Another Terror Threat

via Instapundit, arrests overseas in a plot to bomb the Holland Tunnel in New York City.

I have no idea if this notion that bombing the Tunnel would have flooded the financial district makes any sense, but there's no question it would have been a disaster.

Things to note:

-- al Queda does like to continue returning to targets they've aimed at and missed, and the plot to attack New York landmarks in the early '90s that failed because one of the plotters was an FBI informant (this is the plot that landed the "Blind Sheikh" in jail) included the Holland Tunnel

-- note that it's buried in the article that some DHS money is raised for the City. That hasn't really gotten any media play compared to the large amount of coverage when the City was initially cut, and this is money specifically for transit security.

-- finally, like the Toronto 17, this plot was discovered through the monitoring of Internet chat rooms. That's likely where the action's going to be from now on, or lot's of it, as cyberspace replaces the lost sanctuary in physical space.

Personally, I don't really care how far along this plot was. If it went beyond idle wishful thinking, it seems to me it's a conspiracy, and these guys need to be picked up.

Update: MSNBC just said a "former counterterrorism official" says the target isn't the Tunnel but underground subway tunnels. But they say this during one of their half-hour "here are the headlines" breaks so that's the sum total of what they offer.

Well, I feel informed, how 'bout you?

Update: Gee, this is kind of ironic. New York Congressman Peter King rushes to the cameras on MSNBC to say that he's sort of glad this is out because now he can use it as an example of why New York needs DHS money (despite the additional transit security money.) And he's quite careful to make it clear he's known for ten months. (It's been "driving him crazy" to know about this but not be able to use it as an argument in debates over cuts in New York's DHS funding.) And he wants people to be clear about the "gratifying" news that the NYPD is on top of things.

But given that this is an on-going investigation it would have been better if this hadn't come out. Yet when the interviewer points out that he has, after all, been quite harsh regarding the New York Times publication of classified information, he basically ducks the chance she gives him to bash the Daily News for releasing this news, simply saying they may not have the full story and repeating the line it would have been better if it hadn't come out.

No doubt all secrets are not the same, and all leaks are not of equal importance nor would they do the same damage. King is not particularly clear making that point (assuming that is his point.)

Update: The Captain, who argues that this catch results from a comprehensive strategy, discovers a New York representative suddenly developing an appreciation for electronic surveillance. In this as in all things, I suppose, your perspective on this depends upon exactly whose ox you think is getting gored.

Update: No one seems to have coverage of the FBI's press conference up yet, but the deal is that, first, the Daily News was wrong about the Holland Tunnel -- it was the PATH lines connecting Jersey with the City, and second, the FBI is none too pleased about the story leaking. (I note that while Peter King is saying the story shouldn't have leaked, he seems to be making an appearance on every media outlet to make sure people know he was in the loop from the beginning and otherwise get his two cents in on this story he doesn't think should be out there, rather than comment on the existence of story itself, which was his play on the Times story.)

In any event what has the FBI aggrieved is the fact that this plot was interrupted based on the cooperative efforts of a number of agencies (the line that keeps getting repeated is "six countries on three continents") some of which do not really want it out that they're cooperating closely with us. Now, we might bemoan the fact that they don't work to make it politically acceptable to work with us. In some cases they might even be governments that attack us publicly. Different problem: we need their cooperation and they need ours and right now that's the world we live in.

But if their cooperation with us leaks, even if it doesn't happen every time, when they consider that highly sensitive information, why should they take that risk again?

One of the briefers suggests that FBI headquarters and agents overseas have spent the morning smoothing ruffled international feathres, trying to salvage international relations.

After 9/11 one of the things we demanded of our intelligence community was better cooperation with other agencies.

What do we say to them when they do what we ask and that rug gets pulled out from under them in a single morning? "Beyond textbook, it's storybook" says the highranking briefer says of the relationships, commenting on the "unprofessional" behavior of the leaker. Unprofessional would be the least of it.

Ironically, while focusing on the story, MSNBC keeps encouraging their expert commentators to freely bash the Daily News for publishing the story to begin with. Actually I think that's beyond irony.

Comments

[Commodore Sloat]

It's "Qaeda." This is an Islamist terrorist group, not a Cuban one.

[dauber]

I can't find where I spelled it differently -- that's the way I usually do spell it.

[DRJ]

Great post.

BTW the spelling correction is in the first "things to note" (al Qaeda not al Queda).

[Exguru]

Once again there was an al-Quaeda connection. There was one with the Toronto 17, with the shoe bomber, with the Florida 7, with the Seattle LA airport plot, the Madrid trainwreck, the London subway... Often there is an imam sent first to brainwash the suicide candidates, followed by the demolition expert to trains in fuses and detenator caps, and there is also the money man who enables the whole process--and it's always from the Middle East, and so far at leaat, always from al-Quaeda. This is good news. The home grown terrorists are probably not harmless when al-Quaeda is completely eradicated.

[Exguru]

Eliminate the last "not!"

[dauber]

DRJ: thanks for the compliment but you have just confused me further -- what am I not seeing?