FBI Sent Informant Into Mosque To Find Terrorists... Mosque Gets Restraining Order And Reports Him To The FBI

from the these-are-the-people-protecting-us? dept

A few weeks back, we wrote about the FBI celebrating that they stopped a terrorist plot that appeared to have been mostly planned by the FBI itself -- basically encouraging one guy, who had no actual terrorist connections, to think he was a part of a terrorist plot where none actually existed... and then arresting the guy. As we noted at the time, we knew of at least two other very similar stories, where US law enforcement appeared to set up people in such a manner. Rich Kulawiec points us to a Washington Post story that's even more ridiculous, involving a guy hired as an FBI informant to spy on mosques in Southern California. As part of his "job," he also talked up terrorism and jihad in an attempt to "find" potential terrorists. Instead, the folks at the mosque were so freaked out by the guy that they took out a restraining order on him and (you guessed it) reported him to the FBI. I really would like to believe that the FBI and other aspects of federal law enforcement have a better grasp on actual plots against the US, but stories like this (which seem to come straight out of stories for bad Hollywood movies) suggest an FBI with way too much time on its hands, trying to manufacture plots so they can save us.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 12:41pm

    It's Worse Than That

    Reason Link

    In May 2007, Monteilh said he recorded a conversation about jihad during a car ride with [Ahmadullah Sais] Niazi and another man. Monteilh said he suggested an operation to blow up buildings and Niazi agreed. An FBI agent later cited that and other taped conversations between the two in court as evidence that Niazi was a threat.

    A few days later, [Hussam] Ayloush [of the L.A. Council on American-Islamic Relations] got an anguished phone call from Niazi and the other man in the car.

    "They said Farouk had told them he had access to weapons and that they should blow up a mall," Ayloush recalled. "They were convinced this man was a terrorist."

    Ayloush reported the FBI's own informant to the FBI. He said agents interviewed Niazi, who gave them the same account, but the agency took no action against Monteilh.


    So then the FBI thanked Niazi for being a conscientious citizen and for reporting the threat and went on their merry way, right? BZZZZZT. They tried to prosecute him!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    RD, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 12:43pm

    DUH!

    Of course they do. How else can you propogate false-flag operations and keep the DESPERATE NEED to fight terrorism alive?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      identicon
      DS, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 1:00pm

      Re: DUH!

      Ya maaaaannnnnn everything is a lie maaaaannnnnn everything is hitlerbush's fault maaaaaannnnnn

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Dishevel, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 1:11pm

      Re: DUH!

      I do not want to defend the FBI. Cause for the most part they are indeed idiots. They should have dropped the charges and given the guy a medal. Not continued to prosecute. BUT. If we were to stop the "War on terrorism" you think that wall will be well. Because I think that you are an even bigger idiot than the FBI.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 1:23pm

        Re: Re: DUH!

        I think that if the "war on terrorism" was ended today, things would basically be the same as they have been for the last 30 years: reasonably peaceful, with a handful of attacks on the country.

        Or do you actually believe that the world is somehow more volatile than it was decades ago?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Christopher (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 8:20pm

          Re: Re: Re: DUH!

          It isn't, but some idiots would like to think it was just because SOMEONE finally was able to do a terrorist attack on this country and kill a bunch of people.

          Even though you are more than 2000 times more likely to die from a car accident in 80 years than a terrorist attack in the United States thus far.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        RD, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 1:34pm

        Re: Re: DUH!

        "BUT. If we were to stop the "War on terrorism" you think that wall will be well. Because I think that you are an even bigger idiot than the FBI."

        Well, then you dont think I'm an idiot. You are reading into my comments what you want to see. I didnt say that we should STOP fighting terrorism. I said that the fight against terrorism is being USED and ABUSED (see this article, for example) to further an agenda of keeping the populace "in line" and used to further erode our freedoms.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    lux (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 1:06pm

    A few weeks back, we wrote about the FBI celebrating that they stopped a terrorist plot that appeared to have been mostly planned by the FBI itself -- basically encouraging one guy, who had no actual terrorist connections, to think he was a part of a terrorist plot where none actually existed... and then arresting the guy.

