Hello:

Pardon me if I appear skeptical. This supposed bomber was inhaled by the FBI early on in his supposed transformation from a 19 year old kid, into a dreaded terrorist... The bust works for everybody. Obama can say he's keeping us safe, and the Republicans can remind us how bad those Muslims are

What's missing from all of these celebrations is an iota of skepticism. ALL of the information about this episode - all of it - comes exclusively from an FBI affidavit filed in connection with a Criminal Complaint against Mohamud. As shocking and upsetting as this may be to some, but FBI claims are sometimes one-sided, unreliable and even untrue, especially when such claims - as here - are uncorroborated and unexamined. That's why we have what we call "trials" before assuming guilt.

It will turn out that this guy was a tool of the FBI from start to finish... Kind of like Pat Tillman.

excon

Yes, I guess while I am glad that in all of the events like this, no one is hurt, but I have not seen or heard of many events where it is not part of a sting. How many government agents are out there talking people into being terrorists ?

I thought you liked the law enforcement approach to the war against jihadistan ? (or maybe he was a secularist who objected to Christmas trees... I shouldn't profile you know).

You should be celebrating this success.

Sure it was a sting. But unless the FBI is full of shiite ,Mohamed Osman Mohamud was a very willing participant. He purchased the components and mailed them to whom he thought was an accomplice for assembly. He was warned repeatedly that his act would kill innocent women and children.That did not deter him.

But the big clue that he actually attempted an attack was when he dialed up the phone # he thought would detonate the bomb he thought was assembled. When he was arrested he was screaming "Allahu akbar! "Allahu fubar!"

I'm sure the gate-keepers of the truth will be on the case verifying the FBI's claim and doing due dilligence about backround etc. I've already read reports of him being the victim of a family breakup and the leading cause of his radicalization .

How many government agents are out there talking people into being terrorists ?


I don't think he needed much convincing. He was contacting friends overseas that were jihadists and was writing op-ed for a jihadist blog. Neighbors said he was radicalized before the FBI contact.

As for Ex's concern about a proper trial... in this case it is warranted . He is a naturalized citizen and is entitled to due process.

The good people of Portland ,through their elected leadership ,decided in 2005 to not participate or cooperate in the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force.
The city council voted 4 to 1 to withdraw Portland city police officers from participating.

This is the same task force that prevented this bombing .
Ironically the decision to attack Portland was made in part because the city's lax attitude about the terrorist threat


In the Mohamud case, it appears that Portland's anti-law enforcement stand might actually have influenced Mohamud's decision to undertake an attack in the city. According to the FBI affidavit, the undercover agents asked whether he worried that law enforcement would stop him. "In Portland?" Mohamud replied. "Not really. They don't see it as a place where anything will happen. People say, you know, why, anybody want to do something in Portland, you know, it's on the west coast, it's in Oregon, and Oregon's, like you know, nobody ever thinks about it."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/11/politically-correct-portland-rejected-feds-who-saved-city-terrori

The city council voted 4 to 1 to withdraw Portland city police officers from participating.Hello again, tom:

Politically correct, or politically astute... If this turns out to be an FBI instigated plot, like I THINK it is, they'll look pretty astute.

Yes, it sounds like they got a bad guy... But it may also just as easily be the case that the FBI - as they've done many times in the past - found some very young, impressionable, disaffected, hapless, aimless, inept loner; created a plot it then persuaded/manipulated/entrapped him to join, essentially turning him into a terrorist; and then patted itself on the back once it arrested him for having thwarted a "Terrorist plot" which, from start to finish, was entirely the FBI's own concoction.

I find it interesting that in order not to be found to have entrapped someone into committing a crime, law enforcement agents want to be able to prove that, in the 1992 words of the Supreme Court, the accused was "was independently predisposed to commit the crime for which he was arrested." To prove that, undercover agents are often careful to stress that the accused has multiple choices, and they then induce him into choosing, of his OWN volition, to commit the crime.

In this case, that was achieved by the undercover FBI agent's allegedly advising Mohamud that there were at least five ways he could serve the cause of Islam (including by praying, studying engineering, raising funds to send overseas, or becoming "operational"), and Mohamud replied he wanted to "be operational" by exploding a bomb.

But strangely, while all other conversations with Mohamud were recorded by numerous recording devices, this conversation - the CRUCIAL one for negating Mohamud's entrapment defense - was NOT.

That's troubling...

excon

Yes If I was in his circumstances I'd certainly use the 'entrapment 'defense also. Sort of falls short though when he dialed up the number to explode the bomb and screamed "Allahu akbar" ! Maybe the FBI radicalized him too ? Maybe their court ordered email taps of his correspondence with radicals in NW Pakistan was a set up too.

There is no entrapment when a person is ready and willing to break the law and the agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.

There is no entrapment when a person is ready and willing to break the law Hello again, tom:

I don't disagree. But, as I said above, the CRUCIAL recording where he CHOOSES to break the law, is missing. We'll see how it works out.

