DescentBB

FBI plants informant to incite terrorism in a mosque. Muslims are horrified by his jihad talk, report him to the FBI

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03710.html

article wrote:The undercover FBI informant - a convicted forger named Craig Monteilh - then drove off for 5 a.m. prayers at the Islamic Center of Irvine, where he says he spied on dozens of worshipers in a quest for potential terrorists.

In the Irvine case, Monteilh's mission as an informant backfired. Muslims were so alarmed by his talk of violent jihad that they obtained a restraining order against him.

Lol.

Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist (pirate?). You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor.
~ St. Augustine

So, in their search to find the bogeyman the FBI ended up becoming one themselves.

And yet I'm not surprised...

Spread a little sugar and the ants are sure to come. Actually it sounds like the FBI is using a good tactic. And good for the mosque members for ratting on him.

woodchip wrote:Spread a little sugar and the ants are sure to come. Actually it sounds like the FBI is using a good tactic. And good for the mosque members for ratting on him.

I facepalm practically every time I read a post of yours.

Want a real facepalm? Read up on how the Japanese Americans were treated during WW2. The FBI's tactics are childs play in comparison.

woodchip wrote:Want a real facepalm? Read up on how the Japanese Americans were treated during WW2. The FBI's tactics are childs play in comparison.

I sense a flimsy rationalisation.

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:Want a real facepalm? Read up on how the Japanese Americans were treated during WW2. The FBI's tactics are childs play in comparison.

I sense a flimsy rationalisation.

And you would rationalize that islamics opting for jihad are better sensed thru esp?

woodchip wrote:

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:Want a real facepalm? Read up on how the Japanese Americans were treated during WW2. The FBI's tactics are childs play in comparison.

I sense a flimsy rationalisation.

And you would rationalize that islamics opting for jihad are better sensed thru esp?

I wouldn't rationalize anything because I believe that all tactics of this nature should be rightly classified as entrapment and are are morally, logically, and (should be) legally wrong.

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:Want a real facepalm? Read up on how the Japanese Americans were treated during WW2. The FBI's tactics are childs play in comparison.

I sense a flimsy rationalisation.

And you would rationalize that islamics opting for jihad are better sensed thru esp?

I wouldn't rationalize anything because I believe that all tactics of this nature should be rightly classified as entrapment and are are morally, logically, and (should be) legally wrong.

You would think so until a terrorist maimed or killed one of your family members and then you would wonder why the Feds didn't use all means possible to prevent what happened.

woodchip wrote:

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:Want a real facepalm? Read up on how the Japanese Americans were treated during WW2. The FBI's tactics are childs play in comparison.

I sense a flimsy rationalisation.

And you would rationalize that islamics opting for jihad are better sensed thru esp?

I wouldn't rationalize anything because I believe that all tactics of this nature should be rightly classified as entrapment and are are morally, logically, and (should be) legally wrong.

You would think so until a terrorist maimed or killed one of your family members and then you would wonder why the Feds didn't use all means possible to prevent what happened.

All of my family are dead. Next weaksauce emotional appeal, please.

woodchip wrote:

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:Want a real facepalm? Read up on how the Japanese Americans were treated during WW2. The FBI's tactics are childs play in comparison.

I sense a flimsy rationalisation.

And you would rationalize that islamics opting for jihad are better sensed thru esp?

I wouldn't rationalize anything because I believe that all tactics of this nature should be rightly classified as entrapment and are are morally, logically, and (should be) legally wrong.

You would think so until a terrorist maimed or killed one of your family members and then you would wonder why the Feds didn't use all means possible to prevent what happened.

Arguments like this are just terrible. Using such heavy handed tactics against what are essentially statistical anomalies doesn't make sense. It's a waste of money and it's an unnecessary sacrifice of what should be essential rights and liberties.

To Avder and Null:
While I am all for personal liberties, there comes a point where a individual publicly contemplating or contacting known terrorist with the express purpose of killing people that those self same liberties are abrogated. While you may bemoan the Christmas tree bombers rights were strong armed, let us look at a case where just the opposite happened.

Major Hasan was a army medical officer whose leanings toward radical Islam were known since 2005. Emails were discovered being sent and received to Anwar al-Awlaki a well known terrorist recruiter.

