Chertoff: Al Qaeda Conventional Weapons Real Threat, Not Nukes
LONDON (AP) - Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff downplayed suggestions Friday that al-Qaida inspired terrorists could launch a nuclear attack against the West, saying the U.S. was more concerned about their use of conventional arms.
Chertoff told students and journalists at London’s Oxford Union that while some Islamic militants appear interested in acquiring weapons of mass destruction, they don’t yet pose a serious threat.
“In the immediate or near term, the focus is on conventional weapons, which can still be quite damaging. Something on the scale of 9/11 or the attacks on your transportation system. We have to look at the whole spectrum,” he said at the famed debating society.
Chertoff’s remarks followed a recent series of anonymous postings on al-Qaida-affliated Web sites, including a 39-minute video, that exhorts militants to pursue weapons of mass destruction for use against the U.S.
Although none of the postings is known to be authentic, taken together they raise questions about whether jihadists have such capabilities and whether they can launch some kind of attack.
But Chertoff downplayed the idea of any such attack, though he said that officials remained concerned that al-Qaida is interested in developing such capability.
“The short answer is the intent is there. Its probability, particularly in the short term, is lower than conventional weapons,” he said.
The Washington-based SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors militant Web traffic, said the video presents the U.S. as vulnerable and suggests that militants could use such weapons as a deterrent to any nuclear attack against an Islamic country.
The video is just part of a propaganda campaign to frighten the West, SITE director Rita Katz said.
“It’s just an indication of the strong desire that jihadists have for the use of such a weapon, but I don’t see a reason to worry about a WMD attack in the U.S. based on this chatter,” she said.
Ben Venzke, CEO of the IntelCenter intelligence group, said the video is probably not made by al-Qaida but has been put together by someone who sympathizes with their aims.
“They take clips from everywhere—the BBC, old Bin Laden clips and edit them together. The mention of weapons of mass destruction is just wishful thinking,” he said.
On another matter, Chertoff said a proper court and legal system had now been established at the U.S.-run prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but it took too long.
“It would have been better had they been in place in 2000 and in 2003. It would have been much more desirable to do it earlier,” he said.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
I have my doubts about Chertoff, if only because of W’s administration’s moves that ended up with Porter Goss not only being denied the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) job, but losing him as Director CIA.
Goss is one of our best Intel guys, antidotal proof being the Liberals at CIA, publically pitching a fit (in the press) when Goss marginalized them during the first month he was in charge.
May 30th, 2008 at 9:18 pm_____________________________________________-
Pat, if you ever produce a movie where Chertoff’s a character, for Chertoff’s role think about casting an actor who’s known to be gay and not aging well. I base this opinion on nothing more than the above picture.
So, the probability of nukes is “less” than conventional? Gorsh, that’s comforting! Uh, much less? Quantities matter here, a lot! 49/51? 40/60? 10/90? 1/99? 1/999? What constitutes a negligible risk?
The rest of his statement is sabotaged by this bit of quantitative fluff.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:10 amHmm, it would only take one nuke to really screw things up. With the borders being as porous as they are, I’d say that is where the real threat is, regardless of what weapon type is used.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:52 amChertoff gay?
May 31st, 2008 at 2:34 amHe does have that “look” now that I think about it…Kind of like the “Doctor” in the last Star Trek series.
May 31st, 2008 at 2:35 am