    I'm still in shocking disbelief that you find it acceptable to trivialize attempted mass murder in such a way. Your description of the story is disingenuous at best, and completely misleading at worst.

    No terrorist connections? Here's an excerpt from the link you yourself referenced:

    "The F.B.I.s surveillance started in August 2009 after agents intercepted his e-mails with a man he had met in Oregon who had returned to the Middle East, according to a law enforcement official who described the man as a recruiter for terrorism"

    Does whatever law enforcement believe nullify your view? Do you not agree he had connections to a terrorist recruiter? What information do you have to support that theory?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 1:11pm

      Re:

      We must always trust the word of law enforcement officials. Always. Why would they lie? Government officials never lie, that's the one thing I've learned from CableGate.

      "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 1:19pm

      Re:

      1) The "recruiter" was not confirmed as a terrorist, at best he was described as someone who had traveled to places with "high terrorist activity".

      2) The emails are not even quoted, and aren't even implied to have terrorist content in them.

      So basically, your argument is: Someone emails a guy that went to volatile regions, therefore he is a terrorist.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        lux (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 1:23pm

        Re: Re:

        If that's your argument, you'd better not trust a thing you ever read.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 1:37pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          But I DIDN'T read anything. That's the whole point. The article says NOTHING except random circumstantial points.

          Let me quote for you, since your critical reading skills appear to be lacking:

          "The F.B.I.s surveillance started in August 2009 after agents intercepted his e-mails with a man he had met in Oregon who had returned to the Middle East, according to a law enforcement official who described the man as a recruiter for terrorism. According to the affidavit, the man had moved to Yemen and then northwest Pakistan, a center of terrorism activity."

          Yes, he's clearly a terrorist because he had email chats with a guy who moved back to the Middle East.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            lux (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 1:45pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Following your own logic, it's just as nonsensical to claim he wasn't a terrorist. Critical analysis apart, brush up on your logic.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Chris Rhodes (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 1:51pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              So your reply to his assertion that you have no evidence of him being a terrorist is "well, you can't prove that he isn't!"

              Terrible troll, or just a terrible poster? I can't decide.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 1:54pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Following your own logic, it's just as nonsensical to claim he wasn't a terrorist. Critical analysis apart, brush up on your logic.

              I say you are a terrorist and using the logic you've provided so far, there's rather good evidence for it.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Gabriel Tane (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 1:57pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Lux,

              Normally I don't jump in on these... but are you drunk? I'm not following your argument here. AC here says that your claim of this guy being a terrorist is erroneously based on vague and circumstantial evidence at best, and your response is "by that logic, he's just as likely to be a terrorist as not a terrorist".

              So a lack of evidence shows that people are just a likely to be a terrorist as not? Are you one? I don't have any evidence that you're not, so I guess it's even odds there.

              That's some impressive logical twisting there. If I had a bit more time, Id point out the logical fallacies (one of my favorite arenas of battle). Ill leave that to AC.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                lux (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 2:17pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                You're completely disregarding the fact that circumstantial evidence carries any weight - I don't give a shit about the legal definition.

                Given the tone of the responses above, I suspect everyone is very much satisfied with the verdict of OJ Simpson trial (criminal, not civil). What bloody gloves? What reckless pursuit down the freeway with a bloodied SUV? Aw, thats's just circumstantial.

                Moreover, the fact that a man, who had ties to an "alleged" terrorist recruiter, pushed a button under the assumption he would mass murder people, is not enough evidence for you.

                Are you people every satisfied?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  lux (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 2:22pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Ever*

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 2:25pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  He pushed a button because the FBI put him on the do not fly list, blocked his travel to Alaska where he had a paying job, handed him cash to pay for rent under the guise of a terrorist organization, coerced him and indoctrinated him, and set up an entire terrorist plot for him to follow through on.

