Texas Couple found with Arsenal...

[Xenophobe3691]

Damn, I want that!

NOONDAY, Texas (AP) -- William Krar and Judith Bruey assembled a frightening arsenal in three rented storage units in this East Texas town, and federal authorities are trying to figure out why.

A raid in April found nearly two pounds of a cyanide compound and other chemicals that could create enough poisonous gas to kill everyone inside a space as large as a big-chain bookstore or a small-town civic center.

Authorities also discovered nearly half a million rounds of ammunition, more than 60 pipe bombs, machine guns, silencers and remote-controlled bombs disguised as briefcases, plus pamphlets on how to make chemical weapons, and anti-Semitic, anti-black and anti-government books.

The findings have led to one of the most extensive domestic-terrorism investigations since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

Federal investigators believe conspirators may remain free, and one question lingers: What did the couple intend to do with the weapons?

"There's no other reason for anyone to possess that type of device other than to kill people," said Brit Featherston, a federal prosecutor and the government's anti-terrorism coordinator in Texas' eastern district. "The arsenal found in those searches had the capability of terrorizing a lot of people."
Suspicious storage

In November, Krar, 62, pleaded guilty to possessing a dangerous chemical weapon. He could go to prison, but the law does not specify a minimum or maximum. Bruey, 54, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess illegal weapons and could get up to five years in prison. The couple remain in jail. Sentencing is expected sometime in February.

Krar and Bruey moved to a house in Tyler from New Hampshire about two years ago, though federal authorities do not know why.

They soon rented space at Noonday Storage and for more than a year visited their units each morning, spending hours unloading U-hauls of military surplus items or picking through piles of bathing suits and beer coolers they said they resold at shops and markets.

"We never had any problems out of them and never suspected anything out of them," said Teresa Staples, who owns the storage business in this community of 500 people about 100 miles southeast of Dallas.

A mistake led the FBI to Krar two years ago.

Krar mailed a package to a self-described militia member in New Jersey. The package included several phony documents -- U.N. and Pentagon ID cards, a Social Security card, birth certificates from three states -- and a note: "We would hate to have this fall into the wrong hands."

But that was exactly what happened.
Peculiar past

The package was mistakenly delivered to a man in New York City, who notified authorities. It was traced back to Krar, and the intended recipient, Edward Feltus, 56, of Old Bridge, New Jersey, pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the transportation of false identification documents. He could get up to 15 years in prison.

Krar's attorney, Tonda Curry, acknowledges that Krar owned illegal weapons, but said there is no evidence he planned to use them.

"It was not a situation where they were at arm's reach, ready to respond to some invasion. They were miles away stored," she said. "Nothing I've seen from the government or from him indicates that the United States as a country had any reason to be afraid of Bill Krar."

But federal investigators believe Krar's past behavior indicates his potential for domestic terrorism.

In 1985, Krar was arrested in New Hampshire for impersonating a law enforcement officer, according to the FBI. He stopped paying federal income taxes in 1989. His ties to New Hampshire's white supremacist and anti-government militia groups in the mid-1990s were investigated by federal agents.

Firefighters battling a blaze at a New Hampshire storage building in June 2001 discovered thousands of rounds of ammunition and four guns. Some belonged to Krar.

An employee at another New Hampshire storage company told investigators she feared Krar because he was "wicked anti-American," often ranting about government corruption and how he hated police officers and Americans in general because they were "money-hungry grubs," according to an FBI affidavit.

Last January, a Tennessee state trooper stopped Krar for a traffic violation and found in his rental car two handguns, a grenade, handcuffs, a gas mask, 16 knives and 40 wine-like bottles filled with an unknown substance.

Most curious were handwritten notes that listed "meeting places," including hospitals or Wal-Marts in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi and Louisiana. The notes also outlined a code for referring to the level of danger, from "Lots of light storms are predicted" to "Tornadoes are expected in our area -- Things very hot. Lay low or change your travel plans."

Krar told investigators the code was part a plan to help his girlfriend escape her ex-husband.
Domestic dangers

Despite the warning signs, Krar was not fully investigated until the fake documents went to the wrong address. And even that red flag may have been ignored if not for the heightened attention after September 11, Featherston said.

Some contend the government is so focused on foreign terror threats that it overlooks domestic dangers.

"I have no doubt whatsoever that had these men been affiliated with al Qaeda, we would have heard more," said Daniel Levitas, author of the book "The Terrorist Next Door: The Militia Movement and the Radical Right." "There is something of a blind spot within the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., when it comes to the violent potential of America's own homegrown version of al Qaeda."

Featherston said hundreds of subpoenas were issued and the Texas case was investigated just as thoroughly as foreign cases.

