
How FBI Entrapment Is Inventing 'Terrorists' - ahmadss
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/how-fbi-entrapment-is-inventing-terrorists-and-letting-bad-guys-off-the-hook-20120515
======
ttt_
I don't see anyone commenting on a specific part of the article where basic it
implies that white-supremacy groups are basically flying under the FBI radar.

Isn't that quite the bothersome perspective? It's to me in the same level of
awe as the part of hand-leading people into terrorist acts. Probably even
related, as a police state can make use of home-grown hooligans that are just
waiting for the oportunity to put their 'peers' in line through violence.

How much further along is there before the US turns into a full-blown
totalitarian regime?

This all seems eerily in line with this bleak proposal:
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-
close-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-down-
a_b_46695.html) (2007)

~~~
evgen
Except for the fact that the bulk of the arrests on terrorism-related charges
in the past year have been white supremacists and "militiamen" who share your
apparent fantasies regarding an oncoming fascist state I guess you would have
a point...

~~~
brown9-2
Do you have a source for this claim? I'd like to read more about this.

~~~
dalke
Your phrase "source for this claim" implies to me that you didn't read the
Rolling Stone article under discussion. It is a "source for this claim."

Quoting from the article: "But don't worry your pretty little heads over the
epidemic of far-right insurrectionism that followed the election of Barack
Obama: all told, according to a forthcoming data analysis by Neiwert, there
have been 55 cases of right-wing extremists being arrested for plotting or
committing alleged terrorists acts compared to 26 by Islamic militants during
the same period. The right-wing plots include the bombing of a 2011 Martin
Luther King Day parade in Spokane and the assassination of abortion doctor
George Tiller in 2009."

It links to [http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-
and-...](http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-
freedom/insurrection-timeline) which includes a list of "incidents of
insurrectionist violence". It also links to a book, "Over the Cliff: How
Obama's Election Drove the American Right Insane" by the aforementioned
Neiwert.

------
richardlblair
The damage inflicted goes beyond those who are being entrapped. This type of
behaviour develops a culture which lives in irrational fear. The type of
irrational fear that makes a population believe that body scanners at airports
are acceptable, that all muslims must be Terrorists, and that no one is trust
worthy anymore.

We need to remember what our core principles are. We have allowed terrorists
to influence the way we live our lives, and in doing so we have allowed them
to win. That's right, we ALLOWED them to win.

------
brudgers
I last reread Solzhenitsyn's _Gulag Archipelago_ not long after 9/11. What was
particularly salient is how many of the people he describes had been charged
with terrorism by Stalin's organs.

There's nothing particularly shocking in the rolling stone article. Terrorists
are so designated for political ends.

That's not to say that they're never criminals, just that conspiracy to blow
up a bridge is already a crime.

~~~
AkThhhpppt
Terrorism is opposition to the current political setup.

Totalitarian regimes' innovation is making opposition to the current political
setup terrorism.

~~~
TDL
I disagree with defining terrorism so broadly. An act (or the ability to
execute an act) of violence targeted against a civilian population is
necessary to be considered terrorism. The FBI has been attempting to widen the
definition over the past ten years (successfully I might add) & has clearly
focused on helping groups gain (very minimally) the capabilities of executing
a terrorist act.

~~~
brudgers
> _"An act (or the ability to execute an act) of violence targeted against a
> civilian population is necessary to be considered terrorism."_

By this definition, much of the bombing of Germany and Japan during the Second
World War would be terrorism.

Conversely, the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon and the 2000 attack on the USS
Cole would not be.

The usage of the term is different from the definition proposed.

~~~
TDL
I am not sure if the Pentagon is considered a military building or a civilian
building (I think there is a valid argument to make that it is a civilian
building.) I do not believe that the attack on the USS Cole should be
classified as an act of terrorism.

As far as acts that resemble terrorism during war, they can be classified as
war crimes. Actions during war have their own categories of law, so I would
disagree with using the fire bombing of Dresden or the bombing of Tokyo as
examples.

~~~
brudgers
_"The Pentagon is the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense,
located in Arlington County, Virginia. As a symbol of the U.S. military, "the
Pentagon" is often used metonymically to refer to the Department of Defense
rather than the building itself."_

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon>

If you go there, you will find soldiers ready to use lethal force in order to
protect portions of the building.

~~~
TDL
You can find soldiers at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, that doesn't make
the tomb a military installation. The mere presence of military personnel does
not make a facility a military installation. Since the Pentagon is where the
civilian leadership of the military is located, the building is arguably a
civilian facility.

