Judging a Threat

Mike Kelly notes the obvious problems with trying to minimize the terror plot against the Buckeye pipeline and the JFK fuel tank farms. Just what exactly is an acceptable loss from terrorism. The so-called experts that have been cited by the media don't seem to have a problem noting that the explosions would be largely confined and the pipeline wouldn't completely go up in a massive explosion, but they ignore the fact that there are quite a few people who would be affected in the immediate vicinity of the explosion - those are people who would be injured or killed and their property damaged or destroyed:

One expert even suggested a pipeline fireball would look gruesome on TV but would not cause too much damage – just a block of homes near the pipeline or a charred jetliner on the JFK tarmac.

Stop for a moment and consider what that means: Have we gotten to the point where a block of homes or a charred jetliner is not that bad? Have we also reached the point where we look for ways to downplay the abilities of terrorists rather than take them seriously?

Are we again suffering from a failure to imagine?

In announcing that they broke up the alleged plot, police and federal officials pointed out that suspects, along with an undercover informant, went on several trips to assess possible targets. The suspects also reportedly collected satellite photos of the airport from the Internet, mapped out their escape routes and even discussed disabling the JFK control tower.

And that's not serious enough?

It's not entirely clear how many explosive devices the suspected terrorists planned to set off. Maybe they planned just one – on a portion of a fuel line that hooks to one 747 jetliner that is docked at a terminal.

Hundreds of people could be killed. Isn't that serious?

If the plotters set off a half-dozen explosive devices along the pipeline route, a dozen or more blocks of residential neighborhoods could be affected. And that's not serious?

Whether its suspected terrorists near Buffalo, a plot to blow up PATH tunnels, or even the recent alleged plan by six New Jersey men to murder soldiers at Fort Dix, the announcements were followed by other announcements discounting those plots in some way. Why?

It's a damned good question. Another good question would be to ask why the New York Times has been at the forefront of minimizing the seriousness of the averted outcome, or the possible ties to international terrorist groups including al Qaeda? What does the Times know that all the other papers, including the Washington Post, New York Post, New York Daily News, The Record, The New York Sun, New York Newsday, Newark Star-Ledger, and other papers do not? All treated this story with the proper amount of seriousness - giving front page coverage and detailing the threat and related information. The Times buried the story in the innards of the paper and didn't even treat it with a front page above the fold spot. Most curious. Oh, and not to be outdone, Keith Olbermann questions the timing of the latest terror plot to be uncovered. I question his sanity and grip on reality.

Mayor Bloomberg, gets flippant over the terror plot. That's one of the infuriating things about Bloomberg when it comes to security matters; he always seems to get the tone and tenor of his comments wrong. There are good reasons to be concerned about the terror plot and the security at the airport and the pipeline system, but to cast them aside casually is a mistake.

There are plenty of targets that are out in plain sight, and terrorists may be gunning for them as well.

Meanwhile, the informant that broke this plot open for investigators was so convincing that he was able to get the other plotters to confide specific details of the plot to him.

UPDATE:
The New York Post editorial page wonders what the heck the agenda is at the Times when it couldn't be bothered to produce a front page story on the thwarted JFK terror plot when ever other major paper did.

Yet far more important to the Times than the prospect of a plot aiming to out-do 9/11 were front-page stories about:

* The debate over the legality of detaining "boy fighters" in the Guantanamo prison camp.

* How the brick laying trade in India is benefiting peasants.

* Proper upkeep for "the most treasured violins."

Let's be clear here: The "paper of record" isn't guilty of merely poor news judgment. It's got an agenda.

Numerous newspapers understood the gravity of a plot against New York by terrorist upstarts from a seemingly unlikely part of the world - the Caribbean, just a few hours from U.S. shores. The Washington Post, for example, put the story on its front page Sunday.

Nor is the Times' coverage of this story a quirk: The paper has downplayed several other terror cases because the plotters were "merely" in the "talking" stage. Last month, after the Fort Dix Six case came to light, the paper ran a piece called "Informer's Role Draws Praise and Questions" - casting doubt on "the legitimacy of the investigations" because of the role of an FBI informer.

None of that should matter.

The point is, an unknown number of ruthless actors around the world - some in our backyard - continue to emerge and threaten the nation. No doubt the 9/11 plot also once seemed like something no one could pull off.

UPDATE:
Abdel Nur, the fourth member of the JFK terror plot, has surrendered to authorities in Trinidad.

Guyanese suspect in an alleged plot to attack New York's John F. Kennedy Airport surrendered to police Tuesday in Trinidad, a police official said.

Abdel Nur turned himself in at a police station outside the Trinidadian capital of Port-of-Spain, police spokeswoman Wendy Campbell told The Associated Press.

Rick Moran takes Olbermann to task for his inanities and Michelle Malkin points out the ostrich-like symptoms among some politicians who think the threats are not as serious as they are.

UPDATE:
The NYT responds to why they didn't put the JFK terror plot on the front page:

A. Here's the basic thinking on the J.F.K. story: In the years since 9/11, there have been quite a few interrupted terrorist plots. It now seems possible to exercise some judgment about their gravity. Not all plots are the same. In this case, law enforcement officials said that J.F.K. was never in immediate danger. The plotters had yet to lay out plans. They had no financing. Nor did they have any explosives. It is with all that in mind, that the editors in charge this weekend did not put this story on the front page.

In truth, the decision was widely debated even within this newsroom. At the front page meeting this morning, we took an informal poll and a few editors thought the story should have been more prominently played. Some argued it should have been fronted, regardless of the lameness of the plot, simply because it was what everyone was talking about.

Lame is the excuse for deciding what makes the front page and what doesn't. The plot wasn't nearly as lame as they claim, and the players aren't fully known if they bothered to read the complaint.

They also believe that just because the plot wasn't actionable at the time the four were taken down, it wasn't worth mentioning on the front page instead of an article about bricks. That's one of the reasons that the Times keeps slipping in circulation. Those kinds of journalistic decisions keep coming back to hurt them.

UPDATE:
Wouldn't you know, but there was an incident with a pipeline in the New York metro area today. A pipeline rupture resulted in three people being injured:

A section of roadway in Bergen County town exploded at the start of rush hour this afternoon, flipping a car onto its roof, sending macadam into the air and injuring the driver and two police officers, authorities said.

The roadway blew up on River Road at Henley Avenue in New Milford when an underground gas line ruptured as it was being tested using compressed air, Sgt. Stephen Littlefield said. He said the line was not yet in service, and there was no gas explosion.

The driver of the car, who was not identified, was taken to Hackensack University Medical Center with a broken arm, the sergeant said.