"There's international terrorism and domestic terrorism, but they're all terrorism," he said. "I don't care which one it is or what color their skin is. If their intention is to do harm to the citizens of this country, then all the resources necessary from the local level to the federal level will be put into the case."

Any Comments?

[Gil Hamilton]

Either they have a serious Grabboid problem or they were planning some terrorist militia shit.

[Mr Bean]

Either they have a serious Grabboid problem or they were planning some terrorist militia shit

Ahh love that reference, I was going to use it too


Hmm maybe they have a bear problem?

Or they plan to blow up the moon!

[Montcalm]

Either they have a serious Grabboid problem or they were planning some terrorist militia shit

Ahh love that reference, I was going to use it too


Hmm maybe they have a bear problem?

Or they plan to blow up the moon!

If they wanted to blow up the moon,then where is the Saturn V rocket.

[Xenophobe3691]

If they wanted to blow up the moon,then where is the Saturn V rocket.

Well, they chose the Cyanide over the rocket, they figured they could always save up for the rocket, but that Cyanide, it was a one time deal!

[The Kernel]

Interesting how these people are being labeled as domestic terrorists even though they haven't actually done anything other than stockpile weapons. I'm sure they are as nutty as a Snickers bar but calling them terrorists before there has been a formal investigation seems a little extreme.

[Xenophobe3691]

Interesting how these people are being labeled as domestic terrorists even though they haven't actually done anything other than stockpile weapons. I'm sure they are as nutty as a Snickers bar but calling them terrorists before there has been a formal investigation seems a little extreme.

But the thing is, what legal use is there for Cyanide? It's a poison, it's not an "arm" that we all have the right to bear for a state militia...

[Darth Wong]

Interesting how these people are being labeled as domestic terrorists even though they haven't actually done anything other than stockpile weapons. I'm sure they are as nutty as a Snickers bar but calling them terrorists before there has been a formal investigation seems a little extreme.

Poison gas is not the kind of weapon that a private citizen has any intelligible reason to possess.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Are they going to claim it was for self-defense?

[The Kernel]

Interesting how these people are being labeled as domestic terrorists even though they haven't actually done anything other than stockpile weapons. I'm sure they are as nutty as a Snickers bar but calling them terrorists before there has been a formal investigation seems a little extreme.

Poison gas is not the kind of weapon that a private citizen has any intelligible reason to possess.

Certainly not, but saying that they planned to actually use them for terrorism just for possessing them seems extreme.

I guess what I'm saying is that with the Patriot Act, simply being called a terrorist is enough to violate someones civil rights and I would prefer to see these people prosecuted the old fashioned way without resorting to violating the Constitution.

[Darth Wong]

Interesting how these people are being labeled as domestic terrorists even though they haven't actually done anything other than stockpile weapons. I'm sure they are as nutty as a Snickers bar but calling them terrorists before there has been a formal investigation seems a little extreme.

Poison gas is not the kind of weapon that a private citizen has any intelligible reason to possess.

Certainly not, but saying that they planned to actually use them for terrorism just for possessing them seems extreme.

Considering that America just went to war and invaded a foreign country based solely on their unsubstantiated belief that this country possessed chemical weapons, it would be pretty ridiculous to let a domestic nutbar with his own private cache of chemical weapons go free. Should we wait until he gasses a government building?

Certain kinds of weapons are prohibited for private possession, and I would hope that chemical weapons fall into that category.

I guess what I'm saying is that with the Patriot Act, simply being called a terrorist is enough to violate someones civil rights and I would prefer to see these people prosecuted the old fashioned way without resorting to violating the Constitution.

There is nothing unconstitutional about banning certain types of obviously terroristic weapons. Even nations are not supposed to stockpile chemical weapons; why the fuck should this guy be allowed to have them?

[The Kernel]

Certainly not, but saying that they planned to actually use them for terrorism just for possessing them seems extreme.

Considering that America just went to war and invaded a foreign country based solely on their unsubstantiated belief that this country possessed chemical weapons, it would be pretty ridiculous to let a domestic nutbar with his own private cache of chemical weapons go free. Should we wait until he gasses a government building?

Not at all. Lockup the fuckers. But I just think that calling someone a terrorist based on possession of poison adds a certain status to the investigation not unlike McCarthy's cries of "Communist". While they may be accurate in this case and I certainly support locking these people up, I'd like to see it done without violating their civil rights, that's all. In my original post I was just pointing out that the tone of the statements being made seemed to be labeling these people with the intent of prejudicing the investigation before it had even begun.

[HemlockGrey]

Its not that he should be allowed to have the weapons, its that he shouldn't automatically be labeled a "terrorist", because due to certain laws being labeled a terrorist automatically deprives of a lot of your judicial rights.