So to both of you the non involvement by any govt. protective agency was the proper way to go. The idea we should not interfere with a known radical leaning individual is, in both your estimations, the better course even tho 30 people were wounded and 13 died in this case. I guess I get a little tired of hearing the tired and worn out mantra that criminals rights are more important than the lives of the victims. In this day of wacked out people looking to blow up innocents I say, if you are espousing radical ideas, you should expect to have your liberties and rights trod upon.

What I find more troublesome is:

\"WASHINGTON -- Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano today announced the expansion of the Department’s national “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign to hundreds of Walmart stores across the country—launching a new partnership between DHS and Walmart to help the American public play an active role in ensuring the safety and security of our nation.\"

So how long before we turn into the old USSR where you cannot say anything without fear of someone snitching on you. We don't need the feds promoting a kiss and tell policy. We should know already that if we hear something about a potential terrorist plot we call up someone. The terrorist are winning and the Feds are evidently too blind to realize it or worse they are using terrorism to increase their control over us.

personally I view it this way. the kid was alone at the tree lighting event, he and he alone pushed the button. not once but twice. he had a choice to make, and he made his.

HE chose to contact terrorists
HE chose to go along with the FBI in building the Bomb
HE chose to push the button to detonate the bomb
NO ONE held a gun to his head and forced him to do anything. he made the choices

I have no problem with undercover agents going to a mosque to see if they can discover any kind of terroristic activity or recruiting for terrorists. after all that is the very environment where most of the 9/11 attackers were transformed from average Muslims into Islamo-kazi killers.

I don't think sending someone in to try and recruit participants is something that should be done and certainly if your plan is to walk close to the fine line of entrapment you don't send some informant/criminal you send in an agent.

Finding someone else trying to instigate a crime is good. Trying to instigate a crime to see who joins you is bad.

woodchip wrote:So how long before we turn into the old USSR where you cannot say anything without fear of someone snitching on you. We don't need the feds promoting a kiss and tell policy. We should know already that if we hear something about a potential terrorist plot we call up someone. The terrorist are winning and the Feds are evidently too blind to realize it or worse they are using terrorism to increase their control over us.

For a counter-point: I have a real problem with crime being passively allowed because people don't want to be snitches, or are afraid of the repercussions of being a snitch. Note that I'm talking about actual crimes committed, not just talking about hating the US. In Philly I see this as a big problem- criminals can hide, easily, in certain areas because the non-criminals aren't doing anything about getting them brought to justice.

I don't want to worry about what I say; at the same time, I don't want criminals living next door to me because "I don't wanna be a snitch."

.

Bet51987 wrote:There are leaders and followers so entrapping the followers is good.

Careful with the terminology, Bet; you're saying something I don't think you quite mean.

"entrapment" has a very specific legal definition, specifically meaning that the accused was induced into an act they would not have otherwise done.

So by saying "entrapping the followers", you're saying that the followers were not likely to commit terrorism. I know that's not what you meant, but it's what that term implies.

-----------

Personally, I'm interested to see the results of this case. The prosecution clearly has a strong case, but the burden of proof is on them; legally they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the law enforcement agents didn't induce the actions.

That's the problem I see with this method of anti-terrorism work. It appears to work for catching the bad guys... but if it allows for legal doubt, it may not be effective in the end.

Bet51987 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:...Finding someone else trying to instigate a crime is good. Trying to instigate a crime to see who joins you is bad.

I disagree. There are leaders and followers so entrapping the followers is good. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Bee

There's a fine line to be walked. I can think of some arguments:

1. Most cults form around a very charismatic person. Many of the follows wind up finding themselves in a situation that they never really intended to get into; and it was the charisma of the leader that deceived them into agreeing to things that under normal circumstances they would never have put themselves into.

2. People tend to feed off each other. If a person can isolate a group, and get them focused on his agenda, they can end up going a lot further than they would on their own.

3. Children are quite easy to manipulate. Likewise, the more simple minded the person, the more easily they can be led.

4. People look for people and places that give them the answer that they want to hear. Thus, if a person has terroristic tenancies, they would tend to surround themselves with similar people.

