Ohio Man Arrested for Alleged ISIS-Inspired Attack Plot on US Capitol

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ohio-man-arrested-alleged-isis-inspired-attack-us/story?id=28227724

Ohio Man Arrested for Alleged ISIS-Inspired Attack Plot on US Capitol
Jan 14, 2015, 4:24 PM ET
By PIERRE THOMAS, JACK DATE, MIKE LEVINE and JACK CLOHERTY
The FBI has arrested an Ohio man for allegedly plotting an ISIS-inspired attack on the U.S. Capitol, where he hoped to set off a series of bombs aimed at lawmakers, whom he allegedly considered enemies.

Christopher Lee Cornell, of Cincinnati, was arrested today on charges of attempting to kill a U.S. government official, authorities said.

According to government documents, he allegedly planned to detonate pipe bombs at the national landmark and open fire on any employees and officials fleeing after the explosions.

The FBI first noticed Cornell several months ago after an informant notified the agency that Cornell was allegedly voicing support for violent “jihad” on Twitter accounts under the alias “Raheel Mahrus Ubaydah,” according to charging documents. In addition, Cornell allegedly posted statements, videos and other content expressing support for ISIS -- the brutal terrorist group also known as ISIL -- that is wreaking havoc in Iraq and Syria.

“I believe that we should just wage jihad under our own orders and plan attacks and everything,” Cornell allegedly wrote in an online message to the informant in August, according to the FBI. “I believe we should meet up and make our own group in alliance with the Islamic State here and plan operations ourselves."

In the message, Cornell said that such attacks “already got a thumbs up” from radical cleric Anwar Awlaki “before his martyrdom.”

Awlaki was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011, but his online messages calling for attacks on the West live on.

U.S. officials considered Awlaki an operational leader within al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the Yemen-based terror group tied to the deadly assault on a satirical magazine in Paris last week.

Cornell and the informant met in Cincinnati over two days in October, and then another two days in November. During the last meeting, Cornell told an FBI informant that members of Congress were enemies and that he wanted to launch an attack on the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., according to charging documents.

Cornell then allegedly saved money to finance the attack and researched how to build bombs, the FBI said.

Earlier today, while also taking “final steps” to travel to Washington for the attack, Cornell allegedly bought two semi-automatic rifles and 600 rounds of ammunition from a store in Ohio, authorities said.

Within hours of Cornell’s arrest, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security issued a bulletin to law enforcement agencies across the country notifying them of the case.

"The alleged activities of Cornell highlight the continued interest of US-based violent extremists to support designated foreign terrorist organizations overseas, such as ISIL, by committing terrorist acts in the United States,” the bulletin read. “Terrorist group members and supporters will almost certainly continue to use social media platforms to disseminate English language violent extremist messages."

**Sigvatr**

One-Way ticket to Guantanamo Bay, please!

**whembly**

Sigvatr wrote:
One-Way ticket to Guantanamo Bay, please!

Nope. He's a US civves.

Will be tried here, like The Boston Bomber.

**sirlynchmob**

Tried for what? Exercising his second amendment?

I keep hearing that's why you have the 2nd, to overthrow the government should the need ever arise, this man takes the first step and gets thrown to the wolves.

I guess we all know the truth now, if you have guns to protect yourself from the government, then you're a terrorist.

**NuggzTheNinja**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Tried for what? Exercising his second amendment?

I keep hearing that's why you have the 2nd, to overthrow the government should the need ever arise, this man takes the first step and gets thrown to the wolves.

I guess we all know the truth now, if you have guns to protect yourself from the government, then you're a terrorist.

Don't we have rules against trolling?

**sirlynchmob**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Tried for what? Exercising his second amendment?

I keep hearing that's why you have the 2nd, to overthrow the government should the need ever arise, this man takes the first step and gets thrown to the wolves.

I guess we all know the truth now, if you have guns to protect yourself from the government, then you're a terrorist.

Don't we have rules against trolling?

Yes, and you're breaking them. Please stop.

**daedalus**

Guys, c'mon, we're not to page two yet.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
On topic, I've always felt pretty disenfranchised, particularly in my youth, but I still can't come up with anything to say other than "WTF is running through your mind when you decide to do something like that?" I mean, I'm pretty fething awesome. Even in my angriest days, I have never had any interest in martyring myself because there is not anything worth martyring myself to.

**Orlanth**

Is this latest scumbag home grown or naturalised?

**cincydooley**

He got picked up at the gun range where he bought the guns.

Literally within walking distance of my house.