[HemlockGrey]

Beat to the punch.

[Rogue 9]

But still... ARs and half a million rounds of ammo. 60 pipe bombs. Cyanide. You don't stockpile all that just because you're a packrat, know what I'm saying?

[tharkûn]

There is nothing unconstitutional about banning certain types of obviously terroristic weapons. Even nations are not supposed to stockpile chemical weapons; why the fuck should this guy be allowed to have them?

Ammonium nitrate, nitromethane, and deisel fuel are terrorist weapons as well.

Nobody in their right mind thinks this bastard should be allowed to have these types of weapons. Personally I figure it should take about 10 minutes to establish that yes the loser possessed said weapons, yes possessing said weapons without proper authorization is illegal, and for the jury to vote to send the bastard up the river for the rest of his natural life. The only problem I have is in the question of should the bastard be hung or simply incarcerated for the rest of his life.

One does not need to automatically label every dangerous loon as a terrorist in order to send their ass to Sing Sing. What does the government gain by labelling the man as a terrorist? If you already have the means to can his ass ... why bother? If you want the designation of "terrorist" to mean something than "extremely dangerous criminal" some distinction should exist.

[Stuart Mackey]

But still... ARs and half a million rounds of ammo. 60 pipe bombs. Cyanide. You don't stockpile all that just because you're a packrat, know what I'm saying?

No you dont, but someone still has to prove intent, otherwise these twats are simply guilty of possesing an illegal weapon.

[Darth Wong]

There is nothing unconstitutional about banning certain types of obviously terroristic weapons. Even nations are not supposed to stockpile chemical weapons; why the fuck should this guy be allowed to have them?

Ammonium nitrate, nitromethane, and deisel fuel are terrorist weapons as well.

Irrelevant. They all have legitimate uses. What legitimate use do you think he had for enough cyanide to gas an entire building? Or pipe bombs?

Nobody in their right mind thinks this bastard should be allowed to have these types of weapons. Personally I figure it should take about 10 minutes to establish that yes the loser possessed said weapons, yes possessing said weapons without proper authorization is illegal, and for the jury to vote to send the bastard up the river for the rest of his natural life. The only problem I have is in the question of should the bastard be hung or simply incarcerated for the rest of his life.

That is a question of one's preferences for harsh or lenient justice. The justification for punishing him is the same either way.

One does not need to automatically label every dangerous loon as a terrorist in order to send their ass to Sing Sing.

If the label fits, slap it on. Did you read the article? There was plenty of evidence that he was a domestic terrorist; his resume reads like Timothy McVeigh Mk2.

What does the government gain by labelling the man as a terrorist?

Who cares what it has to gain? The label is accurate.

If you already have the means to can his ass ... why bother? If you want the designation of "terrorist" to mean something than "extremely dangerous criminal" some distinction should exist.

There is a difference between the average criminal and someone who stockpiles chemical weaponry.

[Joe]

Whatever. I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep if the gov't labels these asshats as terrorists.

[tharkûn]

Irrelevant. They all have legitimate uses. What legitimate use do you think he had for enough cyanide to gas an entire building? Or pipe bombs?

So does cyanide. Cyanide is used for mining and chemical formulation. It gets shipped down the local railline by the tank car.

I highly doubt owning a pipe bomb classifies you as a terrorist.

In my opinion it is not the weapons you own which make you a terrorist, it is what you intend to do with them. Boxcutters and airplanes do not a terrorist make; using said boxcutters to hijack planes and turn them into kamikazee weapons does.

If the label fits, slap it on. Did you read the article? There was plenty of evidence that he was a domestic terrorist; his resume reads like Timothy McVeigh Mk2.

Do I think he's a terrorist? Hell yes. Does that mean I beleive the government should call any criminal possessing particularly (or whatever adjective you want to denote this level) lethal weaponry a terrorist? No.

Who cares what it has to gain? The label is accurate.

Do you count arms dealers as terrorists? How about people supplying places like Libya with embargoed chemicals? How about deranged lunatics who keep such things for the hell of it?

My point is that yes this guy should be put away for a long time (cause I'm never going to beleive he is no longer a threat to society). On the otherhand simply posessing the weapons a terrorist might use does not automatically make you one. As a general rule I like, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Do the means exist to remove this bastard from society? Yes. Do we need to dick around with calling him a terrorist? No. Nothing to gain ... don't bother doing it.[/b]

[Darth Wong]

So does cyanide. Cyanide is used for mining and chemical formulation. It gets shipped down the local railline by the tank car.

If he had some legitimate use for the cyanide, I'm sure they would have said so. Weapons-grade uranium has legitimate uses too, but if Saddam Hussein had some, you can bet people would be making a lot of noise over it.