~~~
brudgers
The Joint Staff is headquartered in the Pentagon, as is the Secretary of
Defense who is second in the chain of command after the president.

The Pentagon is no less a civilian target than Tora Bora.

~~~
TDL
I am aware that JCS meets in the Pentagon, what is the point you are
attempting to make? The fact is no troops are trained, quartered, & mobilized
for war in the Pentagon. The Pentagon is a civilian location. In the U.S.
civilians run the military (in other words the chiefs answer to their bosses,
the secretaries, who answer to their boss the SecDef.)

Tora Bora is where the Taliban trained, mobilized, & quarter troops (even if
they were irregulars.) This is the distinction between a military facility & a
civilian facility that happens to deal with military affairs.

------
aes256
Oh dear. Have all the proofreaders at the Rolling Stone been locked up in a
similar entrapment case?

> "[...] the indictments of Animal _Liberal_ Front activists who burned down
> [...]"

> "In the Harrisburg 7 trial _of in_ 1972 [...]"

> "They have no place in _American_ and those who advocate them have no place
> in this government."

~~~
MartinCron
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but _you are_ the proofreader for
Rolling Stone.

------
forgotAgain
DHS needs to justify its budget and spying on Americans. To do so they need
homegrown terrorists. Put yourself in the position of a DC bureaucrat. It's a
lot safer to deal with losers than dangerous wackos.

~~~
sakai
Also true -- but FBI is not part of DHS, it's part of the DoJ.

~~~
forgotAgain
You're right of course. Thanks for the correction.

------
Karunamon
I'm sorry, but I have little sympathy for someone who was able to be convinced
to blow up $thing with nothing more than a "Gee, it would be nice to blow up
$thing wouldn't it?"

That's not entrapment. Any sane, law abiding person would react viscerally and
negative to such a suggestion.

I don't even like Congress, but if you were to suggest that setting a bomb in
the building was a sane course of action, I'd ask what you were smoking.

~~~
raganwald
This isn’t a question of sympathy, it’s a question of what types of behaviour
on the part of the police are in society’s best interests. I don’t have
sympathy for a shoplifter, but if the police beat a confession out of him, I
am troubled by their actions.

The world where the police can suggest targets to a group and supply the
materials for action is also a world where you can take your taxes to an
accountant, have him suggest some “aggressive” reporting of expenses, and when
you agree you are arrested when it turns out the accountant was an undercover
fraud squad officer.

It’s a world where you can take a Porche out for a test drive and discover
that the sales man who gave you directions to a deserted highway and suggested
you speed was really an undercover police officer padding the unit’s
statistics.

I can’t even imagine how badly this could go if undercover police officers
were to pose as high school students. Actually, I can, there has already been
at least one case where a female officer suggested a male citizen procure
drugs for her and then arrested him when he complied.

I don’t need to sympathize with tax cheats, fast drivers, or love-smitten
young men to fear the police state that doesn’t have enough criminals to catch
and therefore must manufacture some of its own.

Summary: yes, these people are unsympathetic. But also yes, it’s important to
ask questions about the choices the police are making to prosecute them.

~~~
gavinlynch
"This isn’t a question of sympathy, it’s a question of what types of behaviour
on the part of the police are in society’s best interests. I don’t have
sympathy for a shoplifter, but if the police beat a confession out of him, I
am troubled by their actions.

The world where the police can suggest targets to a group and supply the
materials for action is also a world where you can take your taxes to an
accountant, have him suggest some “aggressive” reporting of expenses, and when
you agree you are arrested when it turns out the accountant was an undercover
fraud squad officer."

You're right, it's not about sympathy. It's exactly as you said, what is the
in the best interests of society.

But the scenario you present of an accountant is a totally incorrect
comparison in my view. An accountant is executing a complex task on your
behalf presumably in good faith. We hire accountants because they are masters
of a certain domain of knowledge, experts that guide us. Your scenario uses
totally ambiguous language, and it would be understandable for the client of
the accountant to be confused as to whether "aggressive" means "I'm using all
my tools to save you money in a good faith effort" or "I'm going to pull one
over on Uncle Sam".

What is NOT AT ALL ambiguous is the idea that someone has an intent to BLOW UP
A BRIDGE, a desire to harm the infrastructure of this country and waste
millions of dollars IN THE BEST CASE SCENARIO. At worst, loss of life and
death to our fellow Americans. I can't even begin to understand how these two
scenarios are in any way similar.

The FBI agent that guided these people through a process they willingly
participated in is not comparable to an accountant. This is not some ambiguous
undertaking where a poorly chosen phrasing of words can lead to a
misunderstanding where an illegal action could potentially take place. The
world is not black and white, but when you get to the point where you are
actively participating in an effort that is frantically scanning the pages of
the Anarchist Cookbook to produce explosives... I'd suggest that this scenario
is pretty easily understood as wrong.