Glock league was cancelled. Bastard.

**Peregrine**

So, my question here is whether this guy is a legitimate threat, or if he's another case of the government finding some angry guy and holding his hand through every step of the process until they've created a "terrorist" that can be paraded around in front of the media and used as justification for anti-terrorism laws/funding/etc. He bought some guns, but the OP also makes a vague mention of "researching bombs", which could be anything from setting up the manufacturing process to googling "how to build a bomb" because the government informant suggested it.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Tried for what? Exercising his second amendment?

I keep hearing that's why you have the 2nd, to overthrow the government should the need ever arise, this man takes the first step and gets thrown to the wolves.

I guess we all know the truth now, if you have guns to protect yourself from the government, then you're a terrorist.

Don't we have rules against trolling?

How is it trolling? Gun rights advocates say over and over again how we need to be able to own guns so that we can have a violent revolution against a government we disagree with. And here we have someone attempting to use their guns to do exactly that. So I guess the conclusion here is that the 2nd amendment gives you the right to own guns for use in a violent revolution, as long as the violent revolution has an ideology that most gun owners approve of.

**cincydooley**

Peregrine wrote:

How is it trolling? Gun rights advocates say over and over again how we need to be able to own guns so that we can have a violent revolution against a government we disagree with. And here we have someone attempting to use their guns to do exactly that. So I guess the conclusion here is that the 2nd amendment gives you the right to own guns for use in a violent revolution, as long as the violent revolution has an ideology that most gun owners approve of.

'

Buying the guns had nothing to do with his arrest.

**Jihadin**

Defense is going for entrapment

**NuggzTheNinja**

Peregrine wrote:
So, my question here is whether this guy is a legitimate threat, or if he's another case of the government finding some angry guy and holding his hand through every step of the process until they've created a "terrorist" that can be paraded around in front of the media and used as justification for anti-terrorism laws/funding/etc. He bought some guns, but the OP also makes a vague mention of "researching bombs", which could be anything from setting up the manufacturing process to googling "how to build a bomb" because the government informant suggested it.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Tried for what? Exercising his second amendment?

I keep hearing that's why you have the 2nd, to overthrow the government should the need ever arise, this man takes the first step and gets thrown to the wolves.

I guess we all know the truth now, if you have guns to protect yourself from the government, then you're a terrorist.

Don't we have rules against trolling?

How is it trolling? Gun rights advocates say over and over again how we need to be able to own guns so that we can have a violent revolution against a government we disagree with. And here we have someone attempting to use their guns to do exactly that. So I guess the conclusion here is that the 2nd amendment gives you the right to own guns for use in a violent revolution, as long as the violent revolution has an ideology that most gun owners approve of.

What does waging a religious Jihad have to do with securing a free state? I'll give you a hint. The answer is: "nothing."

**Peregrine**

cincydooley wrote:
Buying the guns had nothing to do with his arrest.

Yeah, I'm sure the fact that they arrested him as soon as he bought the guns was purely a coincidence, and not a case of "OUR SUSPECT JUST GOT THE WEAPONS TO KILL A LOT OF PEOPLE, ARREST HIM NOW!".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
What does waging a religious Jihad have to do with securing a free state? I'll give you a hint. The answer is: "nothing."

So I guess your answer is "yes, it's all about whether I agree with the ideology of the violent revolution"?

**NuggzTheNinja**

Peregrine wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Buying the guns had nothing to do with his arrest.

Yeah, I'm sure the fact that they arrested him as soon as he bought the guns was purely a coincidence, and not a case of "OUR SUSPECT JUST GOT THE WEAPONS TO KILL A LOT OF PEOPLE, ARREST HIM NOW!".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
What does waging a religious Jihad have to do with securing a free state? I'll give you a hint. The answer is: "nothing."

So I guess your answer is "yes, it's all about whether I agree with the ideology of the violent revolution"?

No, my answer is that you clearly have not read the second amendment or any of the essays written about it.

the 2nd wrote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Where in there does it say "violent revolution?"

Or we can refer to Blackstone...

Wiki on Blackstone wrote: Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

Where in his manifesto do you see "oppression" or "self-defense" or "defense of the state?" Nowhere. You are grasping at straws to troll 2A supporters.

**cincydooley**

When I go to THAT RANGE I routinely go through about 100-150 rifle rounds when I shoot rifle. I don't take any home with me. When I buy ammo, it's usually in 250 round bulk boxes.

