Informant Plays Key Role in JFK Plot

Published: 6/4/07, 12:45 AM EDT
By LARRY McSHANE
NEW YORK (AP) - A convicted drug dealer who agreed to pose as a wannabe terrorist among a shadowy group now accused of plotting to blow up John F. Kennedy International Airport secretly fed information to federal investigators in exchange for a lighter sentence.

His surveillance trips to the airport with the suspects, travels abroad to meet with supporters and assurances he wanted to die as a martyr in an attack on an underground jet fuel pipeline gave counterterrorism agents insight and evidence that experts say was otherwise unattainable.

And his help once again demonstrated the growing importance of informants in the war on terrorism, particularly as smaller radical groups become more aggressive.

"In most cases, you can't get from A to B without an informant," said Tom Corrigan, a former member of the FBI-NYPD Joint Terrorist Task Force. "Most times when an informant tells you what is going on, speculation becomes reality."

http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=7406&eeid=5237309&_sitecat=1522&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=2&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt&_lid=332&_lnm=tg+ne+topnews&ck=&cntp=beta

1) the group, which had no explosives, was told by the informant that he could get ahold of explosives;

2) the informant provided surveilance equipment for their surveilance trips, which he planned;

3) the funds for the trips abroad to meet with supporters were supplied by the FBI or DHS;

4) the entire plot would have withered on the vine if the informant had not pushed to keep it alive;

5) the informant was no fucking informant, but an instigator -- that's just the way the KGB does things.

How many times, when the war is going badly or there's some domestic political crisis, have they trotted out some half-assed 'plot' by people with no weapons, explosives or other resources to terrorise us? Why should we think this one is any different? The hyperbole I've heard about potential deaths outstripping 9/11, yada yada yada, just to keep us afraid.

BTW, how could the casualties be worse than 9/11 if they blew up a pipeline unit at an airport? Do they keep these next to the terminals? Don't they already keep the facilities at a good distance, in case of accidents?

I think we are being lied to again - because the Democratic Debate was coming up this week, and because of the high casualty figures coming out of Iraq.

Even assuming this "plot" is more than a tempest in a teapot:

It's the humint, stupid.

Warrantless spying on millions is not cost-effective.