Sunday, May 24, 2009

Did An FBI Informant Entice Accused Terrorists?



Let me start out by saying that what the four alleged New York terrorists are charged with plotting was diabolical and unforgivable. That I'm happy they were stopped by the FBI and the NYPD. And that, ultimately, they are responsible for their alleged actions.

But there are some new questions being raised today about the way they were trapped. And those questions focus on the manner in which they were led toward their alleged terrorist plot by an FBI informant.

The New York Daily News is reporting that other members of the mosque the alleged terrorist ringleader attended were suspicious of the FBI informant who would snare people in the parking lot and offer them assistance. Many thought he was a man to avoid. Too friendly.

The implication here is that he may have put into the mind of suspect James Cromitie the idea of committing a terrorist attack. If that is true, then, not only may the case be in jeopardy, but one must question the tactics used.

The good news is, according to the police and FBI, most of the operation was recorded. The house of one of the men was bugged. As they allegedly planned their attacks on two Bronx synagogues and Air National Guard aircraft, their words were being listened to and retained as evidence. Evidence that will be presented against them at trial. Evidence that the court will hear and use to judge the men.

But here's the question that still needs to be answered. Did law enforcement have information about suspected terrorist activities at the mosque before they sent the informant in? If so, then one could argue that the feds had reason to investigate further.

But if the informant was just given direction to go find suspected terrorists and then started attending the mosque with the intent of creating suspects to prosecute, then doesn't that make him, and by extension, the FBI, culpable in this plot?

The Muslim advocacy organization CAIR had been complaining before these arrests about alleged infiltration of mosques by informants and/or undercover agents. This case may, more than just determine the guilt or innocence of the four men charged, determine the propriety of the tactics of law enforcement in their attempts to protect us from terrorist attacks.

2 comments:

Rich said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rich said...

Another loony toon production by the imagineers at our dangerous intelligence service called the national security service? The FBI has the ability to make every single person that a subject comes into contact with an FBI informant-using super sensitive sources and methods. (The repercussions of these sources of methods will ensure that any wrong doing is never called out because it would either be a “dire” or “grave” threat within itself-but I do not know which one is worse) And those sources and methods are nothing short of repulsive. When dick Cheney said the government can take every and any action necessary to ensure national security under his Article II authority (i.e., breaking the law) it also referred to the use of informants. This process can put a conveyer belt of informants under your feet that can steer and derail any element of your life, using investigative pretences that you may never know the FBI is behind. What’s the high standard for the government to encompass and steer someone’s life. Reasonable suspicion (which is 1%) that some one is a “potential (ie, 1% chance) of being a threat. Yup, to ensure national security, there may be 100 people who have had their lives destroyed for every actual (and guilty) threat these professionals have found. Creating your “potential” is the easiest part for our dedicated professionals-especially if you get wise to the sources and methods being used-and they are often used like a weapon. If you are approached to become a silly snitch, you will have the word potential in front of you for the rest of your life, anyways tricks are for dicks.