FBI tracked murderer of soldier?

posted at 7:55 am on June 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

So much for that law-enforcement approach to the war on terror.  ABC News reports that Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, the man arrested for killing one soldier and wounding another in front of a recruiting station in Arkansas, had already tripped enough alarms at the FBI to have the Joint Terrorist Task Force open an investigation when he returned from Yemen:

The suspect arrested in the fatal shooting of one soldier and the critical injury of another at a Little Rock, Ark., Army recruiting booth today was under investigation by the FBI’s Joint Terrorist Task Force since his return from Yemen, ABC News has learned.

The investigation was in its preliminary stages, authorities said, and was based on the suspect’s travel to Yemen and his arrest there for using a Somali passport.

The suspect, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 24, had changed his name from Carlos Leon Bledsoe after converting to the Muslim faith.

He offered no resistance to police when arrested.  In fact, Muhammad/Bledsoe has already begun cooperating, telling authorities he planned a much larger killing spree, but had only the two targets:

According to sources, the suspect advised them that he was going to kill as many Army personnel as possible. At the time of the shooting, the subject had approximately 200 rounds of ammunition available, police said.

According to a police report, Muhammad told police he saw two uniformed U.S. soldiers in front of the recruiting office before he shot and killed Pvt. William Long, 23, and wounded Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, 18, while they were taking a break outside the U.S. Army recruiting station where they both worked.

The police found no explosives in the car, but they discovered that Muhammad/Bledsoe meant business.  He had two pistols and an SKS rifle, over a hundred rounds of ammunition, and vests to hold the clips.  Muhammad wanted to take out as many military personnel he could find before anyone could catch him.

The FBI and its JTTT will have to answer some questions about when exactly they intended to intervene.  Muhammad/Bledsoe got arrested in Yemen for traveling on a Somali passport, which triggered the FBI’s interest in him in the first place.  It seems likely that he came back from his Islamic studies in the terrorist hotbed of Yemen with this mission in mind, and yet the FBI didn’t act until he killed someone.

Law enforcement has its place in civil maintenance of the peace.  The terrorists are waging war against us, not crime waves.  The Bush administration learned that lesson the hard way on 9/11 after eight years of flabby response from the Clinton administration after the first World Trade Center attack.  If we’re not careful, we’ll find ourselves back in that flabby, self-indulgent “what war?” mode, and disaster will surely follow.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Miss_Anthrope on June 2, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Thank you.

Nichevo on June 2, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Just as a footnote, we’ve had more than just 1 “terrorist” attack on US soil, but it’s been mainly lone wolfs suffering from “Sudden Jihad Syndrome.”

Dare we forget:

1. Salt Lake City mall (shooting)

2. Seattle synagogue (hit & run)

3. Dallas residence (standoff w/cops, but were spotted conducting surveillance at local airport)

4. San Francisco synagogue (hit & run)

5. Denver Safeway store (shooting)

6. Philadelphia subway attack (hammer)

7. Chapel Hill campus (hit & run)

8. Houston residence (stabbing of Jewish roommate)

I know I’ve missed quite a few, but I pulled those I recall in recent years…but all of the above individuals mentioned Islam and jihad as their motivation for their actions. Are we to ignore what they admit?

Let’s also remember that intelligence officials found an online al-Qaeda training manual that pushes the “smaller cell” idea, as well as pushing for smaller attacks (rather than the grand-scale previously conducted). This tends, from a terrorism standpoint, to wear down the populace much more effectively than larger-scale efforts, which tend to galvanize victims to fight back.

Are these just “mental” patients waiting to happen? Or is this online manual training those who’ve become “inspired” by the RoP?

Miss_Anthrope on June 2, 2009 at 10:38 AM

I figured this was coming. Next will be a mall or shopping center. Time to go ahead and get the carry permit. We are going to have to fight back. Hope Arkansas has the death penalty and USES it.

faol on June 2, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Suspect Pleads Not Guilty To Recruitment Shooting

A Muslim convert accused of killing a soldier in a “political and religious” attack on a military recruiting center pleaded not guilty Tuesday to a capital murder charge and was ordered held without bail.

Abdulhakim Muhammad, 23, of Little Rock, was charged in Monday’s death of Pvt. William Long, 23, of Conway outside an Army-Navy Career Center in a west Little Rock shopping center.

A prosecutor said Muhammad admitted shooting Long and another soldier “because of what they had done to Muslims in the past.”

