MD- Man allegedly hoping to bomb abortion clinic foiled

The Baltimore Sun has just posted an article about a man who was preparing to bomb the Greenbelt, Maryland clinic (this is near College Park/University of Maryland).

Article

Also note the bomb construction- "filled with nails", this points towards the possibility of eventual use against people, not merely an unoccupied building. (A tactic not altogether dissimilar to the bombing in Birmingham Eric Rudolph was sentenced for, which killed police officer Robert Sanderson and horrendously wounded Emily Lyons.)

At this point I don't have a lot to say other than this facility has long been a target.

Anyone who thinks the so called "violent phase" is "so 80's", is dreaming. Note that the man charged was 25 years old.

•  This is personal

  This is a clinic I have defended.

  by stormcoming on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:00:47 PM PDT

  •  Thank you

    for your clinic defense work.  Clinic defense is truly the "front line" in the battle to protect choice.  Thank you for your courage.

    by Maura in VA on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:37:26 PM PDT

    •  Thanks

      But the real credit here in the MD/DC/VA region goes to the Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force-  and other assorted individuals who have helped through the years. They're the folks who have been out at Nat. capital area clinics year in and year out for many years now.

      by stormcoming on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 04:05:32 PM PDT

•  It's time we stopped these Christofascists...

  and open a new front on the War on Terror.

  by nitpicker on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:02:03 PM PDT

  •  Long as we're nitpickin'

    there's no reference to his religious affiliation in the article.

    by perro amarillo on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:11:06 PM PDT

    •  I pass that clinic often

      A couple of weeks ago I saw a young man holding a rosary praying in front of the clinic. Rosaries are, of course, associated with Catholicism, which has been consistantly vocal in its opposition to abortion. But abortion terrorists have historically come from Protestant faiths. It's entirely possible that the man I saw was Weiler but the clinic is often the target of protest.

      by beetsnotbeats on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 05:15:04 PM PDT

      •  Yes Catholics, too

        There are a number of ongoing efforts at MD clinics, from individuals, to regular groups. In Maryland, a significant segment of our organized anti-abortion activity is catholic.

        Not all violent anti-abortion activists have been protestant by any means I'd point out James Kopp (a catholic) as example "A". He assasinated Dr. Barnett Slepian in Buffalo, NY in 1998.

        The first American hospital "invasion" (in relation to abortion provision) by anti-abortion activists was committed by a group of catholics, one of whom was Brent Bozell Jr. (NOT the III).

        Also, I wouldn't say 'catholicism' (as a whole) has been "consistantly vocal in it's opposition", as there are plenty of catholics who don't give a flying flip what Rome has to say, the church heirarchy has certainly been vehiment- in recent history, but there was a time when abortion prior to "quickening" was deemed ok. And then there's that pesky matter of "baptismal syringes", via which so long as the fetus was baptised first the abortion could go ahead.

        Never assume that just because you saw someone out in front of a clinic that that must be the person in question when it comes to things like this. Lots of people stand outside clinics with rosaries all across this nation, on any given day.

        To say nothing of the fact that as of yet, we haven't associated Mr. Weiler with ANY religious position what so ever- protestant, catholic, or zoroastrian.

        by stormcoming on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 05:50:54 PM PDT

      •  Protestants have no monopoly on murder

        Both James Kopp -- the "Atomic Dog" who killed Dr. Bart Slepian from ambush in 1998 -- and John Salvi -- who shot down clinic receptionists Lee Ann Nichols and Shannon Lowney in 1994 -- were Catholics.

        And on the first day that I arrived at work after the December 30, 1994 shootings, a gun-collecting Catholic protester, who came to our clinic every day in a car registered to the Diocese of Dallas, called out to me, "1994 was a year full of blood. What will 1995 be like for you?"  The FBI later arrested him in the Newark airport while he was in the act of making a bomb threat to a clinic on a public phone.

        by moiv on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 05:51:12 PM PDT

        •  Exactly

          Would that I could give you more than one recommend!

