(NaturalNews) If it seems as though the FBI is making a large number of
terror busts these days, maybe it's because the agency itself is at
least partly responsible for hatching the plots. That has some political
observers wondering if the FBI's strategies are making the best use of
the nation's limited counterterrorist resources.
In recent
months, FBI agents have arrested suspects who were planning a range of
terrorist attacks, from shooting Stinger missiles at military aircraft
to driving vanloads of explosives into crowded events. But these amazing
cases might not have ever been made if the FBI itself wasn't themselves
planning the attacks.
A number of these cases were profiled
recently in a New York Times op-ed column, which noted that the
so-called plots were devised by an agency that seems to be operating as
if the nation is so devoid of legitimate threats that it needs to
manufacture some in order to seem relevant.
Withstanding legal scrutiny, but still questionable
Consider
the case of Oregon college student Mohamed Osman Mohamud. He thought
about using a car bomb to attack a well-attended, festive Christmas
tree-lighting ceremony in Portland. The FBI gave him a van packed with inert explosives consisting of some real, but inactive, detonators and six 55-gallon drums, along with a gallon of diesel fuel. An FBI agent even drove the van.
When Mohamud called the cell phone number that was supposed to trigger
the explosion, nothing explosive happened, except that he got arrested.
Was Mohamud seriously considering such an attack prior to the FBI
involvement? If so, could he have put it together by himself? Was he
working with someone else the FBI doesn't know about who is more of a
legitimate threat?
It's hard to say. Obviously Mohamud was at
least having bad thoughts, and that's disconcerting in and of itself
(though not criminal). But if the FBI had not manufactured an attack, would he have gone through with anything?
Mohamud's
case is far from the only one manufactured by the FBI, and it is
certainly not the only one that has held up in court. In fact, such
operations are not only legal but they are a common counterterrorism
tactic employed by the agency in the post-9/11 world. Terror defendants
most often try to claim entrapment, but they also most often lose
because the law says as long as they showed at least some intent to
commit a terrorist act, even if tempted to do so by undercover agents,
they are guilty.
Using even the weak-minded to make a case
"Many times," says Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman, "suspects are warned about the seriousness of their plots
and given opportunities to back out." But, the Times report indicates
recorded conversations show that the warning is not always given, and
that in some cases suspects are even encouraged to continue.
Inventing
such cases isn't as easy as, say, manufacturing a sting operation where
an alleged drug dealer or arms trafficker sells to an undercover agent.
That's because those kinds of crimes occur regularly in the United
States.
But David Raskin, a former federal prosecutor told the Times,
"There isn't a business of terrorism in the United States, thank God."
"You're
not going to be able to go to a street corner and find somebody who's
already blown something up," he said. "So the goal is to find someone
who isn't engaged in terrorism yet but is looking for a real terrorist
who could provide them with an opportunity."
You can sometimes
get the impression that maybe the FBI is operating off of some sort of
counterterrorism quota. Consider one of the most recent cases of
thwarting a planned attack:
Of five so-called anarchists
who were arrested for ostensibly planning to destroy a bridge in Ohio in
late April, three of them had documented mental health issues. One was
even talked out of committing suicide in February, right before he was enticed to join in the plot by an FBI informant.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com
http://www.infowars.com
http://cornellsun.com
No comments:
Post a Comment