Loxodonta on June 2, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Hope Arkansas has the death penalty and USES it.

Just about the ONLY good thing from this case is that YES Arkansas HAS and USES the death penalty.

As an Arkansan myself I can assure you, the state may elect democrats from dog-catcher up to governor, but they are the “how much camo and singing choirs can i put in my campaign ads” kind of democrats. Conservative blue dogs till the end (so we vote D on a state level and R on the national level)

One thing every governor has done for as long as I’ve been alive is USE the death penalty.

The only controversey about the death penalty in Arkansas has been the uproar when it HASNT been used. Huck-a-sham commuted some guy’s sentence because he claimed he had become a Christian or something, and it caused a major stink.

A very popular news anchor, young lady in her 20s, was brutally murdered in her Little Rock home last fall. All I heard when they arrested the guy (looked like a typical thug — not by his race but by his tattoos, unshaven appearance, and hair they showed on all the tv reports) was “that **** will be dead in 5 years” or “man i’d give anythinig to be on that jury”

Yes Little Rock is in the “liberal” county, but some of that stems from it being the county with a large black population that votes for Dems. When it’s time for a jury deciding about the fate of a fallen soldier (and i think the wounded soldier, the one who survived, was black), it’s not a “race” thing; There’s no racial divide in Arkansas with the military, it’s just accepted as an excellent govt institution

Sorry for the rant, too much information…

just letting you know:

A) arkansas has the death penalty
B) arkansas USES the death penalty
C) there’s an 100% chance this guy (if convicted) will be dead by 2015-2020, emphasis on the former

battleoflepanto1571 on June 2, 2009 at 10:53 AM

So, a “man-caused disaster” in Arkansas, eh?

Just wait till Iran gets Obama’s now-approved “peaceful” nuclear “power”.

Man-caused disaster” sounds so much nicer than terrorism.

And Barry The Childish is all about nice.

At least to the enemies of Civilization.

(Not so much to his political opponents, though.)

profitsbeard on June 2, 2009 at 11:15 AM

The Lawfare approach to combating terrorism will not work. Law enforcement only has power to arrest criminals after a law is broken. To date, terror cells have been disrupted by using criminal conspiracy laws. Unless a single gunman, even if he is being trailed, violates a weapons law or writes a threatening letter, will always be able to reach the point of fulfilling his mission. All the FBI can do is watch until the lone gunman commits an overt act.

Things will only get worse when Al-Qaeda and homegrown nuts adopt the lone gunman approach.

southsideironworks on June 2, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Miss_Anthrope ,

Don’t forget the first one after 9-11, a shooting at LAX in front of the El Al terminal on Independence Day 2002.

thebrokenrattle on June 2, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Well, this is what happens when you treat terrorism as a police matter. Now they have pretty good evidence for a prosecution.

We need to be willing to sacrifice in order to make America great, you know. In the field of terrorism, that means allowing attacks to succeed in order to build a better legal case.

hawksruleva on June 2, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Miss_Anthrope on June 2, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Thank you.

Nichevo on June 2, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Two times.

baldilocks on June 2, 2009 at 11:58 AM

The Bush administration learned that lesson the hard way on 9/11 after eight years of flabby response from the Clinton administration after the first World Trade Center attack.

Wait, I thought the standard Republican/Cheneyite talking point was that since there were no foreign terrorist attacks on American soil after 9/11, the Bush policies were a resounding success.

Well, there were no foreign terrorist attacks on American soil after the Clinton-era WTC attacks. But you’re criticizing Clinton anyway. How is this possible?

Clearly it’s possible b/c the Cheney defense is specious.

Now let’s talk about Bush’s flabby response to terror in the months before 9/11. i.e., “Well, you’ve covered your ass now”

orange on June 2, 2009 at 11:58 AM

The FBI is one of the few organizations fighting terrorism who’s constrained by the Constitution

Miss_Anthrope on June 2, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Surely we would prefer that all US organizations fighting terrorism should be “constrained” by the Constitution, right?

orange on June 2, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Natural as a snake bite, can’t do anything about nature.
It’s man-caused disaster,man is part of nature, back to sleep

upcountrywater on June 2, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Well, there were no foreign terrorist attacks on American soil after the Clinton-era WTC attacks. But you’re criticizing Clinton anyway. How is this possible?

orange on June 2, 2009 at 11:58 AM

you’re kidding right?

