Undercover FBI Agents arrest terrorist

JaJae · 12-08-2006, 06:54 PM

U.S. Charges Illinois Man With Plotting Mall Attack (Update3)

By Andrew Harris

Dec. 8 (Bloomberg) -- An Illinois man was arrested and charged with planning a terrorist attack in a shopping mall three days before Christmas.

Derrick Shareef, 22, of Rockford, Illinois, was arrested Dec. 6 by an undercover FBI agent as he tried to acquire hand grenades, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago said today. Shareef planned to explode the grenades in garbage cans at Rockford's CherryVale Mall on Dec. 22, the Friday before Christmas Day, prosecutors said. Fitzgerald said Shareef acted alone except for undercover agents of a terrorism task force.

``While these are very serious charges, at no time was the public in any imminent peril,'' Fitzgerald said. Rockford, 90 miles northwest of Chicago, is the third-largest Illinois city, with a population of more than 150,000, its Web site says.

Shareef was charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and attempting to destroy or damage a building by fire or explosion. He may face a life sentence on conviction, Fitzgerald said at a press conference.

Bearded and with a shaved head, Shareef appeared in federal court today wearing an orange jail jumpsuit and dark blue slip-on sneakers.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jake Ryan told Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez that Shareef is considered a danger to the community and should be held without bail. Shareef's court-assigned lawyer, Michael Mann, asked for bail.

Four Grenades

The judge ordered Shareef held pending the outcome of a Dec. 20 bail hearing. Shareef didn't enter a plea.

The defendant was arrested without incident as he met with an undercover agent with whom he was to swap a set of stereo speakers for four hand grenades and a handgun, according to a statement by Fitzgerald and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Robert Grant, who heads the FBI's Chicago office, described Shareef's plan as ``relatively unsophisticated'' at a press conference after the court proceeding.

Grant said the FBI had been watching Shareef for several months, after he became acquainted with an informant and confided that he wanted to commit violent acts against U.S. civilians.

Initial targets included public buildings, including the DeKalb County, Illinois, courthouse, Grant said.

Shareef visited the mall twice to determine its suitability as a target and plan his escape, Grant said.

Having settled upon that target, Shareef -- described as a recent convert to Islam -- began a ritual purification process that included having his body shaved and videotaping a message for use in case he didn't survive his attack.

Terrorism Task Force

The Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Force has members from more than two dozen government agencies, Grant said.

The CherryVale Mall is owned by Chattanooga, Tennessee-based CBL & Associates Properties Inc. CBL spokeswoman Deborah Gibb said by phone that the company was aware of today's announcement and is cooperating with authorities.

CBL shares rose 6 cents to $43.41 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading.

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Harris in Chicago at aharris16@bloomberg.net .

Good old fashioned police work brought him down. I wonder if they found him through any help of the PATRIOT Act. It's good to see one less terrorist on the streets and his plan foiled before anyone was hurt. Thumbs up to the FBI on this one.

I haven't seen a picture of the guy yet, but with a name like Shareef, I have a huntch he wasn't Christian...

Diesel66 · 12-08-2006, 07:13 PM

uh how in the hell are four hand gernades and a pistol = to wmd ?

kinggovernor · 12-08-2006, 07:45 PM

one less asshole out in the world

7960 · 12-08-2006, 08:14 PM

Where's the libertarian outrage? I mean, he didn't actually hurt anyone so why was he arrested?

Donkey® · 12-08-2006, 08:24 PM

Domestic terrorist = yes.

Real terrorist = no.

Shit, why is the word "terrorist" even in the thread?

motivez · 12-08-2006, 08:33 PM

Good job

RMNIXON · 12-08-2006, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Where's the libertarian outrage? I mean, he didn't actually hurt anyone so why was he arrested?

Clear intent to violate the rights of others has never neen a problem in criminal courts by Libertarians. I think you confuse blowing up innocent christmas shoppers up with things like masterbation and smoking pot?

RMNIXON · 12-08-2006, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Good job

Indeed!
FBI keeps a lookout for the lone nut, not just the conspiracies!

7960 · 12-08-2006, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Clear intent to violate the rights of others has never neen a problem in criminal courts by Libertarians. I think you confuse blowing up innocent christmas shoppers up with things like masterbation and smoking pot?

I *intended* to have teh sexorz with tara johnston for all 4 years of high school...I never actually did it.