And the original poster is 100% correct: "That's not entrapment. Any sane, law
abiding person would react viscerally and negative to such a suggestion."

This is not a movie. This is real life. This is not V. You don't get to run
around executing on a plan to blow things up, regardless of who is leading you
and their intentions, without some real serious consequences and without the
FBI taking you down.

This isn't about me, or my sympathy's or tolerances (of which I have none and
little, respectively) but it is about what we will tolerate as a society and
what is in our best interests. As you suggested.

I think it's in society's best interests to roll these people up. I have
absolutely zero qualms about taking people off the chess board that think it's
a great idea for everyone to pile into the van and visit the bomb site.

These are grown adults, not children. It's not about my pop-psychology either,
but I think if we all think about it for a moment, it's not hard to imagine
that these people already had the core of this in them. Anyone who vacillates
on whether or not building bombs to blow things up is right or wrong... These
are super well balanced people who were led astray and corrupted in a series
of weeks?

"Summary: yes, these people are unsympathetic. But also yes, it’s important to
ask questions about the choices the police are making to prosecute them."

Ask away. In my view, it's easily answered. If you don't find it to be an easy
answer, I can say that I honestly can't begin to understand your perspective,
but I'd be interested in your response.

~~~
raganwald
_I think it's in society's best interests to roll these people up. I have
absolutely zero qualms about taking people off the chess board that think it's
a great idea for everyone to pile into the van and visit the bomb site._

Hunh, I think that’s the same argument to be used for illegal wiretapping,
slapping GPS transmitters on cars, and on an on. "We’re after nasty people, so
society’s best interests are served by having us use every tool at our
disposal and letting us choose who, when, and why without oversight.” And yes,
the answer may be easy for you, but it’s also easy for me. I don’t think the
fact that these people may be nasty has any bearing on what should or
shouldn’t constitute due process. I also don’t think that discovering their
nastiness after the fact justifies the police actions before the fact of their
nastiness has been established.

I suspect there are deep, deep philosophical divides at work here. For your
reading interest, I present something that happened during the a long-ago
spate of successful domestic terrorism events:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO>

Which leads naturally to a group of actually nasty people:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)>

I almost forgot. As a Canadian, I am especially interested in this difficult
moral case:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_crisis>

~~~
gavinlynch
No. It's really not at all.

And you're taking the same mischaracterization that an above post takes: I do
not feel this was okay because "these are nasty people", as if my delicate
sensibilities cringe at the idea of "icky people", people that are different
than me or have different view than I have.

That is a false representation of my views.

I think it's okay to roll up on these people because ___they think it's okay
to blow up bridges, and because they took all necessary actions to indicate
intent_ __, which would clearly and unequivocally be a crime.

Due process? They will get their day in court. If it turns out that they were
just minding their business, being upstanding citizens in our society until an
FBI agent kidnapped them and forced them to participate in a bomb plot, then I
will gladly eat crow and be on the side of their exoneration and justice.

I am sure there are many things our government does that would not stand up
with respect to a hard, realistic look at constitutionality. I am not naive
enough to believe that "because the government does it, it's not illegal" nor
am I for the wrongful persecution of political or religious organizations
"just because I don't like them".

But here is my bottom line: people that plot to blow up pieces of American
infrastructure and who then take steps to follow out that plan are criminals.
I'm kind of amazed I even have to state this.

~~~
raganwald
_people that plot to blow up pieces of American infrastructure and who then
take steps to follow out that plan are criminals. I'm kind of amazed I even
have to state this._

I’m amazed you are stating this _because it isn’t the argument against what
the police are doing_. The argument solely concerns what measures are
appropriate for identifying and gathering evidence about criminals.

We can agree that they are criminals. My point is, I have questions about the
way in which the police are conducting their “investigation,” and I don’t care
whether they people being investigated turn out to be criminals. I get that
you think they are criminals and you have no sympathy for criminals.

It goes back to my example of the police beating a confession out of a
shoplifter. Or a murderer. Or torturing a terrorist. The guilt of the suspect
is not the issue to me whatsoever.

And just so you know, I want domestic terrorists caught and convicted. We’re
simply discussing how society should go about it.

~~~
Karunamon
_My point is, I have questions about the way in which the police are
conducting their “investigation,”_

I don't, in this case. We can take a few things as given, yes?

1) There is no legitimate reason for an individual to attempt to blow up a
piece of domestic infrastructure.

