Cleveland terror plot: FBI makes arrest, says July 4 attack was planned

Well, it appears that a man, Demetrius Pitts, had (or still has) a desire to "chop off hand and heads," according to an undercover FBI agent (posing as an al-Qaida member) with whom Pitts spoke on June 22, also discussing plans to launch an attack in Cleveland, Ohio on the Fourth of July.

In a meeting between the pair recorded on June 22, Pitts talked about launching an attack for al-Qaida in Cleveland on the Fourth of July, during the parade or fireworks at Voinovich Park, near a U.S. Coast Guard Station and the Celebreeze Federal Building.

“What would hit them in the core?” Pitts asked the undercover agent, according to court records. “Have a bomb to blow up at the 4th of July parade.”

SOURC E

Apparently, Pitts was actively scouting locations where he could park a van filled with explosives.

That is a local source, and it's done in a sequential-updates format. If you prefer to read something a bit more fluently written, you can always try the story by Dayt on Daily News.

Look, I'm exceptionally glad that this event appears that it will now not take place, and this probably saved many lives, but I don't necessarily see this as a cut-and-dry case of good policing.

Pitts is an American citizen and was radicalized here on U.S. soil--we all know that's happening and is an ongoing problem, and it's nothing new. BUT, near the top of the story in the most recent update from this morning, it notes:

Update 11:35 a.m. EDT July 2: Court records show Pitts first landed on the FBI’s radar in December 2015, when he sent a private Facebook message to a California based political commentary show.

Here's where I deviate a bit from simply appreciating the fact that this nutcase was stopped.

Look, I want to thwart these attempted or planned terrorist attacks as much as the next guy, but why is our federal government able to scan the private Facebook messages of U.S. citizens without a warrant? Okay, the without-a-warrant part of it is an assumption, because it doesn't note that in any of the stories that I'm reading, but we all know that this goes on, and I really, really wish that the process would stop, as I see it as being about as unconstitutional as can be. I mean, if you read up on the history of this guy, he apparently openly made public comments that would suffice in warranting an investigation, so why the need for the NSA to scan private messages before there's a reason to?

Here's a CNN story and a FoxNews story, if you'd like to compare and contrast 24-hour news reporting from opposing viewpoints.

Ship him to Cuba for a long vacation

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Man it sure is nice when the intelligence agencies are allowed to do there job!!

Great job to the FBI, this guys is a scumbag of the highest order!





S&F

a reply to: avgguy

he's facing a 20-year sentence--where he serves it, I don't care

a reply to: elementalgrove

I think that the FBI did a great job, here--I just have fourth-amendment concerns in how they first noticed the guy.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Pitts is an American citizen and was radicalized here on U.S. soil--we all know that's happening and is an ongoing problem, and it's nothing new. BUT, near the top of the story in the most recent update from this morning, it notes:

Update 11:35 a.m. EDT July 2: Court records show Pitts first landed on the FBI’s radar in December 2015, when he sent a private Facebook message to a California based political commentary show.

Here's where I deviate a bit from simply appreciating the fact that this nutcase was stopped.

Look, I want to thwart these attempted or planned terrorist attacks as much as the next guy, but why is our federal government able to scan the private Facebook messages of U.S. citizens without a warrant? Okay, the without-a-warrant part of it is an assumption, because it doesn't note that in any of the stories that I'm reading, but we all know that this goes on, and I really, really wish that the process would stop, as I see it as being about as unconstitutional as can be. I mean, if you read up on the history of this guy, he apparently openly made public comments that would suffice in warranting an investigation, so why the need for the NSA to scan private messages before there's a reason to?

The source provided doesn't say whether the FBI intercepted the private FB message or if it was turned over to the FBI by the recipient.

Did you find a different conclusion?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Isn't it entirely possible that the recipient of the message reported him? And remember---Facebook is a private company who has no reason to protect your 4th amendment rights. They're all about profit...not rights.

If you read between the lines according to the FBI "informant", it's just another day of "FBI foils FBI terror plot!"

The guy had no means to carry out the attack, nor was he going to be part of any attack until the FBI got involved and facilitated the action.

I guess creating issues and stopping them as a sort of validation to your department is better than no validation at all, right?

a reply to: diggindirt

There are a lot of possibilities on how the government gained access to the information, and like I noted, there are not any specifics in the story, so I'm going to remain concerned a little (although I'm not obsessing over it).

But to be fair, warrants ARE necessary to access private-user Facebook accounts, unless something has changed that I haven't noticed in the past year or so.

You are correct, though--they could have gotten access to that message legally, and I left that option open.

a reply to: dothedew

I disagree--what has been reported shows that he was radicalized far earlier than the FBI undercover guy getting involved.

If you are trying to make a case for entrapment or something, you're not going to get very far. This issue was not created--the desire already existed in the individual. The FBI, however, got involved before he could find someone who was not law enforcement to provide the means.

I call that a win-win, but opinions differ, I suppose.

a reply to: six67seven

No, that's why I said that my concern was based on an assumption. I felt it a pertinent point to bring up, though, considering the lack on info on that detail.