                  You'll have to forgive me for not believing "emailing a man from Oregon who moved to Yemen then Northwest Pakistan" is not grounds for ruining a man's future and indoctrinating him.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    lux (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 2:33pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Feel free to provide citations for claims you're making.

                    Regardless, and more importantly, no one put a gun to this guy's head. He pushed the button on his own free will, only a bleeding heart liberal would see him as the victim here. Oh, there you are.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    lux (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 2:33pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Feel free to provide citations for claims you're making.

                    Regardless, and more importantly, no one put a gun to this guy's head. He pushed the button on his own free will, only a bleeding heart liberal would see him as the victim here. Oh, there you are.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 2:42pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/28/fbi/index.html

                      But I suppose that a citation is moot, considering your last paragraph shows exactly where your opinions lie. I at least believed SOME things could be separated from partisan bigotry, but apparently not.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        lux (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 2:56pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        I appreciate the article, and I'd like to not continue arguing.

                        Salon.com leans very much to the left. It is what it is, and I'm definitely not the first to say this. And I'm sorry, but trying to harvest this type of skewed information without the prejudice of American politics in the forefront of your mind is like reading Mein Kampf for it's redemptive purposes.

                        I know it's reductio ad Hitlerum, but I feel the point still comes across.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 3:47pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          I heard WikiLeaks leans to the left too!

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 5:24pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Goodwin's law has been fulfilled. You Lose, Thank you for Playing.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            icon
                            lux (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 6:38pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Goodwin's Law? Oh, you mean Godwin's Law. Wow, just a recursive loop of ad hom attacks, huh? Next time if a poster himself (me) notes the argument was ad Hitlerum, isn't your mispelled point pretty much moot?

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, Jan 13th, 2011 @ 3:44pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              If you're gonna call out ad hominem attacks, you shouldn't partake in them yourself (if you're not aware of the name-calling that you're partaking in, that does call into question your ability to comprehend what you're actually saying).

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Gabriel Tane (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 5:50am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "Given the tone of the responses above, I suspect everyone is very much satisfied with the verdict of OJ Simpson trial (criminal, not civil). What bloody gloves? What reckless pursuit down the freeway with a bloodied SUV? Aw, thats's just circumstantial."

                  Your (persumptive and hostile) suspicions don't concern me. What does concern me is your willingness to assume someone's guilt based on circumstantial evidence. Yes, circumstantial evidence carries weight, but there still has to be guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt for capitol offenses. Circumstantial evidence does not do that.

                  Did OJ do it? Probably... was there enough evidence to prove %100 beyond reasonable doubt? Nope. That's why he was found not-guilty in the criminal court. Now put him in the civil suit where the standards of evidence are slightly relaxed and he's found guilty. Not surprised there.

                  "Moreover, the fact that a man, who had ties to an "alleged" terrorist recruiter, pushed a button under the assumption he would mass murder people, is not enough evidence for you."

                  Enough evidence to try and convict a man of terrorism and ship him down to GITMO to be denied all of his civil rights? You're damned right it's not enough. This is why terrorism is winning... because so many people are willing to give up our hard-won rights and liberties just to get the bad guys. We're all sooo willing to become the enemy to stop the enemy. Jihadists and militant religious martyrs dont even need to do anything anymore... we've got our own terrorists.
                  Hey Taliban? Yeah, well take it from here. KTHXBI

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 4:56pm

      Re:

      I'm still in shocking disbelief that you find it acceptable to trivialize attempted mass murder in such a way.

      Who was killed? Who was even at risk of being killed? No one. There was no mass murder and I am not trivializing anything.

      Your description of the story is disingenuous at best, and completely misleading at worst.

      Not at all.

      Does whatever law enforcement believe nullify your view? Do you not agree he had connections to a terrorist recruiter? What information do you have to support that theory?

