AP: Four soldiers in terror plot targeting President Obama, Fort Stewart, and Savannah

We don’t know much about this beyond a four-paragraph AP piece that is being picked up worldwide, but apparently four Georgia-based soldiers formed an “anarchist militia within the U.S. military with plans to overthrow the federal government.” There were some specific targets:

Prosecutor Isabel Pauley says the group bought $87,000 worth of guns and bomb-making materials and plotted to take over Fort Stewart, bomb targets in nearby Savannah and Washington state, as well as assassinate the president.

The lone, mentally ill gunman in Aurora killed 12 and wounded 58 last month, so it should go without saying that four trained soldiers with $87,000 worth of weapons could certainly inflict some major damage somewhere.

I’d caution against jumping to any broad conclusions based on the few details available at the moment, but this is clearly important news. It’s especially going to be an issue for the many soldiers who worked with those involved in the plot and who might find themselves under some intense scrutiny. And there are also some obvious questions about how the plotters amassed such a stockpile of weapons.

As news becomes available, I’ll update this thread or make a fresh post.


  1. View from Brookhaven says:

    “And there are also some obvious questions about how the plotters amassed such a stockpile of weapons.”

    Don’t let the NRA hear you ask them.

  2. John Konop says:

    FYI looks like real bad guys……………

    ……..Pauley said Aguigui funded the militia using $500,000 in insurance and benefit payments from the death of his pregnant wife a year ago. Aguigui was not charged in his wife’s death, but Pauley told the judge her death was “highly suspicious.”

    She said Aguigui used the money to buy $87,000 worth of semiautomatic assault rifles, other guns and bomb components that were recovered from the accused soldiers’ homes and from a storage locker. He also used the insurance payments to buy land for his militia group in Washington state, Pauley said.

    In a videotaped interview with military investigators, Pauley said, Aguigui called himself “the nicest cold-blooded murderer you will ever meet.” He used the Army to recruit militia members, who wore distinctive tattoos that resemble an anarchy symbol, she said. Prosecutors say they have no idea how many members belong to the group.

    “All members of the group were on active-duty or were former members of the military,” Pauley said. “He targeted soldiers who were in trouble or disillusioned.”

    The prosecutor said the militia group had big plans. It plotted to take over Fort Stewart by seizing its ammunition control point and talked of bombing the Forsyth Park fountain in nearby Savannah, she said. In Washington state, she added, the group plotted to bomb a dam and poison the state’s apple crop. Ultimately, prosecutors said, the militia’s goal was to overthrow the government and assassinate the president…….


  3. Bill Dawers says:

    Yes, the AP piece has been expanded pretty dramatically:

    Lots of confusing issues about jurisdiction at the moment too, since the group apparently already killed a former soldier and a girlfriend who they feared would betray them, and since there are investigations on the civilian side and the military side. Presumably, various federal agencies would be deeply involved here too.

    I live about a mile from the Forsyth Park fountain, and it’s obviously interesting that the alleged terrorists would target it before other more obvious spots, including the ports, City Hall, the federal buildings downtown, etc.

  4. girl with a gun says:

    Did he know that Fort Stewart is huge (280,000 acres) and is no where near Washington state? Fat chance of taking it over with Hunter Army Air Field, home of the Army Rangers 1st Batt, right next door. 🙂

  5. saltycracker says:

    The Expendables gone rogue. Think we should stay cool until the media hysteria subsides and it gets a bit better sorted out on these wackos. What more could a failing President want than a war (over that one) or a nut job plot against his regime.

  6. Rick Day says:

    Maybe if they would only turn their hearts to Jesus instead of Mohammed, they would have never find it in their hearts to do anything but love thy neighbor.


    • Jimmie says:

      lol. they gotta be one of dem Muzlim types. It seems of late the War on Terror will be focusing more on US citizens than M.E. radicals.

      • Daddy Got A Gun says:

        Can’t be Muslims. The government called this terrorism.

        If the Religion of Peace is involved, its not terrorism. For example, the Fort Hood Killer screamed Allah Akbar while he killed our soldiers. That was NOT terrorism because he was of Palestinian ancestry.

        • Blake says:

          You’re confusing levels of government. A county prosecutor called this terrorism, not the feds. If Judge Andrew Napolitano is correct that the “legal definition of terrorism is two or more acts of violence intended to change the policy of the government by scaring the population or by scaring the government” (presumably referring to federal law), then neither this nor the Fort Hood massacre were terrorism.

          • Daddy Got A Gun says:

            I’m not familiar with the legal definition. I have noticed that after acts of violence by Muslims, the government is quick to say its not terrorism. When the perpetrator is non-Muslim, the term terrorism is used immediately and often.

            Here’s another pattern to watch. When there is an Active Killer event on a minority religious building (Jewish, Sikh, etc.), the government deploys law enforcement to protect Muslim buildings, ONLY. For example, in Seattle there was an attack on a Jewish community center. The police response was to deploy to the mosques and not protect synagogues.

            Watch for these patterns in the news. It will make you wonder who side the government is on. Obama had a reason to bow to King Abdullah.

            • Blake says:

              I have not noticed that, possibly because every media outlet does seem to shriek terrorism, drowning out (to me) whatever the official government line might be.

          • Noway says:

            Blake, didn’t the Fort Hood Muslim piece of s**t kill 13 people? That’s 13 acts of violence by my count. And I do believe the population of Ft. Hood were scared! Help me here, my friend. He should just be fragged by the guards and get it over with.

            • Blake says:

              Yes, of course one could see it that way, but I don’t doubt that legally the single event is considered one “act.”

              Then of course there is that funny thing called due process of law, even when the perpetrator is known to be guilty by everyone.

              • Noway says:

                Is this an evolving terrorism definition? Meaning has it always been legally seen this way? I ask because the because the attack on the USS Cole was a singular event, as was the first twin towers bombing and I believe they were defined as terrorism. I’m not sure I understand why one may be a violent crime and the other may fit the terrorism definition.

                • Blake says:

                  That I don’t know, but if it has been defined this way since at least the first twin towers bombing, they were probably classed as terrorism because (at least with the Cole–was Al Qaeda the perpetrator for the 1993 WTC bombing?) Al Qaeda carried it out, and it wasn’t the first time they had attacked.

  7. I Miss the 90s says:

    Wow. This is kind of big.

    You know, if you buy guns from gun walkers in Arizona the purchases are not legally traceable. FYI. Because this is exactly what the founders had in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

Comments are closed.