had clinton not ordered the “wag the dog-bj-inpsired ‘strike’ on the tylenol factory in sudan looking for cover (and actually hit the afghan taliban camps instead of some feckless strike on empty camps), we could have severely weakened al qaeda in 1998. but oh it made everyone feel “better” after the embassy bombings, pushed kenya right off the front pages

here’s a question — if you have a chance to kill OBL, do you A) do it realizing you might take out some taliban kids or B) listen to the advice of a corrupt security head who was caught smuggling important documents out of DC stuffed in his underewear???

clinton chose “B”

he could have done a million things — increased funding for the northern alliance, stopped thinning down our intelligence services (billy bob had a bizzare faith that ‘technology’ eliminated the need for on-the-ground human intelligence), or heck even responded to the USS Cole bombing

we did NOTHING after Cole — bill had 2 months to do something and does nothing (ironically, both this killer and the cole were in yemen. oh well)

did you know some of the captured al qaeda morons said that the USA’s LACK of reaction to teh uss cole emboldened them on 911? they expected an attack, but not a full fledged occupation of afghanistan? that clinton’s “do nothing” attitude (explained away by his own annoyance with Bush Sr’s somalia involvement as a lame duck) actually allowed AQ to “scale up” their plans?

and isn’t it interesting that all the “warm fuzzies” clinton gave to teh rest of the world meant jack sh## in the future? there’s a couple of hollowed out train stations in madrid, subway lines in london, nightclubs in bali, and parliament houses in delhi that are the result of that “holiday from history”

was bush’s admin at fault? sure. was clinton’s? sure. im not saying clinton=cause. what i am saying is, you must be keith olberman’s pool boy if you think clinton is guilt free and bush is a bumbling idiot.

or perhaps you could kindly tell me what “bin laden determined to strike usa” means, and kindly decode that memo in AUGUST 2001?

(bonus exit irony: bush ignored the ‘bin laden’ memo, and is some bumbling fool… then he says “i wont be fooled again” and follows through against saddam’s UN kicking out and on-the-ground-he’s-making-nukes intelligence, and is seen as some preemptive warmonger)

Have it your way, libs! Must be fun to live in a kindergarden playland and ignore the realities of the ‘real world’! Hey, when is the “colors” center open??????

battleoflepanto1571 on June 2, 2009 at 12:12 PM

So how many more Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad’s are running around?

izoneguy on June 2, 2009 at 8:36 AM

Good question. I am sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Jihadists running around this country. How many have been to the Middle East or Africa for training?

bw222 on June 2, 2009 at 12:24 PM

If he would have been arrested before he did anything, he would have been quickly released for not doing anything.

Phoenician on June 2, 2009 at 8:00 AM

This is exactly what would have happened had Bush “prevented” 9/11. His opponents would claim the 19 guys he arrested were not terrorists, and then the Democrats would have started impeachment proceedings against him.

Del Dolemonte on June 2, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Washington, April 9, 2004. A hush fell over the city as George W. Bush today became the first president of the United States ever to be removed from office by impeachment. Meeting late into the night, the Senate unanimously voted to convict Bush following a trial on his bill of impeachment from the House.

Moments after being sworn in as the 44th president, Dick Cheney said that disgraced former national security adviser Condoleezza Rice would be turned over to the Hague for trial in the International Court of Justice as a war criminal. Cheney said Washington would “firmly resist” international demands that Bush be extradited for prosecution as well.

On August 7, 2001, Bush had ordered the United States military to stage an all-out attack on alleged terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Thousands of U.S. special forces units parachuted into this neutral country, while air strikes targeted the Afghan government and its supporting military. Pentagon units seized abandoned Soviet air bases throughout Afghanistan, while establishing support bases in nearby nations such as Uzbekistan. Simultaneously, FBI agents throughout the United States staged raids in which dozens of men accused of terrorism were taken prisoner.

Reaction was swift and furious. Florida Senator Bob Graham said Bush had “brought shame to the United States with his paranoid delusions about so-called terror networks.” British Prime Minister Tony Blair accused the United States of “an inexcusable act of conquest in plain violation of international law.” White House chief counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke immediately resigned in protest of “a disgusting exercise in over-kill.”

