Chicago Prime Territory for Terrorists

WSJ editorial on the wrong-headed ruling from the Fourth Circuit. (Previous post here on the potential terrorist picked up in Peoria.):

There's no doubt that the 2-1 Fourth Circuit ruling in Al-Marri v. Wright is remarkable and dangerous in its sweeping judicial claims. Judges Diane Motz and Roger Gregory, both Bill Clinton nominees, ruled that a person like al-Marri does not qualify as an enemy combatant, because the U.S. cannot be "at war" with a private group like al Qaeda.

For the "enemy combatant" moniker to apply, the court said, a terrorist must have set foot in the soil "alongside" the forces of an enemy state--i.e., Iraq or Afghanistan. This is odd in itself, since by definition al Qaeda is a transnational organization. In some respects this makes it more of a security threat because there is no government the U.S. can hold responsible for its actions.

By such fancy footwork, the judges also get around the fact that their decision contradicts existing precedent in both their own circuit and the Supreme Court. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled that an American captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan could be designated an enemy combatant. Ditto Fourth Circuit precedent, which strengthened Hamdi with its ruling in the case of Jose Padilla, the U.S. citizen who was arrested at O'Hare airport with plans to detonate a dirty bomb.

(Padilla was a Chicago gang member, born in New York.) Perhaps the justices are selectively relying (ignoring Padilla) on the NY Times' (!) Etiquette of Jihad---since al-Marri wasn't born here, he won't kill us---but it looks as if al-Marri didn't consider himself bound by this--why did he come to this country on Sept. 10th, 2001 and when he was arrested had files on the deadly hydrogen cyanide on his laptop, allegedly paid for by al Qaida. What?! no etiquette among terrorists?! Guess he still considered himself an "expeditionary warrior" who have license to kill under the etiquette, even though he officially had US resident status.

And recall this case, targeting a Rockford shopping mall right before Christmas last year. At first it was generally poo-poohed as an isolated incident. Then they found connections to other terrorists. (Most recent post here.) HT Hugh Hewitt.

Derrick Shareef is a native-born American, and according to the Etiquette of Jihad "Rule No. 4:"You cannot kill in the country where you reside unless you were born there. " is the go-to type for al Qaida to engage in terror in the US. Evidence that al Qaida is doing just that in this IBD editorial:

Al-Qaida leader Adnan El Shukrijumah was recently spotted in Central America, sparking rumors he's recruiting Hispanic gang members. The FBI has put out a $5 million bounty on El Shukrijumah, whom it suspects Osama bin Laden has lined up as "the next Mohamed Atta."

Muslim chaplains are actively recruiting imprisoned members of MS-13 and other gangs, such as the Crips and Bloods. Prisons have already proved to be fertile ground for al-Qaida, spawning the likes of alleged dirty bomber Jose Padilla and shoe bomber Richard Reid.

Since 9/11, the FBI has disrupted several homegrown terror plots involving Muslim converts who have been in and out of jail, including:

• A group of black Muslim converts in Miami who allegedly conspired to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago.

• A Chicago black Muslim, Derrick Shareef, who allegedly plotted to blow up a local shopping mall.

So figure it out. They may have started in Rockford or Peoria, hoping they'd be in under the radar, but it's not alarmist to conclude that Chicago is prime territory for terrorists. And what they are also angling for is the added protection of our courts, which their PC unindicted co-conspirator allies are also attempting to use to intimidate our citizens.

Let's not give them judicial cover to kill us.