          As always, your examples from personal experience bring it very 'home'. Thanks.

          by stormcoming on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 06:01:34 PM PDT

  •  While the label is accurate, plain 'Terrorist'

    would get more airtime to bring attention to the method behind the planned attacks. If the bomber were an Islamic fundamentalist, this would be getting a hell of a lot more airtime.

    This is the lead story on WTOP, DC's news radio.

    by carneasadaburrito on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:13:19 PM PDT

    •  eco-terrorism vs. anti-abortion 'violence'

      If he'd been planning to use that bomb on a Hummer dealership, we would see headlines screaming about "eco-TERRORISM."  

      Instead we will probably see a repeat performance of the old euphemism, "anti-abortion VIOLENCE" which of course is hardly as bad because in America, violence is ENTERTAINMENT.

      So Job #1 here is:  Keep pushing the media and the government on this:

      Ask them and do not let up:  Would you characterise this man as a terrorists?  No?  Why the hell not?  How does this not fit the classic definition of terrorism?  Why are you afraid of calling it terrorism?

      Keep pushing this relentlessly until they all start calling a terrorist a terrorist and acknowledging that America has its own Zarqawis running around in our midst, blowing up womens' clinics is terrorism, religiously-motivated terrorism, right-winger terrorism, terrorism that derives its legitimacy from the anti-abortion and anti-women and anti-sex rhetoric that comes down from the highest places in our own government.  

      Do not let up for one minute.  

      by G2geek on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 04:34:31 PM PDT

      •  What the WaPo has to say

        I actually asked Deborah Howell what she had to say about this, and got a response:

        The Post doesn't use the term very much. It prefers more specific terms. I am reminded of arguments in my own Irish household. My husband said the IRA is a terrorist organization. His sons thought they were freedom fighters. And so it is with many such cases.
        Deborah

        What's funny about the whole thing is that the Washington Post gladly shouts "Eco-Terrorism" from its headlines and hasn't had any trouble describing various Muslims as terrorists.

        by silence on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 05:09:39 PM PDT

  •  Life in Prison

    for crimes against people.

    by kaye on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:22:18 PM PDT

•  According to the article, he didn't 'fail'

  but turned himself in. Sounds like a disturbed loser to me.

  by perro amarillo on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:13:09 PM PDT

  •  after learning he was being sought

    ...on weapons charges.

    by carneasadaburrito on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:14:59 PM PDT

  •  closer to

    was foiled by this friends.

    by stormcoming on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:21:26 PM PDT

•  Recommended

  Important, newsworthy and unrelated to meta discussions of blogger anonymity or faked zarqawi deaths.  Bravo!

  by Slim Tyranny on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:14:32 PM PDT

  •  yeah well

    the real world goes on.

    by stormcoming on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:22:26 PM PDT

    •  Who knew?

      by Slim Tyranny on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:26:47 PM PDT

•  Whyizzit??

  that the current administration and their MSM lackeys consistently refer to the "eco-terrorists", even though the ELF and its ilk have NEVER hurt a human being, while anti-abortion terorrists can kill or maim whoever they want and still be portrayed as life-defending heroes?

  by vulcangrrl on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:15:08 PM PDT

•  Going from this one article-

  the only thing I can cite right now.

  Here are a few important things to keep in mind-

  His friends contacted the ATF and Prince George's County (MD)police. Had they not, this story might have a horribly different ending.

  Robert F. Weiler Jr. called agents and surrendered himself. He was arrested in Garrett County- the far western part of the state. He surrendered, (and thus didn't end up part of a massive manhunt). He confessed to making the bomb and had a gun he ws planning to use the potential attack.

  And the local police and feds apparently did their job, they arrested him and tried to defuse the device.

  Unfortunately, it went off and set the house on fire.

  Fortunately, the bomb technician who was working on it wasn't injured.

  by stormcoming on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:19:54 PM PDT

  •  thankfully... and, re. sentence length

    Thankfully the cops weren't hurt when that thing went off.  