Look. It is against my own interest to accuse the FBI of creating this stuff. I'd RATHER they be out there catching REAL terrorists, instead of just making a show for us. That's what I think this is...

excon

http://www.tobez.org/images/panic.gif

Who said it wasn't recorded? I've been reading the affidavit (http://www.justice.gov/usao/or/Indictments/11262010_Complaint.pdf) and there quotes asking him if he is sure that's what he wanted to do and telling him he has choices. I assume that was from a recording.

I think it's good police work... nip it in the bud. Does a terrorist attack have to occure before it is real ?
Every time a plot has been broken it is portrayed as "aint no big thing" ;or being carried out by 'the gang that can't shoot straight" .

I'm already reading enough sob stories about this unfortunate "kid's" life to make me puke. In his native Somalia "kids" half his age are recruited as child soldiers.


Sources close to the family told KOIN Local 6 that more than a year ago Mohamud's father, who is separated from his wife, told Homeland Security and FBI agents that he was worried about his son's tendencies toward dangerous extremism.
A posting on Gawker.com depicts Mohamud as a "Rapping Teen Fitness Guru, with a colorful past as a burgeoning jihadi."

That posting cites his pen name, "Ibn al-Mubarak", as he wrote several articles for a publication called "Jihad Recollections," calling on people to get in shape for violent Jihad.


Who is Mohamed Osman Mohamud? - KOINLocal6.com (http://www.koinlocal6.com/news/local/story/Who-is-Mohamed-Osman-Mohamud/G9O_qHAfmk6NbmpcNvh3MQ.cspx?rss=2638)

Who said it wasn't recorded?.

There is a Salon.com article that lays out the entrapment scenario. I'm sure that his defense team and the ACLU will be all over this case so the FBI better have their I's dotted and T's crossed .

So why is it when someone suspects a wingnut of committing some atrocity like killing a fed in Kentucky, the left goes ballistic -without a hint of evidence - over the violent right-wing threat in this country, but the sob stories come out for all the jihadists that want to kill them?

Hello again, Steve:

Paragraph 37.

According to the affidavit, this conversation - the crucial one for negating Mohamud's entrapment defense - was not recorded. That's because, according to the FBI, the undercover agent "was equipped with audio equipment to record the meeting, however, due to technical problems, the meeting was not recorded"

Thus, we have only the FBI's word, and only its version, for what was said during this potentially dispositive conversation.

excon

but the sob stories come out for all the jihadists that want to kill them?Hello again, Steve:

I don't know how you guys MISS the boat so much of the time... After all, I'm the one who is chronically altered... Nonetheless, you manage it...

I'm not a terrorist sympathizer. I HATE terrorists... I just want to make sure we have REAL terrorists, instead of PRETEND ones... You know, SHOW terrorists... The government DOES like to put on a SHOW in order to FOOL us now and then. You remember Pat Tillman, and the show they prepared for us?? You DO remember that, don't you? What about PFC Lynch?? The hero that WASN'T. Do you remember that bunch of bull crap show that was put on for the sole purpose of FOOLING us??

But, nahhhh... THIS time the government is telling the truth... THIS time they've learned their lesson. Yeah, right...

excon

Edit...

Beyond Paragraph 37 at another meeting, there are recordings where the FBI asked him if "this is what's in your heart" (paragraph 45) and telling him "with us you always have a choice" (paragraph 53). There are other recordings suggesting the same. Would that not corroborate the earlier description? I think it would, and the whole transcripts are not furnished so there may be others.

According to the affidavit that Steve linked ,the Aug 19 meeting; Mohamud selects sites to attack,was recorded .
(starting paragraph 41) . If I'm on the jury reading this conversation I come away convinced it is his plan to mass murder Americans in Portland.

If I'm on the jury reading this conversation I come away convinced it is his plan to mass murder Americans in Portland.Hello again, tom:

Then he goes down. I got no sympathy for him. But, THAT isn't the conversation where he makes the choices to BE a terrorist. Look. I ain't a lawyer. I could be wrong. In fact, I hope I am. I was wrong back in '98. I just wish I could TRUST the government to NOT cook up some crap like this. Sadly, I can't.

For a government hating right winger, I'm surprised you do... Oh, that's right... THIS part of government - the COP part of government - you trust absolutely...

excon

The government DOES like to put on a SHOW in order to FOOL us now and then.

I'm not missing the boat, I'm expecting the system to do its job. I have neither convicted nor exonerated the man. It's just odd that every time a jihadist is caught out come the sob stories, the defenses, the hand-wringing over the anti-Muslim backlash, etc. Some alleged wingnut allegedly kills an alleged fed and it's hang the bastard.

Many progressives admittedly believe the Tea Party is more of a threat than someone who wants to blow up a van full of explosives at a tree lighting ceremony. The tree lighting ceremony probably pi$$es them off, too.