      Things you left out of your comment: (1) only one law enforcement official *thought* this guy was a terrorist recruiter, but no one else seems to have evidence of that. (2) *Much more importantly* long after that, this guy tried to get training from jihadists *AND COULD NOT DO SO*. It was at that point the FBI stepped in and pretended.

      In other words, exactly what I said was correct: he had no real terrorist connections. He tried to make some and FAILED. When he tried to be trained NO ONE would train him but the FBI. In other words, sorry, Lux, but you're wrong and I was right. The guy had no way of carrying out any plot without the FBI's help.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        lux (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 6:03pm

        Re: Re:

        With a complete lack of humility, you quote these sources as if they hold the complete truth, but lessons from the past and simple reason shows us that the whole set of facts rarely makes an appearance in daily life.

        Yet one point does remain, the actus reus came when this man willfully pushed a button under the assumption he was going to kill people. You can argue all you'd like about how unfair it is for him, but I don't see the ACLU jumping in anytime soon, but I'm open to be proven wrong.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Christopher (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 8:22pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          lux, you are being hardheaded now. The fact is that the FBI was the ONLY organization willing to help this guy do a terrorist attack.... which means that the FBI basically ENTRAPPED this man, because if they hadn't have given him help and support, he might have gotten discouraged and just went back to his normal life.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 11:29pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          With a complete lack of humility, you quote these sources as if they hold the complete truth, but lessons from the past and simple reason shows us that the whole set of facts rarely makes an appearance in daily life.

          Um. No, Lux, that's what you did when you claimed the guy was in touch with terrorists.

          Yet one point does remain, the actus reus came when this man willfully pushed a button under the assumption he was going to kill people.

          In a plot entirely devised by the FBI. That doesn't trouble you? That the FBI is setting up fake plots and then arresting people for participating in them?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Gabriel Tane (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 5:39am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Yet one point does remain, the actus reus came when this man willfully pushed a button under the assumption he was going to kill people. You can argue all you'd like about how unfair it is for him, but I don't see the ACLU jumping in anytime soon, but I'm open to be proven wrong."


          Yes the actus reus came with the push of the button... but the mens rea came from the FBI's creation of the manufactured fantasy... the mens rea that may not have otherwise existed. You can argue intent all day... but what we have here is proximate cause linking the FBI's actions to this guy's actions. See? I can throw out $5 words too.

          And I also love how you have your finger on the pulse of this guys thoughts... how do you know that he was doing it because he believed he would kill people and wanted to do so? Maybe he felt that he had no choice... maybe he thought that since he had started down this path, Allah would have damned him for quitting like he wanted to... maybe he felt that the alien overlords would probe him again if he didn't go through... I don't think anyone can speak with surety about his thoughts.

          Your arguments about his intent and actual actions seem to ignore the FBI's culpability in this.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          nasch (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 10:51am

          Re: Re: Re:

          With a complete lack of humility, you quote these sources as if they hold the complete truth, but lessons from the past and simple reason shows us that the whole set of facts rarely makes an appearance in daily life.

          Indeed. If you don't have the evidence to back up your claims, just say there's evidence for them out there somewhere that we just don't know.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Pseudonym, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 10:42pm

      Re:

      I'm going to repeat what I said last time, because it sums up my feelings on this:

      Imagine how the public would feel about this if Islam and terrorism weren't involved.

      Suppose you took a poor, young, lonely, white American, who because of their socioeconomic circumstances and upbringing is at risk of leading a life of gang-related crime. Perhaps they've already expressed antagonism towards law enforcement, or are already using drugs (and thus are already technically doing illegal things).

      You're in authority. Which of the following two general approaches sounds better to you?

      Approach #1: You befriend them and give them a job, perhaps a trade. You encourage them into the respectable and legal workforce, and perhaps try to help them complete their education. If they're addicted to something, you help them get off it, so they don't mix with criminals any more. You give them a circle of peers of people who got out of bad situations so they have someone to talk with and lean on should that be necessary.

