface senselessness is the hallmark. Mumbai should be the case-study of the 21st Century -- it increased discord between the Pakistanis and the Indians, elevated the stakes of simmering hostility between two nuclear powers, forced the Pakistani government to relocate security forces from the AQ/Taliban controlled NWFP to the Kashmir/border region when the Indian government started saber-rattling, and complicatd US policy w/r/t Pakistan by giving us more to think about -- we need security forces in the NWFP or we'll have to start mounting cross-border attacks from Afghanistan, but we need the goodwill of both Pakistan and India to ensure that we can mediate and prevent a conflict that could escalate to the strategic nuclear level.

    Strategically very deft. Tactically? A bunch of guys with guns in crowded public places trying to kill as many random people as possible before fighting to the death. I'd suggest that we should be more concerned about whomever planned the Mumbai attack than we ever were about the faces on Al Qaeda's videotapes because this fucker thinks about violence on a completely different level than Osama Bin Laden ever did. But he's not worrying about how to rescue the shooter captured by Indian security forces, and Al Qaeda's not particularly concerned with it, either.

    SammyF on
Sign In or Register to comment.