When dozens of U.S. soldiers were slain in gun battles with fighters in the Afghan mountains, public opinion polls showed the nation overwhelmingly opposed to Bush’s action. Political leaders of both parties called on Bush to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan immediately. “We are supposed to believe that attacking people in caves in some place called Tora Bora is worth the life of even one single U.S. soldier?” former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey asked.

When an off-target U.S. bomb killed scores of Afghan civilians who had taken refuge in a mosque, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Aznar announced a global boycott of American products. The United Nations General Assembly voted to condemn the United States, and Washington was forced into the humiliating position of vetoing a Security Council resolution declaring America guilty of “criminal acts of aggression.”

Bush justified his attack on Afghanistan, and the detention of 19 men of Arab descent who had entered the country legally, on grounds of intelligence reports suggesting an imminent, devastating attack on the United States. But no such attack ever occurred, leading to widespread ridicule of Bush’s claims. Speaking before a special commission created by Congress to investigate Bush’s anti-terrorism actions, former national security adviser Rice shocked and horrified listeners when she admitted, “We had no actionable warnings of any specific threat, just good reason to believe something really bad was about to happen.”

The president fired Rice immediately after her admission, but this did little to quell public anger regarding the war in Afghanistan. When it was revealed that U.S. special forces were also carrying out attacks against suspected terrorist bases in Indonesia and Pakistan, fury against the United States became universal, with even Israel condemning American action as “totally unjustified.”

Speaking briefly to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House before a helicopter carried him out of Washington as the first-ever president removed by impeachment, Bush seemed bitter. “I was given bad advice,” he insisted. “My advisers told me that unless we took decisive action, thousands of innocent Americans might die. Obviously I should not have listened.”

Announcing his candidacy for the 2004 Republican presidential nomination, Senator John McCain said today that “George W. Bush was very foolish and naïve; he didn’t realize he was being pushed into this needless conflict by oil interests that wanted to seize Afghanistan to run a pipeline across it.” McCain spoke at a campaign rally at the World Trade Center in New York City.

Del Dolemonte on June 2, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Well, there were no foreign terrorist attacks on American soil after the Clinton-era WTC attacks. But you’re criticizing Clinton anyway. How is this possible?

orange on June 2, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Thanks for the laugh.

Clinton gets the blame, because bin Laden admitted after 9/11 that those attacks were meant to happen on his watch. But they couldn’t finish the training on time.

Del Dolemonte on June 2, 2009 at 1:01 PM

Are military recruiters armed? Seems like they should be. Not that that will stop everything.

AnotherOpinion on June 2, 2009 at 1:11 PM

battleoflepanto1571 on June 2, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Excellent rant.

baldilocks on June 2, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Del Dolemonte on June 2, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Excellent what-if fiction. Either way–fiction or reality–those who protect America are demonized. For those who hate America, that is the only way it can be–America is always wrong and always worthy of destruction.

baldilocks on June 2, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Are military recruiters armed? Seems like they should be. Not that that will stop everything.

AnotherOpinion on June 2, 2009 at 1:11 PM

In the US, only military police can be armed among civilian population, unless martial law is declared. (Think post-Katrina New Orleans.)

baldilocks on June 2, 2009 at 1:32 PM

baldilocks on June 2, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Another version that circulated at about the same time…

PRESIDENT-ELECT John F. Kerry’s rise to the nation’s highest office came as little surprise following almost four years of remonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre attack on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.

Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation outraged by the Bush administration’s pre-emptive war, which, it now seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that Saudi Arabian- born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an attack on the United States.

Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush’s Sept. 10 bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and, in all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, appearing last night on “Larry King Live,’ said the United Nations’ International Criminal Tribunal likely would bring charges of genocide against Bush.

Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of 19 foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose “crime’ was attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and seizure.

Kerry’s campaign mantra “You go to war because you have to, not because you want to’ clearly resonated with Americans as they tried to make sense of Bush’s Sept. 10 attack on Afghanistan. Neither the president, nor national security adviser Condoleezza Rice convincingly defended their actions during the recent “9/10 Commission’ hearings, which Congress ordered in response to public outcry.

The commission’s purpose was to try to determine what compelled the president to launch a war against Afghanistan. What kind of intelligence suggested that such an act was justified?

The main target of the attack was bin Laden, friend to Afghanistan’s brutal Taliban regime, as well as al-Qaida training camps in that war-ravaged nation. Al-Qaida, an international terrorist network, has been blamed for numerous attacks on U.S. interests, including the USS Cole bombing, which killed 17 sailors.
Even though Bush’s military campaign was successful in ending the oppressive Taliban regime, bin Laden apparently escaped and al-Qaida continues to flourish.
Some intelligence sources speculate that bin Laden’s operatives may be trying to secure weapons of mass destruction from Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.