2) Any person who, given the materials, has no qualms committing the act in 1,
is a criminal and should be taken off the streets.

This isn't even like most other stings. Drugs, speeding, whatever. There are
legitimate reasons, law notwithstanding, to do both of those things. However,
a person who takes steps to blow up a building and kill a bunch of people..
nope. There's zero question in my mind about someone who would do that. There
is no legitimate reason. I suspect that the FBI will have a 100% success rate
with these actions, and zero false positives.

What are the chances someone will be innocently caught in this dragnet? Pretty
much zero. So where is the harm to society?

~~~
v21
What of the harm to peaceful protesters who aren't going to be arrested?
Should they be allowed to organize and plan peaceful actions without police
officers continually derailing their discussions by trying to incite violence?
What of the people scared away from protesting peacefully by that scary guy in
the corner who keeps talking about blowing shit up? Should they be continually
fearing that any expression that can be taken out of context as indicating
they're advocating violence (Such as riffing off a Batman quote
[http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/some-men-just-want-to-watch-
th...](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/some-men-just-want-to-watch-the-world-
burn) )

Which might be moot if I believed any of the groups mentioned would have
committed these acts without the involvement of police officers or informants.
But I don't, so.

[edit: Looking up another reference, I found a case you might find troubling.

"In the case of the Fort Dix Five, which involved a fake plan to attack a New
Jersey military base, one informant's criminal past included attempted murder,
while another admitted in court at least two of the suspects later jailed for
life had not known of any plot." from
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/20/fbi-informant> , more info at
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449728,00.html> ]

~~~
Karunamon
>Should they be allowed to organize and plan peaceful actions without police
officers continually derailing their discussions by trying to incite violence?

This is what's called harassment, and it's illegal. Furthermore, I challenge
you to find a record of any such ongoing such actions.

~~~
v21
In the Guardian link I posted it lists a mosque gaining a restraining order
against a FBI infiltrator. They also reported him to the FBI, but as the FBI
was employing him, they didn't do anything about it.

~~~
Karunamon
Ah.. that's what I get for not clicking.

In any case, the FBI was out of control.. (as usual it seems..) - But they got
a restraining order. Isn't that what you're supposed to do when someone won't
leave you the hell alone?

~~~
v21
I'd rather have a government that you don't need to get restraining orders
against.

------
andrewpi
Legally it is not entrapment. Entrapment requires that the defendant not have
a propensity to comment the offense.

~~~
its_so_on
I totally called this (here -
[http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/tdw6j/tsa_agents_i...](http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/tdw6j/tsa_agents_in_salt_lake_city_destroy_teens_10000/c4lwzq9)
). If you read my followup comment, you will see what people are really afraid
of.

Nobody cares if someone innocent is busted for saying "Yeah, let's bomb a
bridge!" What people are afraid of is that the FBI is the only thing pushing
real terrorism forward. That but for the FBI, it would ALL be just talk.
That's pretty dangerous if you ask me.

(To my follow-up comment, I forgot to add: what if the person who precipitates
the terrorist plot and manoeuvers into being the final link in the chain
simply CAN'T be that link. Maybe they get EXTREMELY ill, maybe they die, maybe
someone else convinces the rest of the organization to let THEM do it, what if
all the pieces are laid and then the informant is simply replaced by someone
who doesn't know enough not to set the thing off at the end...)

~~~
tomjen3
The bombs are duds. Meaning that even if they attempt to set them of, nothing
will happen.

And, presumably the FBI is keeping so well tap on them that if they somehow
got acces to real explosives (which can't be that hard, considering Tanerite
is legal, as is fertilizer if purchased in small enough quantities) they would
be arrested earlier.

~~~
Retric
They may be 'duds', but there are plenty of instances of the FBI providing
actual explosives even if the 'detonator' is not going to work large
quantities of high explosives in and of themselves are dangerous.

------
JumpCrisscross
Moving a serious conversation about blowing up "a bridge" versus a "cargo
ship" using bleach explosives to a "big bridge" using C4 isn't "inventing
terrorists".

~~~
baltcode
If every conversation among people of all political persuasions was exploited,
you'd see a very different picture. You really think conversations among Tea
Partiers, Democratic party drones, and other mainstream-type groups never
bring up fantasies of violence on their supposed enemies? Or do you think
there are no unstable and insecure people who could be turned among these
political blocs?

~~~
dominicmauro
It's not illegal to fantasize. It is illegal to attempt to blow up a bridge.
Federal law is remarkably consistent on this, whether you vote Democrat,
Republican, or Ron Paul.

~~~
njharman
Conspiracy to commit foo, is illegal for many foo. So, it is illegal to
fantasize out loud.