      Approach #2: You befriend them, and secretly groom them into joining a fake criminal gang. You start by giving them small tasks which aren't necessarily criminal acts in and of themselves, provide them with an income which they understand is from illegal sources, and promise them more if they participate more fully. Then you stage a big crime, perhaps a bank robbery or a drug deal, and encourage this person to be involved. At this point, you spring the trap, arrest them and congratulate yourself that you've taken a dangerous person off the street.

      Does anyone, anywhere, think that approach #2 is ever the right idea? If it were ever found to have happened, there would be hell to pay!

      If you want to stop people ending up in organised crime groups, regardless of whether those groups are trying to sell meth or trying to blow up buildings, you should be doing everything you can to steer them away from those gangs. This should be a no-brainer but, as Lawrence Lessig would say, there are apparently no brains involved here.

      Hell, it'd even make some kind of logic had they used the kid as bait to try to catch someone higher up the chain. I'd still feel sorry for the kid, but at least it would have been more-or-less productive work for a law enforcement agency.

      I don't want to give the wrong impression here. The sort of people the FBI locates are probably the sort of impressionable, easily-swayed individuals who could be radicalised into committing some horrible act. But something is deeply wrong when it's the FBI doing the radicalising.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 1:25pm

    The FBI has the task of doing two things. They must identify and eliminate people in the US and abroad who plan terrorist acts and find people to carry out those acts. The FBI must also find and eliminate those people who, if contacted, would carry out those acts.

    It isn't an either or, it is both, you try to catch the planners and leaders and you try to identify those willing to commit acts.

    You think the guys (and gals) wearing the bomb vests and blowing themselves and others up are the ones planning and financing those acts?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 1:46pm

      Re:

      "The FBI must also find and eliminate those people who, if contacted, would carry out those acts."

      [citation needed]

      You're getting a little Minority Report-ish here.

      Which laws authorize law enforcement to do this?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chris Rhodes (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 1:53pm

      Re:

      Entrapment

      If a government agent has to talk someone into breaking the law, it's probably not a valid arrest.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Clark Cox (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 5:04pm

      Re:

      "The FBI must also find and eliminate those people who, if contacted, would carry out those acts."

      Bull. Contacting people, convincing them to commit a crime that they wouldn't have otherwise committed and then arresting them is called "entrapment".

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Christopher (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 8:28pm

        Re: Re:

        You know, I am FRIGHTENED by people like that Anonymous Coward who say that things like that first statement.

        If that was true, then the British would have had the right to go out and cap George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 10:54am

      Re:

      They must identify and eliminate people in the US and abroad who plan terrorist acts and find people to carry out those acts.

      The FBI is a domestic police organization, they are not supposed to operate outside of the United States. And they are not supposed to "eliminate" those people, they are supposed to investigate and arrest.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 1:32pm

    Mike, that last "save" ought to be in quotes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 1:45pm

    Re: Dishevel

    actually, Dishevel, the "war on terror" is exactly what the terrorists want. their strategy is to spend pocket change on some plot or another--even unsuccessful ones--and then watch us spend ourselves to death on wars and security theater. it's the strategy of a thousand tiny cuts, and it's working.

    and for what? how many people are killed by terrorists in the US each year? hm? how many have been killed in the past ten years? maybe a few thousand, and nearly all of those are from one attack. compare that to the tens of thousands killed every year by drunk drivers.

    so what gives?

    for one thing, emotions ran high after 9/11, and we made major foreign policy decisions based on those emotions. and we still are. it's ludicrous and irrational, but there it is. the politicians and media whip up support for anything involving "defense" or the "war on terror" just by saying "nine-eleven."

    and why do they want to stir the population into supporting their wars and their encroachments on our freedoms?

    money. follow the money.

