In the past week, the FBI announced that they foiled a suicide bomber terror plot, in which Amine El Khalifi planned to blow himself up in the United States Capitol Building. There’s a problem though–the bomb was a fake and was supplied by the FBI in a so-called “sting” operation. Essentially, there was no bomb and the only plan in place was hatched by the FBI posing as al-Qaeda.
This calls into question FBI tactics in targeting people they claim are dangerous to the public. Nobody was actually in danger of anything. The danger would have been if the suicide vest THE FBI SUPPLIED had actually exploded. Although this is the most recent example, it’s a common practice to use entrapment in Islamic terror cases. The FBI has a history of similar tactics.
Hosam Maher Husein Smadi
Back in 2009, a gas station attendant, Hosam Maher Husein Smadi (Sam), was arrested for “bombing a public place.” The FBI came across the teen in an online chat room they were monitoring, in which they claim he posted hateful messages about the United States. The FBI approached Sam, posing as al-Qaeda, and lured him into a plan to place a truck bomb beneath Fountain Place, a downtown skyscraper in Dallas, Texas, on September 24, 2009. All of the members of his “sleeper cell” were FBI agents, and all of the materials used in the “attack” were provided by the FBI.
“…The undercover agents provided him with a 2001 Ford Explorer with a fake bomb inside it, the affidavit said. He drove it to the parking lot under the tower, armed the fake explosives, then drove with the agent several blocks away, where he used a cellphone to call a number he had been told would detonate the explosives, the complaint said.”
Source: New York Times
The Newburgh Four
The Newburgh Four case follows a similar pattern of the FBI setting up their targets for prosecution. The highlight of this case is the paid informant Hussain, who bursted on the scene flashing money in the faces of people who barely had two nickels to rub together. The names of the Newburgh Four are James Cromitie (also known as Abdul Rahman), David Williams (aka Daoud), Onta Williams (aka Hamza), and Laguerre Payen (aka Amin and Almondo)
Cromitie, one of the four Black Muslim men–the supposed leader–actually tried to avoid the FBI informant and have nothing to do with him, and even trie to back out of the plan later. Each time, Hussain pursued him, and at one point even scared him into submission by suggesting that “his overseas terrorist ‘brothers’ might cut his head off.”
In fact, Cromitie tried to ditch Hussain. For weeks on end Cromitie pretended to leave Newburgh to avoid him. Cromitie ignored Hussain’s phone calls, deleted voice mails and pretended not to be in when Hussain came around his house. He stopped going to the mosque.
Only when Cromitie lost his job, and became desperate for money, did he contact Hussain again. “I told you, I can make you $250,000, but you don’t want it, brother,” Hussain told him.
Now Cromitie agreed and set about finding lookouts. “Ok, fuck it. I don’t care. Ah, man. Maqsood, you got me,” he said, using Hussain’s fake name.
Even further into the plot – when Cromitie again told Hussain he did not think he could do it – Hussain said his overseas terrorist “brothers” might cut his head off. Cromitie came back on side.
Source: Guardian
In the end, the men followed the lead of the FBI informant, Hussain. It was Hussain who introduced the four men the ideology of radical Islam. It was Hussain who facilitated the “attack” and all the logistics. Without Hussain’s presence, there would be no case and these men would have likely continued living as they had been prior to his intervention.
Prosecutors painted them as America-hating terrorists bent on slaughter. All four followed the instructions of Hussain, who meticulously organised the scheme: from getting the missile and bombs, to reconnaissance missions, to teaching the tenets of radical Islam.
The “Newburgh Four” now languish in jail. Hussain does not. For Hussain was a fake. In fact, Hussain worked for the FBI as an informant trawling mosques in hope of picking up radicals.
Source: Guardian
Anatomy Of FBI Terrorism Entrapment
1. Find a target who has any combination of the following: Middle Eastern, Black, Islamic, young, uneducated, undocumented immigration status, and/or poor. Desperate and vulnerable people will be less likely to put up a fight when when something doesn’t smell right about the plan. They’re also more willing to take risks for the big monetary payout, because they want to extract themselves from difficult circumstances.
2. Find an informant to whom the FBI offers a hefty sum of money to rub elbows with the target. The motivating factors could be money, avoidance of jail time, or to shorten jail sentences. Note that the informant is an optional character in situations where a capable FBI agent is used to accomplish the setup of targets. Again, informants are desperate and vulnerable too, and the FBI exploits it for their own gain.