So, the question is: where is the line between leading someone to a place that they don't really want to go, and exposing a hidden desire? I think the difference is who takes the initiative. I think that a cop taking the initiative to propose something specific is wrong, and rightfully illegal entrapment. So, if the under cover guy runs around ranting about Jihad, but never initiates anything specific, that's probably okay. Once he starts being specific, and does any sort of initiation, he's crossed a line. That's my 2c.

a little confusing but USSC has already heard entrapment cases:

646

Recent Entrapment Cases
The two most recent Supreme Court cases on the entrapment defense are Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988) and Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992). In Mathews, 485 U.S. at 62, the Court held that a defendant who denies commission of the crime is entitled to an entrapment instruction as long as there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment. Thus, a defendant may raise inconsistent defenses, arguing that he did not commit the crime but that, if he did commit it, he was entrapped.

Although entrapment is generally a jury question, Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63, the Court found entrapment as a matter of law in Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 550, where the defendant ordered child pornography after \"he had already been the target of 26 months of repeated mailings and communications from Government agents and fictitious organizations.\" In the Court's view, the government had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jacobson's predisposition \"was independent and not the product of the attention that the [g]overnment had directed at [him][.]\" Ibid. The unusual facts of Jacobson make it distinguishable from most sting operations, which involve fewer contacts with a defendant over a shorter period of time. Also, the Jacobson Court confirmed that its analysis was not \"an innovation in entrapment law[.]\" Id. at 549 n. 2.

Additionally:

\"In criminal law, entrapment is constituted by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.\"

So it would appear our would be Santa killer hasn't much of a leg to stand on.

The Santa killer and the methods used to catch him are probably quite sound and I commend the effort. The case where the FBI supposedly used a criminal/informant to infiltrate a mosque and he went in there basically spewing lets-kill-the-infidel hate speech in an attempt to attract willing participants for a crime is not proper in my mind.

The real target of a mosque infiltration should be the authentic recruiters. If you go in there as an undercover Muslim you might want to come off as anti-infidel to see if anyone recruits you but to do it so blatantly that the non-terrorist inclined members of the mosque are going to the local law enforcement to get help having you removed you are not doing a good job and in fact you are stomping all over the constitution.

Will, while I agree with you to some extent, we are not exactly discussing DeLorean and setting him up to buy cocaine. We have a acknowledged war against terrorists and to catch them prior to carrying out their plans, certain liberties will fall by the wayside. Much like with the TSA gropers/child porn provocateurs we seem to accept indignities to our person in the name of flight safety and so shall we accept extra curricular means to smoke out terrorist before they can succeed.

woodchip wrote:...we seem to accept indignities to our person in the name of flight safety and so shall we accept extra curricular means to smoke out terrorist before they can succeed.

"We"?

Not everyone accepts the former, and IMHO the latter is even more subject to objection.

Foil, perhaps I should of used the word most in lieu of we, but I should think you would understand that without being so literal. There is a certain well known document that has \"We The People\" yet no one would say that it included everyone

woodchip wrote:Will, while I agree with you to some extent, we are not exactly discussing DeLorean and setting him up to buy cocaine. We have a acknowledged war against terrorists and to catch them prior to carrying out their plans, certain liberties will fall by the wayside. Much like with the TSA gropers/child porn provocateurs we seem to accept indignities to our person in the name of flight safety and so shall we accept extra curricular means to smoke out terrorist before they can succeed.

I don't think the liberty to go to your house of worship without having outsiders pose as members trying to get your fanatical members to join them in criminal activity is a liberty we need to lose at this time.

Can we have a bunch of FBI informants pretending to be abortion clinic bombers do the same thing in Christian churches trying to spur some redneck peckerwoods into helping them kill abortion clinic staff?

Will Robinson wrote:

woodchip wrote:Will, while I agree with you to some extent, we are not exactly discussing DeLorean and setting him up to buy cocaine. We have a acknowledged war against terrorists and to catch them prior to carrying out their plans, certain liberties will fall by the wayside. Much like with the TSA gropers/child porn provocateurs we seem to accept indignities to our person in the name of flight safety and so shall we accept extra curricular means to smoke out terrorist before they can succeed.

I don't think the liberty to go to your house of worship without having outsiders pose as members trying to get your fanatical members to join them in criminal activity is a liberty we need to lose at this time.