**Peregrine**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Where in there does it say "violent revolution?"

It doesn't explicitly, just like it doesn't define "the militia" as "everyone who wants to own a gun" instead of "organized government-run military groups". It's just something that is frequently cited as one of the reasons why we need to be allowed to own guns: so that we can have a violent revolution against a government that needs to be overthrown.

Where in his manifesto do you see "oppression" or "self-defense" or "defense of the state?" Nowhere. You are grasping at straws to troll 2A supporters.

Like I said, it's all about whether or not you agree with the ideology of the violent revolution.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Peregrine wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Where in there does it say "violent revolution?"

It doesn't explicitly, just like it doesn't define "the militia" as "everyone who wants to own a gun" instead of "organized government-run military groups". It's just something that is frequently cited as one of the reasons why we need to be allowed to own guns: so that we can have a violent revolution against a government that needs to be overthrown.

Where in his manifesto do you see "oppression" or "self-defense" or "defense of the state?" Nowhere. You are grasping at straws to troll 2A supporters.

Like I said, it's all about whether or not you agree with the ideology of the violent revolution.

Or you can refer to the actual amendment, which gives very specific guidelines for applying the second amendment and supports my position, while contradicting your position that a violent revolution for whatever reason you please is constitutionally protected. Whichever you prefer.

**whembly**

2nd amendment *is* a fail safe against a tyrannical government. Founding Fathers took great pains to ensure that the government couldn't disarm it's citizen. Which was actually rooted from the "Merry Monarch" time in Britian.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
2nd amendment *is* a fail safe against a tyrannical government. Founding Fathers took great pains to ensure that the government couldn't disarm it's citizen. Which was actually rooted from the "Merry Monarch" time in Britian.

Thank you for making my point very clearly. Even if some lawyer/judge/whatever doesn't think the legal document says it works that way the "violent revolution" idea is a popular one among gun rights activists. They might not be specific about just what would justify such a revolution, but they still believe that an important part of the 2nd amendment is ensuring that the people have the right to resist the government and, if necessary, replace it with a better one.

**Hordini**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
2nd amendment *is* a fail safe against a tyrannical government. Founding Fathers took great pains to ensure that the government couldn't disarm it's citizen. Which was actually rooted from the "Merry Monarch" time in Britian.

Thank you for making my point very clearly. Even if some lawyer/judge/whatever doesn't think the legal document says it works that way the "violent revolution" idea is a popular one among gun rights activists. They might not be specific about just what would justify such a revolution, but they still believe that an important part of the 2nd amendment is ensuring that the people have the right to resist the government and, if necessary, replace it with a better one.

Is there something wrong with that?

**Grey Templar**

Yes, but that has nothing to do with Jihad.

Jihad isn't aimed at the government, its aimed at non-islamic society in general. The US Government is a target in that, but its not the ultimate target.

**DarkLink**

Well, there's jihad and then there's Jihad. In the case of terrorists, their jihad is the struggle to murder a bunch of people they don't like.

Thank you for making my point very clearly. Even if some lawyer/judge/whatever doesn't think the legal document says it works that way the "violent revolution" idea is a popular one among gun rights activists. They might not be specific about just what would justify such a revolution, but they still believe that an important part of the 2nd amendment is ensuring that the people have the right to resist the government and, if necessary, replace it with a better one.

This will likely go over your head, but fundamentally power in the USA is invested in the people rather than the government. In Europe, the monarch was the source of power and authority, and because of this there were fewer safeguards to keep that power in check. To avoid this, the Constitution was written in a way such that the government drew its power and authority from the people rather than an arbitrary source. The people had to approve of all elected officials for them to have any authority, and this is reflected in many aspects of the way the Constitution is written. The 2nd amendment is one small part of those measures designed to curtail the power of the government to abuse its people. With the 2nd amendment, the government cannot have a true monopoly of force. Because people are the source of power and authority for the government, if the people decide that the government has overstepped its bounds then, yes, if enough people rebel and win a civil war they would be exercising their 2nd amendment rights. If some people rebel but cannot muster the support required to change anything and fail, then all they've accomplished is killing some people and it becomes a crime. In this case, the vast and overwhelming majority of people will agree that the terrorists should not win and that their cause is not just, therefore killing in the name of ISIS or whatever is a crime. If a movement were to ever come along that could gain so much momentum and popular support that the people as a whole rose up and overthrew the government, it would literally be democracy in action. It's basically exactly what you said, but without the sarcasm.

**Grey Templar**

It is sort of like the old saying that "Regicide is only illegal if you fail".