Even though Saddam continues to send money to the families of Palestinian terrorists and is believed to have programs for developing WMD, Kerry says he is committed to containing Saddam through continued sanctions and the U.N. oil-for-food program.

In any case, experts say that intelligence about Saddam’s WMD program is just as speculative as was the intelligence that prompted Bush to attack Afghanistan. The man credited with sounding the alarm on bin Laden and al-Qaida was Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism expert who has served four presidents, including Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton.

In a Jan. 25 memo to Rice, for instance, Clarke urged immediate attention to several items of national security interest: the Northern Alliance, covert aid, a significant new ’02 budget authority to help fight al-Qaida and a response to the USS Cole.

At Rice’s and Clarke’s urging, Bush called a meeting of principals and, after “connecting the dots,’ decided to wage war against Afghanistan.

What did the dots say? Not much, in retrospect. Apparently, the president decided to bomb a benign country on the basis of “chatter’
that hinted at “something big.’

With no other details on the “big,’ and weaving together random bits of information from a variety of questionable sources, Bush and company decided that 19 fundamentalist Muslim fanatics would fly airplanes into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon on 9/11.

Under questioning by the “9/10 Commission,’ Clarke denied that his memo was anything more than a historical overview with a “set of ideas and a paper, mostly.’ The bipartisan commission concluded, therefore, that Bush’s “dot-connecting’ had destroyed American credibility and subjected the United States to increasing hostility in the Arab-Muslim world.

Last week, Saddam Hussein and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat joined French and German leaders in condemning Bush and urging American voters to cast their ballots for regime change in America. Kerry was the clear response to that call.

In a flourish of irony and the spirit of bon vivant for which the new president is widely known, Kerry gave his acceptance speech from Windows on the World, the elegant restaurant atop the World Trade Center’s Tower One.

Del Dolemonte on June 2, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Just as a footnote, we’ve had more than just 1 “terrorist” attack on US soil, but it’s been mainly lone wolfs suffering from “Sudden Jihad Syndrome.”

Dare we forget:

1. Salt Lake City mall (shooting)

2. Seattle synagogue (hit & run)

3. Dallas residence (standoff w/cops, but were spotted conducting surveillance at local airport)

4. San Francisco synagogue (hit & run)

5. Denver Safeway store (shooting)

6. Philadelphia subway attack (hammer)

7. Chapel Hill campus (hit & run)

8. Houston residence (stabbing of Jewish roommate)

I know I’ve missed quite a few, but I pulled those I recall in recent years…but all of the above individuals mentioned Islam and jihad as their motivation for their actions. Are we to ignore what they admit?

Let’s also remember that intelligence officials found an online al-Qaeda training manual that pushes the “smaller cell” idea, as well as pushing for smaller attacks (rather than the grand-scale previously conducted). This tends, from a terrorism standpoint, to wear down the populace much more effectively than larger-scale efforts, which tend to galvanize victims to fight back.

Are these just “mental” patients waiting to happen? Or is this online manual training those who’ve become “inspired” by the RoP?

Miss_Anthrope on June 2, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Please add to your list the sniper shootings that occured in Washington DC some years ago when a man and his son were shooting people in gas stations… he was Muslim as well….

CynicalOptimist on June 2, 2009 at 2:04 PM

The fucking dick heads in Washington still don’t realize that this is more than a ‘local police’ problem. Why wasn’t this bastard picked up when he came back thru US Customs, or is that still a big gaping hole that anyone can walk thru?

The parents of those soldiers have every right to smack Barry Obama and Janet Napolitano right in the face!

GarandFan on June 2, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Thanks for the adds, but I left off the DC Sniper and LAX because they’d already been mentioned by others…should’ve just made the list as complete as possible instead.

Orange,

You deliberately misunderstand 2 very important things in my & others’ comments:

1. As an agency dedicated to investigating domestically and primarily, but not only, US Persons, they are beholden to the Constitution when orgs that work overseas are not.

2. US Embassies are considered US SOIL.

Miss_Anthrope on June 2, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Ditto for the Tiller murder.

Shameful law enforcement, really.

AnninCA on June 2, 2009 at 3:18 PM