I highly doubt owning a pipe bomb classifies you as a terrorist.

Irrelevant. This man was stockpiling large quantities of them. He did not just have one sitting around somewhere. Stop distorting the situation.

In my opinion it is not the weapons you own which make you a terrorist, it is what you intend to do with them.

Intent is difficult to discern, but a large stockpile of conventional and chemical weapons implies a certain type of intent, and there was no evidence of any legitimate application.

Do I think he's a terrorist? Hell yes. Does that mean I beleive the government should call any criminal possessing particularly (or whatever adjective you want to denote this level) lethal weaponry a terrorist? No.

So if you ran into somebody who was secretly stockpiling chemical weapons or Anthrax, you'd seriously wait until he actually murders somebody before accusing him of being a terrorist?

My point is that yes this guy should be put away for a long time (cause I'm never going to beleive he is no longer a threat to society). On the otherhand simply posessing the weapons a terrorist might use does not automatically make you one.

Strawman fallacy. Certain types of weapons are only going to be used by a terrorist. A terrorist might use an AK-47; possession of an AK-47 does not make you a terrorist. However, only a terrorist is likely to be stockpiling large numbers of pipe bombs in warehouse, along with chemical weapons.

As a general rule I like, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Do the means exist to remove this bastard from society? Yes. Do we need to dick around with calling him a terrorist? No. Nothing to gain ... don't bother doing it.

I was unaware that some kind of pressing "need" had to exist before one could classify someone as an obvious terrorist. Are we to be prohibited from using any kind of classifications or labels unless there is a pressing "need" to do so in future?

[darthdavid]

I agree. Nutjob: Yes. Terrorist:Maybe. When the lable fits satisfactoraly call him a terrorist till then he's not.

[Howedar]

I was unaware that some kind of pressing "need" had to exist before one could classify someone as an obvious terrorist. Are we to be prohibited from using any kind of classifications or labels unless there is a pressing "need" to do so in future?

Five years ago I'd have agreed with you, Mike. However, in the fucking retarded climate we're in, the word "terrorist" is what stands between being tried in a civilian court of law and sitting uncharged without representation at Gitmo.

[tharkûn]

If he had some legitimate use for the cyanide, I'm sure they would have said so. Weapons-grade uranium has legitimate uses too, but if Saddam Hussein had some, you can bet people would be making a lot of noise over it.

Again it is about what you intend to do with it.

If some man who managed a fly-by-night chemical company was caught with mass amounts of illegal cyanide I'd not call him a terrorist. Possesion alone does not automatically make someone a terrorist.

Irrelevant. This man was stockpiling large quantities of them. He did not just have one sitting around somewhere. Stop distorting the situation.

Irrelevant plenty of juvenile youths have stockpiled large quantities of pipebombs and have not been terrorists.

Intent is difficult to discern, but a large stockpile of conventional and chemical weapons implies a certain type of intent, and there was no evidence of any legitimate application.

I can think of several possible intents such a person could have:
1. The intent to use them.
2. The intent to sell them.
3. The intent to collect them.

I beleive the first is a terrorist, the second is an arms dealer, and the third is just plain insane. All three of em are criminals who deserve some time away from society.

So if you ran into somebody who was secretly stockpiling chemical weapons or Anthrax, you'd seriously wait until he actually murders somebody before accusing him of being a terrorist?

Yes. I'd call them highly dangerous criminals, call the feds, and when I knew of their intent I would call them on that.

Strawman fallacy. Certain types of weapons are only going to be used by a terrorist. A terrorist might use an AK-47; possession of an AK-47 does not make you a terrorist. However, only a terrorist is likely to be stockpiling large numbers of pipe bombs in warehouse, along with chemical weapons.

I see black market arms dealers wouldn't?

I was unaware that some kind of pressing "need" had to exist before one could classify someone as an obvious terrorist. Are we to be prohibited from using any kind of classifications or labels unless there is a pressing "need" to do so in future?

1. I never said there has to be a pressing need.
2. Labels exist to allow for classification and indentification; if you have sufficiently classified or indentified an object for your purposes ... why bother with more?
3. Such a classification does have reprocussion, in this case. First it may anger some civil rights groups, second it may provide a source of continued litigation wasting time and money, and third it can set precedents that can be abused in later jurispondence. None of these are particularly likely nor particularly onerus in the event they occur, but weighting even slight negatives against NO positives ... why bother?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Certain kinds of weapons are prohibited for private possession, and I would hope that chemical weapons fall into that category.

I agree, and they should be charged and accused on those grounds.

I cannot say that one should charge and accuse them as being terrorists when they hadn't done anything.