**DarkLink**

Pretty much. And since it's exactly what the founding fathers did, if you actually question why they would put it into the Constitution then you might need a reality check. They're literally saying "hey, if we turn into a bunch of tyrannical douchebags like the king of England was, shoot us".

**squidhills**

DarkLink wrote:

This will likely go over your head, but fundamentally power in the USA is invested in the people rather than the government. In Europe, the monarch was the source of power and authority, and because of this there were fewer safeguards to keep that power in check. To avoid this, the Constitution was written in a way such that the government drew its power and authority from the people rather than an arbitrary source. The people had to approve of all elected officials for them to have any authority, and this is reflected in many aspects of the way the Constitution is written. The 2nd amendment is one small part of those measures designed to curtail the power of the government to abuse its people. With the 2nd amendment, the government cannot have a true monopoly of force. Because people are the source of power and authority for the government, if the people decide that the government has overstepped its bounds then, yes, if enough people rebel and win a civil war they would be exercising their 2nd amendment rights. If some people rebel but cannot muster the support required to change anything and fail, then all they've accomplished is killing some people and it becomes a crime. In this case, the vast and overwhelming majority of people will agree that the terrorists should not win and that their cause is not just, therefore killing in the name of ISIS or whatever is a crime. If a movement were to ever come along that could gain so much momentum and popular support that the people as a whole rose up and overthrew the government, it would literally be democracy in action. It's basically exactly what you said, but without the sarcasm.

That is the same criteria every populist revolution in history has had. If you win, you aren't a criminal because you are the government. If you lose, you are a criminal because you failed to unseat the government. It's hardly germain to the US.

**Yodhrin**

squidhills wrote:
DarkLink wrote:

This will likely go over your head, but fundamentally power in the USA is invested in the people rather than the government. In Europe, the monarch was the source of power and authority, and because of this there were fewer safeguards to keep that power in check. To avoid this, the Constitution was written in a way such that the government drew its power and authority from the people rather than an arbitrary source. The people had to approve of all elected officials for them to have any authority, and this is reflected in many aspects of the way the Constitution is written. The 2nd amendment is one small part of those measures designed to curtail the power of the government to abuse its people. With the 2nd amendment, the government cannot have a true monopoly of force. Because people are the source of power and authority for the government, if the people decide that the government has overstepped its bounds then, yes, if enough people rebel and win a civil war they would be exercising their 2nd amendment rights. If some people rebel but cannot muster the support required to change anything and fail, then all they've accomplished is killing some people and it becomes a crime. In this case, the vast and overwhelming majority of people will agree that the terrorists should not win and that their cause is not just, therefore killing in the name of ISIS or whatever is a crime. If a movement were to ever come along that could gain so much momentum and popular support that the people as a whole rose up and overthrew the government, it would literally be democracy in action. It's basically exactly what you said, but without the sarcasm.

That is the same criteria every populist revolution in history has had. If you win, you aren't a criminal because you are the government. If you lose, you are a criminal because you failed to unseat the government. It's hardly germain to the US.

Also, it's always kind of funny to see Americans "yanksplaining" freedom and democracy etc to Europeans, given the vast influence Enlightenment thinkers from Scotland and France had on the Revolutionaries and the men who crafted the US Government and the Constitution - our violent attempts to overthrow monarchies may not have worked, but we thought of it first

**Mr. Burning**

This fella is a domestic terrorist. He had enemies he wanted to target and sought ways to kill them.

From what I am reading his views, extreme as they seem, do not give evidence of of any deeply ingrained beliefs about martyrdom or JIhad in the cause of ISIL. I think this guy was just seeking some justification for his future actions. which I think amount to personal vendetta.

Of course further evidence could show him to be a rabid jihadi so i'll be wrong............

**Ouze**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
2nd amendment *is* a fail safe against a tyrannical government. Founding Fathers took great pains to ensure that the government couldn't disarm it's citizen. Which was actually rooted from the "Merry Monarch" time in Britian.

Thank you for making my point very clearly. Even if some lawyer/judge/whatever doesn't think the legal document says it works that way the "violent revolution" idea is a popular one among gun rights activists. They might not be specific about just what would justify such a revolution, but they still believe that an important part of the 2nd amendment is ensuring that the people have the right to resist the government and, if necessary, replace it with a better one.

I think you raise a really good point. I think anyone who has used the phrase "water the tree" or similar should be defending this guy's efforts to do exactly that.

My guess is, though, as you say, this guy is another useful idiot the FBI all but handed a credit card to and pushed into the gun store.