If he didn't do anything how can a libertarian be ok with his arrest?

motivez · 12-08-2006, 09:12 PM

You can be arrested for conspiracy to commit certain crimes.. even without committing them.

Donkey® · 12-08-2006, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

You can be arrested for conspiracy to commit certain crimes.. even without committing them.

Only if there is actual evidence of said conspiracy.

RMNIXON · 12-08-2006, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

I *intended* to have teh sexorz with tara johnston for all 4 years of high school...I never actually did it.

If he didn't do anything how can a libertarian be ok with his arrest?

There is no thought crime! If you started looking through bedroom windows at night and making unwanted phone calls and e-mails, well that would be grounds for police action. Are you making the absurd claim that this man did nothing other than have bad thoughts against Jews at the mall? He did say "jews" in his FBI recorded statements!

RMNIXON · 12-08-2006, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Only if there is actual evidence of said conspiracy.

Good Point! Like trying to buy explosive devices. The FBI are not idiots!

JaJae · 12-08-2006, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Domestic terrorist = yes.

Real terrorist = no.

Shit, why is the word "terrorist" even in the thread?

Because just about every single news outlet is reporting it that way.

Donkey® · 12-08-2006, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Because just about every single news outlet is reporting it that way.

Then I am blaming the liberal media for their misrepresentation of this story.

JaJae · 12-08-2006, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Then I am blaming the liberal media for their misrepresentation of this story.

What would be the term associated with the definition of "one who commits acts of demostic terrorism"?

Many people would call someone who commits acts of domestic terrorism (such as the unibomber and Timothy McVaugh) and your opinion of "real" terrorism to be considered under the umbrella of terrorist.

I don't think this has anything to do with the media, but rather personal definitions of what constitutes a terrorist.

The strict definition of terrorist is one who commits an act of terrorism and you personally classified this person as a domestic terrorist. I don't see where the line is broken between "domestic terrorist" and simply calling someone a "terrorist". I don't understand how one can be correct and the more vague term considered wrong.

Donkey® · 12-08-2006, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

What would be the term associated with the definition of "one who commits acts of demostic terrorism"?

Many people would call someone who commits acts of domestic terrorism (such as the unibomber and Timothy McVaugh) and your opinion of "real" terrorism to be considered under the umbrella of terrorist.

I don't think this has anything to do with the media, but rather personal definitions of what constitutes a terrorist.

The strict definition of terrorist is one who commits an act of terrorism and you personally classified this person as a domestic terrorist. I don't see where the line is broken between "domestic terrorist" and simply calling someone a "terrorist". I don't understand how one can be correct and the more vague term considered wrong.

I guess the first problem is the government's track record in arrests like this. One lone nut doesn't seem like anything more than someone trying to go on a killing spree. Remember the guys with the cell phones? That was somehow terrorism. This guy is not associated with Al Queda in any way. This guy is not associated with a terrorist group in any way. He wouldn't have even come close to anything without the government trying to give him the means to do it. Real terrorist there. He's a nutcase. Plain and simple. This isn't terrorism.

Scrum · 12-08-2006, 11:28 PM

Been hearing about this all day. Rockford is just down the highway from me.

Kind of strange, Rockford isn't a very large city. Weird place for a terror attack with Chicago and the crowded suburbs an hour away.

Scrum · 12-08-2006, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

What would be the term associated with the definition of "one who commits acts of demostic terrorism"?

Many people would call someone who commits acts of domestic terrorism (such as the unibomber and Timothy McVaugh) and your opinion of "real" terrorism to be considered under the umbrella of terrorist.

I don't think this has anything to do with the media, but rather personal definitions of what constitutes a terrorist.

The strict definition of terrorist is one who commits an act of terrorism and you personally classified this person as a domestic terrorist. I don't see where the line is broken between "domestic terrorist" and simply calling someone a "terrorist". I don't understand how one can be correct and the more vague term considered wrong.

I thought a terrorist was generally someone who was commiting the act to sway the government?

JaJae · 12-08-2006, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I thought a terrorist was generally someone who was commiting the act to sway the government?

Quite often that is the accepted definition of terrorism, which I didn't define. I just said a terrorist was one who performs acts of terrorism. What I was saying is being slightly spun. I wasn't arguing against the notion of saying they're not terrorists, just the classification of "terrorist" and "domestic terrorist" as being two completely separate entities.
But even so...

Originally Posted by article

Initial targets included public buildings, including the DeKalb County, Illinois, courthouse, Grant said.