    defense contracts are very, very lucrative, but that's a market that is only good in wartime. sometime in the past ten years, the defense industry must have made inroads into circles of power and influence in this country. or maybe they were already there, waiting for an opportunity to present itself--like 9/11. plus, we're opening up new markets in iraq and afghanistan for more than just tanks and bombs. i bet it won't be long before you see a wal-mart in fallujah and a starbucks on every corner of baghdad. then there's the millions being spent on backscatter x-rays in airports all over the country. and let's not forget about oil! and the lithium or whatever it was that was discovered in afghanistan earlier this year.

    but all that money is going to a select few--defense shareholders, executives, politicians and lobbyists--while the wars they require are sucking our nation dry and crushing our american freedoms in the dirt.

    but, of course, it would be idiotic to stop fighting terror. i mean, they could maybe kill somebody.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 1:59pm

    Mr. Wilson, Minority Report-ish? Isn't setting up a sting and having a guy push a button on a cell phone that he thought was rigged to something that would explode and then arresting him a good enough citation? That is what the article is about.

    As for the cost benefit analysis for fighting terrorism, last time I checked, the trade center is still a hole 9 years later. You talk of security theater but stupid airport checks are not the only precautions we are taking. Maybe we are doing a pretty good job of security to keep the smart attacks from happening and security theater is there to just keep the dumb ones from happening.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jim O (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 2:14pm

    I wonder....

    I wonder how long/hard the FBI would have to look before they found a Christian willing to attack Muslims/mosques.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 2:18pm

    if it's still a hole in the ground, that's no proof of the dangers of terrorism, but of municipal bureaucracy. but things are under construction, i believe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_site#Construction

    and again, look at the numbers. about 3,000 people were killed on 9/11. since then, we've lost about 5,000 US soldiers in iraq (that's just deaths, not counting the wounded) and another 1,000+ in afghanistan.

    the 3,000 would be dead now no matter what--we can't control that. but the 6,000 dead soldiers are our own doing. we chose to send those men and women to their deaths. and we continue to choose to do so.

    oh, and this from the CDC:

    Number of deaths for leading causes of death

    * Heart disease: 616,067
    * Cancer: 562,875
    * Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
    * Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
    * Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
    * Alzheimer's disease: 74,632
    * Diabetes: 71,382
    * Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
    * Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 46,448
    * Septicemia: 34,828


    imagine how many lives could have been saved if we had spent the hundreds of billions of dollars we've wasted in two wars on, say, heart disease or cancer research.

    what kind of country would we live in today if that money had instead gone into education?

    what if we had used it to pay off the national debt?

    what if we had spent one-tenth of the money we've squandered on killing people in iraq and afghanistan and instead spent it on food and medical supplies for those countries? i wonder what the world's opinion of our country would be then?

    i wonder how many people would want to kill us then?

    if a US bomb kills a boy's father, he will grow up hating the US and possibly become a terrorist to get revenge. if, instead, a US-marked airdrop crate supplies that boy's family with food, his hospital with medicine, and his school with books, then maybe he would grow up appreciating the US instead.

    but no, we chose to kill instead of aid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      mikeinrichmond (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 4:07pm

      Re:

      How many Americans were killed before we entered WWII? Should we have just sued for peace and let Japan and Germany take over? Probably would have saved countless American lives and hundreds of millions of dollars, but to what cost? Should this country only have a purely defensive posture, and never take the offensive? Should we not strike back when attacked? Should we turn a blind eye to plots to kill us? I, for one, choose not to, and thank the FBI for their due diligence in trying to prevent another massacre.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Christopher (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 8:31pm

        Re: Re:

        Hyperbole, mike.... it doesn't do anything to support your arguments and makes people disregard what you said.

        Oh, and need I remind: before Pearl Harbor was ALLOWED TO HAPPEN (yes, there are some very credible statements from people that we knew that Japan was going to attack Hawaii), the United States electorate WAS in favor of suing for peace with Germany and Japan or coming to a 'mutual non-aggression' agreement with them.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jesse Townley (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 2:46pm

    About the article that's the subject of this post

    Uh, any comment on the clear attempts at entrapment done by the ex-FBI informant? He's claiming he was trained to try to entrap people, and it turned out that the people he was trying to entrap called the FBI on him, thinking he was a terrorist.