3. Devise a plan and supply a fake bomb or terror weapon to the target, making sure to document the incriminating evidence.
4. Promptly arrest the target after attempting to use the plan and the FBI-provided materials. Force the target to cop a plea–after all, they’re poor and can’t afford adequate legal representation.
5. Have a press conference and write press releases to convince the public that the target was a serious threat to the community. Convince them that the target is a “lone wolf” who had plans and the ability to harm innocent Americans. Make the people believe that if the FBI hadn’t stepped in, the entrapped individual(s) would have harmed countless people. The truth of the matter is irrelevant where swaying public opinion is concerned.
Entrapment Accusation Is Ineffective As A Defense Tactic
Despite clearly being the victim(s) of entrapment, using entrapment as a defense for criminal charges is ineffective. First, being an employee of the same body that set up the case, the government, the judge typically upholds the accusations of the prosecutor as documented by law enforcement officials.
Second, terrorism is a buzz word with the public, so almost every time it’s mentioned, objectivity and rationality go out the window and the notion that “something must be done” becomes the driving force. The FBI conveniently presents the court, and the public by proxy, a target for their fear. There’s no need to look for real terrorists when these agencies justify their own existences by continuing to serve up scapegoats. It keeps the facade of the war on terror going.
Finally, entrapment in and of itself is a lie. Its foundation is a lie and everything associated with it is a lie. Consequently, lies are an acceptable course of action in a sting operation because the whole case is predicated on something that didn’t actually happen, but could have. It’s not about finding truth, but rather about using and perpetuating lies to maintain an appearance for the purpose of justifying the existence of these agencies. Even the courts don’t want truth–they want a conviction. One court even stated that, “[s]ting operations, by nature, involve lies told to the target.” If lies are allowed in the prosecution of individuals, then the presentation of the incriminating evidence can also be put forth in a dishonest fashion. The courts don’t want truth. They are there to give the illusion of impartiality while facilitating a system where the deck is stacked against the accused–the vulnerable, the poor, and anyone else they want to paint as the enemy of the public.
“…the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied an appeal by a Spanish arms dealer and two associates who were convicted of conspiring to sell surface-to-air missiles to two agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration, posing as members of a left-wing Columbian terrorist organization. The defendants claimed they had been entrapped by an overzealous U.S. government.
Although the facts in United States v. Al Kassar, are admittedly different than the facts in the case of the Newburgh Four, the court’s holding is instructive. The Court of Appeals held that because the jury had rejected the defendants’ claim that they had been entrapped by the DEA (just as the jury rejected the Four’s claim that they had been entrapped by the FBI), the defendants had to prove, “as a matter of law,” “(1) the government originated the criminal design, (2) the government suggested the design to the defendant[s] and induced [them] to adopt it, and (3), that the defendant[s] had no predisposition to engage in the criminal design prior to the government’s inducement.” The phrase, “as a matter of law,” means that there are no factual issues for a jury to decide; that the only issues are legal ones that can be determined by the judge.”
Source: Riverdale Press
The Bottom Line
The recent revelation of some Capitol suicide bomber is simply another farce presented courtesy of your government. They are desperately trying to keep the threat of al-Qaida alive and well, along with the idea of the lone wolf terrorist. We are now into the age of pre-crime convictions, which essentially convict you on the basis of “we think you were gonna do it, so you’re guilty even though you didn’t actually do it.” The bottom line is that regular, everyday people–like you–are being convicted of crimes committed by the FBI. Many of them are charged with trying to use weapons of mass destruction–”weapons” created and provided by the FBI themselves.
Sources:
US Capitol bomb plot arrest capped yearlong probe
“Terrorists for the FBI:” How the FBI Uses Informants to Surveil and Entrap Americans
Entrapment or Foiling Terror? FBI’s Reliance on Paid Informants Raises Questions about Validity of Terrorism Cases
Hosam Maher Husein Smadi
Friends’ Portrait of Texas Bomb Plot Suspect at Odds With F.B.I.
United States of America v. Hosam Maher Husein Smadi
Busy FBI Arrest Two More in Terror Stings
Newburgh Four: poor, black, and jailed under FBI ‘entrapment’ tactics
Newburgh Four face uphill appeal
4 comments »