    And the fact that it did go off proved that it was a viable bomb, which should help increase the perp's sentence.  

    Anything less than 10 years is a slap on the wrist and a permission slip to other terrorists of the same type.  

    20 would be acceptable.   Same as that Marin County kid who was found with the Al Qaedas in Afghanistan, who IMHO was hardly as serious as the present case.  

    Life w/o parole would be a strong message.  

    This should be a slam-dunk case to get a conviction, now let's keep an eye on it to see what the sentence actually turns out to be.

    by G2geek on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 05:34:47 PM PDT

•  Hate and the Right Wing

  The mainstream right wingers need to start denouncing this hate.  The bombing and the slander has to stop.  It is extremely dangerous to our society.  Until they denounce abortion clinic bombers and Ann Coulter, they are tied to them.  Their philosophy is tied to the hate.  

  by kaye on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:24:47 PM PDT

•  WTOP

  You can listen live from here

  And this is their webarticle.

  by stormcoming on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:26:47 PM PDT

•  He's a terrorist, plain and simple

  Zealots and fundamentalists are dangerous whether they're in Iraq or Afghanistan or Maryland.

  I'm not surprised at this, given the way the crazy fringe has been whipped up into a frenzy on this issue.

  by saucy monkey on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:27:28 PM PDT

  •  He's only a 'terrorist' if the 'Liberal Media'

    ...label him as one. Seeing as the Liberal Media isn't, this isn't likely to happen until we get one of our pundits on the airwaves to apply the label to him.

    I just sent this off to KO and the team at Countdown:

    Good Evening,

    Some of us were thinking that a man planning on using a bomb filled with nails on an abortion clinic should be labelled as a terrorist because he planned to kill and maim using the nails. The MSM seems to have failed to apply that label to him. Any chance Keith might call out the hypocrisy on this?

    thanks and keep up the good work.

    by carneasadaburrito on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:45:46 PM PDT

    •  Well, from the Baltimore Sun article

      He told authorities that he would use a .40-caliber handgun he stole from a friend to "shoot doctors who provided abortions" the affidavit states.

      As for the role of the nails, that's MY personal speculation- as I said in the above-

      Also note the bomb construction- "filled with nails", this points towards the POSSIBILITY of eventual use against people, not merely an unoccupied building.

      by stormcoming on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:54:25 PM PDT

      •  granted

        but we have all seen enough people describing why a bomber would use nails, especially after incidents in Israel and Mali. I take responsibility for my leap in logic as well.

        by carneasadaburrito on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:58:53 PM PDT

        •  And after a certain incident

          in Birmingham, whose perpetrator is celebrated as a hero by the Army of God.

          by moiv on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 05:06:32 PM PDT

      •  that's an antipersonnel weapon

        
        Classic antipersonnel weapon, i.e. intended to kill and maim humans.  There's no other interpretation possible.  

        Ask a hundred cops or a hundred soldiers and they'll all agree, every last one.  
        

        by G2geek on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 07:28:58 PM PDT

    •  WTOP uses the term 'IED'...

      ..."Improvised Explosive Device" - which is inflammatory in its own right (unless you're Fred Phelps), since items like that are used to kill U.S. troops.

      But that man is a terrorist, and I hope everyone talking about this story refers to him as one.

      by varro on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 04:54:06 PM PDT

      •  Sorry

        The Washington Post studiously avoids the term, despite their ready willingness to call Muslims and those thought to be acting out of environmental concern terrorists.

        It might be worth your while to let the ombudsman know what you feel about their policy.

        by silence on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 05:13:02 PM PDT

        •  email sent

          As follows:

          Re. story by Klein & Rich, 9 June 2006 MD Abortion Clinic Was Targeted, ATF Says  

          When some sicko kid vandalizes Hummers at a car dealership, that's "eco-TERRORISM," and when some sicko kid is talking about bombs and jihad that's "Islamic TERRORISM," but when another sicko kid makes an anti-personnel bomb and has plans to use it to blow up an abortion clinic and shoot doctors, that's only "anti-abortion VIOLENCE."  

