Quote:
Original post by LessBread
One thing lost in this discussion is that following the arrest of Mohamed Osman Mohamud an actual terrorist attack occurred. A mosque that he attended intermittently was fire bombed and sustained considerable damage. There hasn't been much word in the media about how hard the FBI is working to find those actual terrorists. It appears that stories about actual terrorism don't fit into their predefined narratives. And the FBI is happier mugging for the cameras after they entrap a teenager than they are getting to work on actual terrorism. They appear to want to hold onto the lead role in this season of "security theater".
Greenwald raises many salient objections to the arrest. His third point is most germane to this discussion.
Quote:
...
Third, there are ample facts that call into question whether Mohamud's actions were driven by the FBI's manipulation and pressure rather than his own predisposition to commit a crime. In June, he attempted to fly to Alaska in order to work on a fishing job he obtained through a friend, but he was on the Government's no-fly list. That caused the FBI to question him at the airport and then bar him from flying to Alaska, and thus prevented him from earning income with this job (para. 25). Having prevented him from working, the money the FBI then pumped him with -- including almost $3,000 in cash for him to rent his own apartment (para. 61) -- surely helped make him receptive to their suggestions and influence. And every other step taken to perpetrate this plot -- from planning its placement to assembling the materials to constructing the bomb -- was all done at the FBI's behest and with its indispensable support and direction.
It's impossible to conceive of Mohamud having achieved anything on his own. Before being ensnared by the FBI, the only tangible action he had taken was to write three articles on "fitness and jihad" for the online magazine Jihad Recollections. At least based on what is known, he had no history of violence, no apparent criminal record, had never been to a training camp in Afghanistan, Pakistan or anywhere else, and -- before meeting the FBI -- had never taken a single step toward harming anyone. Does that sound like some menacing sleeper Terrorist to you?
...
OK, first off, this article makes it sound like he committed this because he couldn't get to Alaska to get a job. Two issues here...
1.) Can I assume that he was unable to get even menial work in Oregon? He couldn't get anything? Not even a job at McDonald's or Walmart? NOTHING?
2.) It is safe to assume that he was on the no-fly list due to this plot. So, would it also be safe to assume that any money earned would have gone to this plot? If the FBI were not informed, and he succeeded in getting that job, what would the consequences have been?
The last paragraph seems to be the final nail in the coffin pertaining to the obvious attempt by the FBI to entrap him. However, it is very clear that he could not have done this on his own. That is the whole point. He tried to seek help and that help then turned him over to the FBI. If the FBI wasn't directing him, it is very much possible that he would have gotten a hold of someone that shared his beliefs and had the resources. It would have delayed the timing, but there are plenty of outdoor events throughout the year that would have sufficed.
What people seem to be missing here is that up until the point of him committing an actual act, there was little to charge him with. At any prior point in the investigation, an arrest would have netted conspiracy charges at best and there would have been a very good chance that he wouldn't have been convicted of that.
Should the FBI use this tactic in every case? No, of course not! It wouldn't have worked in the 9/11 attack simply because of the complexity. However, I can see no fault in this in this or similar cases. A jury now will not have to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, simply because his actions left absolutely no doubt of his intent.
Something else that needs to be pointed out is that when the FBI does an investigation, they create a massive and meticulous paper trail. EVERYTHING has been documented from the initial contact from the informant to the time of the arrest, in detail. It would be asinine to expect law enforcement to share all of this information with the public. We have been fed just enough to know and nothing more. That is how it should be.
Quote:
Original post by LessBread
Quote:
Original post by ibebrett
Quote:
Original post by LessBread
It's impossible to conceive of Mohamud having achieved anything on his own. Before being ensnared by the FBI, the only tangible action he had taken was to write three articles on "fitness and jihad" for the online magazine Jihad Recollections. At least based on what is known, he had no history of violence, no apparent criminal record, had never been to a training camp in Afghanistan, Pakistan or anywhere else, and -- before meeting the FBI -- had never taken a single step toward harming anyone. Does that sound like some menacing sleeper Terrorist to you?
...
None of that matters, because he is a menacing sleeper terrorist by definition. He attempted to carry out a bomb plot up to the point of actually detonating a bomb. Having no criminal record prior to attempting murder means nothing.
Yes, none of that matters to a lynch mob. He was a 19 year old kid roped into a fictitious plot hatched by the FBI, not "a menacing sleeper terrorist by definition." Don't buy into the hysteria.
For contrast, here's what happens when the FBI targets an adult rather than an angry teenager. Their plot blows up in their face.
FBI plant banned by mosque – because he was too extreme (7 December 2010)
Quote:
...
The terror case Monteilh had been helping build against Ahmadullah Niazi, the brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden's bodyguard, collapsed in September, when the bungling informant revealed that his FBI handlers had instructed him to entrap his potential target and told him that "Islam is a threat to our national security".
Yesterday, as details of his efforts to persuade Niazi to blow up buildings became public, leading US Muslim organisations said they have suspended all contact with the FBI in protest against the excesses of agents who are secretly, and in some cases illegally, monitoring mosques.
"The community feels betrayed," Shakeel Syed, executive director of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, an umbrella group of more than 75 mosques, told The Washington Post. "They got a guy, a bona fide criminal, and obviously trained him and sent him to infiltrate mosques... It's like a soap opera, for God's sake."
Monteilh, who had previously served time in prison for forgery, says he was recruited on his release in 2006 by FBI agents, who he met in doughnut shops and Starbucks outlets. After being given the code name "Oracle", he was told to root out radicals among the region's 500,000 practising Muslims.
...
In May 2007, Monteilh recorded a conversation in which he suggested to Niazi and another young man that they blow up buildings. Niazi appeared to agree with the idea, and the tape was subsequently used as evidence in the terror case against him.
However, it now seems that Niazi had simply been attempting to humour someone he regarded as a dangerous extremist. Indeed, he was so concerned by "al-Aziz's" attempts to plot an attack that he reported it to community leaders, who passed details to police and took out a restraining order to prevent him from entering the Islamic centre.
...
There's more about this here: Tension grows between Calif. Muslims, FBI after informant infiltrates mosque (December 5, 2010)
You are taking some mistakes by the FBI and some of its agents in some investigations as an indictment of the agency and its investigations as a whole. This argument is so absurd I simply will not comment on it further.