Can we have a bunch of FBI informants pretending to be abortion clinic bombers do the same thing in Christian churches trying to spur some redneck peckerwoods into helping them kill abortion clinic staff?

Well, since we are not at war with abortion clinic bombers and since christian churches do not seem to be recruiting places....and Mosques are known to be recruiting grounds for bomb fodder terrorist, I'm not sure your comparison is quite valid.

woodchip wrote:...
Well, since we are not at war with abortion clinic bombers and since christian churches do not seem to be recruiting places....and Mosques are known to be recruiting grounds for bomb fodder terrorist, I'm not sure your comparison is quite valid.

Not a direct comparison so much as to remind about the slippery slope. Government never seems to need direct correlation or perfect comparisons to take heavy handed action...just ask Saddams ghost

Try this: Guns are used in most murders and armed robbery (I'm guessing they are) So should the government start infiltrating gun clubs and gun stores and shooting ranges and gun shows to try to coax gun owners into breaking a law?!?
Remember I'm not saying we shouldn't send undercover into mosques. I think it should be done when a particular mosque has questionable connections or members on a watch list. But they shouldn't send informant grade personnel (read: criminal element who will do what ever they think is needed to win favor from the bully cops) in to do the work. and whoever goes in shouldn't instigate the act they are trying to discover!

I think, Will, more valid comparisons would be planting informants into such groups as the old Weathermen, Students for a Democratic Society or the Black Panthers. I think any group orchestrating mass damage to our country is fair game for underhanded tactics. Trying to equate gun crime and gun owners as a cause celeb is, even you will admit, a bit of a stretch.

woodchip wrote:I think, Will, more valid comparisons would be planting informants into such groups as the old Weathermen, Students for a Democratic Society or the Black Panthers. I think any group orchestrating mass damage to our country is fair game for underhanded tactics. Trying to equate gun crime and gun owners as a cause celeb is, even you will admit, a bit of a stretch.

No, I think what you are missing is mosques and the people who attend them are not all terrorists.

I think there is enough reason to target particular mosques, and any mosque under particular circumstances, but your premise is that all mosques are functioning as terrorist centers. That is why I gave the gun owner example.

Will Robinson wrote:

woodchip wrote:I think, Will, more valid comparisons would be planting informants into such groups as the old Weathermen, Students for a Democratic Society or the Black Panthers. I think any group orchestrating mass damage to our country is fair game for underhanded tactics. Trying to equate gun crime and gun owners as a cause celeb is, even you will admit, a bit of a stretch.

No, I think what you are missing is mosques and the people who attend them are not all terrorists.

I think there is enough reason to target particular mosques, and any mosque under particular circumstances, but your premise is that all mosques are functioning as terrorist centers. That is why I gave the gun owner example.

When you used your guns used in crime example, you are more comparing religious zealots are terrorists so therefore we should be infiltrating churches, mosques and all church sponsored bingo matches. Doesn't work. OTOH if most all gun crimes were committed by card carrying Gun Owners of America members, then I would expect the feds to infiltrate anything associated with GOA.

Now when I said Mosques, I did not mean all mosques have to be infiltrated but we do know:

"At the time, Kabbani's charges may have seemed little more than inside Muslim baseball. After Sept. 11, it became clear that mosques dominated by radical clerics were a potentially lethal threat. Many such mosques are funded by Saudi Arabia, which spends heavily to propagate Wahhabism, a fanatic and aggressive strain of Islam. The Saudi government, reported the 9/11 Commission, "uses zakat" -- Islamic charity -- "and government funds to spread Wahhabi beliefs throughout the world, including in mosques and schools. . . . Some Wahhabi-funded organizations have been exploited by extremists to further their goal of violent jihad against non-Muslims." Its findings were reinforced by Freedom House, which in 2005 documented the penetration of US mosques by Saudi-supplied Wahhabi hate literature."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... onnection/

So the job of the feds is to find which mosques are potential terrorist breeding grounds, infiltrate them and keep track of what is going on. This point I think we both agree on.

I think what we're missing here is that 10% of the Muslim population are terrorists!!

In my opinion, the line should be drawn at quiet and unobtrusive observation with a warrant (for observation conducted on private properties such as mosques).