          I've been seeing this kind of thing for a while now; I smell a double-standard here and it stinks to high heaven.  

          What's your definition of "terrorism" and "terrorist"?   Why don't you apply those words to the present case?   I really want an answer to this, and what I want more than that is for you to stop the double-standard and deal with the issue.  

          If it makes bombs like a terrorist, and it blows up stuff like a terrorist, and it kills people like a terrorist, it's not a duck, it's a terrorist.  What's so difficult about using words consistently?  Or are you still in denial that we have a real home-grown terrorist threat on our hands?  

          Sincerely-
          (signed)

          by G2geek on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 08:04:06 PM PDT

    •  email address to write to?

      
      Could you provide an email address for KO so we can write to him w/o having to dig through websites first?  

      Since KO is a friendly, a few more emails from people here might be helpful to get him on the case.  

      by G2geek on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 07:17:17 PM PDT

•  Religious extremism

  is the enemy of us all.  And yes, I know his religious affiliation is unknown.  But does anyone doubt that his obsession with abortion is grounded in religous zealotry?

  by Bob Love on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:32:07 PM PDT

•  Needless To Say

  I'm sure we'll start hearing the "he's a good Christian" narratives shortly.

  by IndyScott on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:33:03 PM PDT

•  TREAT HIM LIKE A TERRORIST

  Because that's what he is.  I want him thrown in jail for life without parole. That is what happens to middle eastern terrorists arrested just for thinking about doing harm.

  by karenc13 on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:35:35 PM PDT

•  Washington Post article

  This from the Washington Post details the bomb technicians from the Prince George's County fire department set off the device remotely.

  No surprise there.

  by stormcoming on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:41:45 PM PDT

  •  What a crock of an article!

    "Bomb Destroys House" seems to be the gist of it, even though they mention briefly what he was planning to do with the bomb...

    Arg.

    by chemicalresult on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:55:09 PM PDT

    •  Complain

      Its probably worth your while to contact the Washington Post Ombudsman, and let her know how you feel.

      by silence on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 04:00:35 PM PDT

    •  That's why I don't read

      

      any more

      by carneasadaburrito on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 04:02:14 PM PDT

•  unproductive assumptions

  It's not productive at this point to go flinging around words like "Right wing" or "Christofascists" UNLESS you've got a citation to back that up.

  Speaking merely as someone who has spent well, at this point decades watching these stories unfold, patience in these matters is a virtue. Jumping to unsubstantiated labels just makes you LOOK quick to project your own assumptions (yes, I understand the history here). In short, what I'm saying is if you don't know, don't assume.

  Now, I've never run across a lefty clinic bomber wanna be in all my years, all I'm saying is 1. it's productive at this point, to wait until you know what you're talking about before flinging around labels, and 2. get on the media and demand they cover the story.

  I will point out one major shift I see here- WTOP (which is owned by Bonneville, which in turn is owned by a subsidiary of the Mormon church- although that's not particularly relevant to their reporting per se)has done one very important small thing. They've reported the 'bomb' in the most accurate terminology I've seen used to date-

  Improvised Explosive Device or IED

  Can you say, making the connections for the DC listeners?

  by stormcoming on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 04:18:48 PM PDT

  •  Sure

    But the WaPo manages to leave out the most important word: terrorism, a word which seems to spring to writers' pens the moment somebody burns down a new housing development based on a personal grudge.

    by silence on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 04:22:22 PM PDT

•  Christian Terrorism.

  Evidently the Rethugs and fundie Christians who trumpeted the moral failings of the United States and wasted two days of Senate time with their Bigotry Amendment didn't notice the plank in their own eye.

  For all the hemming and hawing over so-called "ecoterrorists," they haven't killed anyone.  Christian terrorists like Eric Rudolph, Paul Hill, and Michael Griffin have killed people, and like-minded extremists can only be called one thing - terrorists.

  by varro on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 04:49:47 PM PDT