    As David St. Hubbins said, "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever." This situation is clearly far far far on the stupid side now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 3:25pm

      Re: About the article that's the subject of this post

      I don't think "entrapment" means what you think it means.

      Entrapment is only a defense if the defendant would not be inclined to commit the act without the governmental acts pressuring him.

      Simply enabling a guy to commit a fake crime or suggesting the crime isn't necessarily entrapment.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Christopher (profile), Dec 6th, 2010 @ 8:33pm

        Re: Re: About the article that's the subject of this post

        Yes, it is. Because with the ENABLEMENT, the guy might have just gotten frustrated and decided that it wasn't worth it and settled down to a normal life.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 3:48pm

    Entrapment Keeps Me Safe at Night

    I feel so much better now that I know the Thought Police are protecting us from those who are inclined to commit fake crimes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 5:34pm

    Which came first, the chicken or the egg.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 7:05pm

    Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

    Why the egg of course, everyone knows that. Dinasaurs came from eggs, they were on the planet long before chickens so of course, the egg came before the chicken.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    PowerFlower, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 8:15pm

    Lux... "Does whatever law enforcement believe nullify your view?"

    QFT.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 8:42pm

    And the guy might not have decided to settle down and rather go out and kill a bunch of people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 7:01am

      Re:

      At which point he would have actually committed a crime and then he could be arrested, tried, and convicted.

      Do you really not see the difference? Or do you honestly believe that the job of our law enforcement is to find people who are gullible / easily influenced and then convince them to "attack" the US, provide them with all of the materials and resources they need to do so, provide them with a salary, food, and shelter and then arrest them for hitting a cell phone button?

      Maybe we could take care of the homeless problem in large cities by offering people food and shelter ... at a terrorist "training camp" run by the FBI. As soon as they walk in the front door we can shoot them in the face as they are obviously terrorists ... right? RIGHT? YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME ???!11!!?? TERRORIST! (

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2010 @ 11:00pm

    The real question is :

    Lux, how the hell do you even see your computer screen with your head so far up your ass?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Nathan, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 9:31am

    haters

    Don't hate the hate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ahjglhjvlhjvh, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 6:31pm

    You guys are all idiots. How do you find out where to buy your weed? You look for the guy talking about it. Shut the fuck up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Joseph, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 11:05pm

    FBI Sent Informant Into Mosque To Find Terrorists... Mosque Gets Restraining Order And Reports Him To The FBI

    When I was assigned to a NATO unit run by US Navy personnel, situations like this were called clusterfucks. Top to bottom incompetence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gabriel Tane (profile), Dec 8th, 2010 @ 7:06am

      Re: FBI Sent Informant Into Mosque To Find Terrorists... Mosque Gets Restraining Order And Reports Him To The FBI

      Sounds more like SNAFU to me. I would say FUBAR, but I think we all recognize this kind of CF when we see it now... so FUSMIN (F'ed Up So Much It's Normal)?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TomTom, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 11:32pm

    1984

    It all has eerie connections back to the book 1984. SPOILER! Winston finds someone he believes is someone who can help him against the regime (O'Brien). O'Brien is actually someone working for the regime, because they were suspicious about Winston in the first place. Without O'Brien, Winston would have done nothing but write in his diary. With O'Brien, Winston gets rats all up in his face.

    We don't usually consider 1984 a good guidebook on how to run our government. These incidents, in addition to the attempts to stop Wiki Leaks, are somewhat frightening.

    They tell us that if you don't do anything wrong, then there is no need to worry. But, they go on to do wrong themselves, and are frustrated when they are liable for their actions. Come on America, pull yourselves together.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gabriel Tane (profile), Dec 8th, 2010 @ 7:08am

      Re: 1984

      or A Scanner Darkly? Similar, but there seemed to be a reason behind the 'betrayal'. Won't spoil it if you haven't seen it.

      Good analogy w/ 1984 though.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This