~~~
sophacles
That isn't how conspiracy to commit works. There has to have been foo (or an
attempt at foo), and demonstrable knowledge of that act of foo (or highly
probable knowledge), and actions to further the committing of foo (direct or
indirect I believe). Just exploring stuff in the hypothetical is completely
legal.

------
JonnieCache
Any of you beancounting/game theory types fancy analysing this trend in the
FBI's behaviour from an economic perspective? What is the driver or incentive
for them to do this?

~~~
fleitz
It's not so much an economic perspective as a political one, the government
derives its power (and income) from the current federal reserve system, if
something were to undermine this system the government would be left toothless
and facing a very angry populace.

A full investigation of the banking system would cause credibility to be lost
by the banks which would unravel the whole system as the fractional reserve
system collapses. Thus the government needs to remove credibility from those
who pose a threat to this system.

As to why white supremacists aren't targeted, white supremacists don't pose
any fundamental threat to the banks or to power because their ideas are
unpopular, occupy touches upon an angry thread running through the country
that the average person cannot get ahead. Threads like these unseat
governments, an unseated government cannot prevent an investigation into the
banks.

~~~
TDL
It's not simply a political factor (although it mostly is.) This has nothing
to do with the Fed (which I believe should be done away with.) The powers the
USG use to go after groups that potentially threaten it existed before 1913
(even though more powers have been added since then.) The Fed has nothing to
do what so ever with this discussion.

Edited for some grammar & clarity.

~~~
fleitz
I thought we were debating why and not how. Why it's important to get rid of
occupy is because of the threat it poses to the banking system.

For sure, the powers don't stem from the Fed but the reasons do.

~~~
TDL
I misunderstood your comment then (my apologies for down voting it then.) My
best guess is that there are probably a number of reasons why the Feds are
targeting specific groups.

It could be as simple as the Occupy movement represents a target rich
environment.

------
dromidas
Articles like this are pointless. Americans as a whole will not band together
to prevent or rectify problems like this because of one or more of the
following:

FEAR) We're all expecting the government to view anything related to freedom
as an act of terrorism that will get us into pound-me-in-the-ass prison or
worse.

DENIAL) That will never happen to me if I just keep my head down. Only bad
people have that happen to them.

DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSIBILITY) I'm nobody, so how could I change government
policy? That is something that important people can do, but not me, I'm just
a(n) __________.

------
castillowl
This is great. We need more of it.

------
nirvana
Suppose I went out and sought out people who I think might have a beef with
the american government, proposed a terrorist plot to them, and supplied them
with the tools to do it (and the FBI has supplied real explosives in the past
to these groups).. and then they do it and all die in the process, but cause
death of innocents as well.

If I did all that, would I be guilty of something? Probably conspiracy and a
dozen other crimes.

Ok, now, if I'm doing the exact same actions, but I'm a member of the
government, does that make my actions less of a crime?

If something is a crime, does the criminality of it change depending on who is
doing it?

Is it ok for the president to murder someone but not for a distraught spouse?

Is it ok for an FBI agent to set up a terrorist plot that gets foiled, but not
ok for a truck driver?

Imagine in both cases, before the plot can be put in motion, that law
enforcement swoops in. The plot hasn't occurred yet, so they haven't actually
committed an act of terrorism. But they did plan one and engage in a
conspiracy to do it.

In that case, isn't the FBI agent legally as guilty as anyone else in the
conspiracy?

How can the law be relative and let certain members of society off the hook-
especially if, as it appears, those members were the primary conspirators, and
without whome nothing would have happened?

Whether this is "entrapment" or not is besides the point here-- if
participating a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act is itself a crime, then
isn't organizing the same also a crime?

And shouldn't' criminality apply to anyone, no matter what their profession.

If the law starts treating certain members of society differently than others,
you don't have the rule of law so much any more and you start having two
classes- the untouchables and the common.

Police getting away with speeding doesn't always hurt society (thought it does
cause wrecks) but over time, it seems natural that more and more laws will
apply to the common folk and not to the "elite" and the elite will come to use
their powers more and more for their own advantage.

This disconnect is corruptive in nature, I believe.

~~~
bryze
I think you make a strong argument. Here's a question: What happens when the
smart anarchist turns in the snitch to the local police department with full
documentation of conspiracy to commit a terrorist act?

~~~
DasIch
The same thing that happens when it wouldn't be a snitch. What happens to that
person should be decided in court by a judge/jury not by the police.

~~~
baltcode
The only problem is, the state attornies/feds don't press criminal charges on
the person if they don't want to.

