Lawyer says suspect in Oregon bomb plot was entrapped

Lawyer says suspect in Oregon bomb plot was entrapped
By Teresa Carson | Reuters – 1/11/2013

An FBI affidavit filed in the case said Mohamud was taken into custody after he tried to use a cell phone to trigger what he believed was a car bomb but was actually a harmless device supplied by agents posing as operatives for Islamist extremists.

But defense attorney Stephen Sady argued on Friday his client would never have carried out the bombing on his own.

"Mohamed was no terrorist," Sady said. "The FBI just went too far. They created a crime that would have never happened without them."
Lawyer says suspect in Oregon bomb plot was entrapped - Yahoo! News

Click to expand...

FBI used to show off their value with the case conducted by themselvs.

katsung47 said:

FBI used to show off their value with the case conducted by themselvs.

Click to expand...

Entrapment? Right. Because trying to detonate a bomb is analogous to Joe Schmo buying a watch that "fell off the back of a truck." I don't buy the argument that anyone would only push the trigger on a bomb designed to kill people just because they had the opportunity.

katsung47 said:

FBI used to show off their value with the case conducted by themselvs.

Click to expand...

Why do Liberals hate the police so much?

katsung47 said:

FBI used to show off their value with the case conducted by themselvs.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? What else can this moron's lawyer say? This is a non-story if I've ever read one. Any sane person, would have reported, to federal/state authorities, being contacted by these "terrorists", not simply "hang out with them" and "play along".

FBI stopped Portland bomb suspect from taking job before sting
By Daniel Tencer
Sunday, November 28th, 2010


The Times reports:

The FBI¡¯s surveillance started in August 2009 after agents intercepted his e-mails with a man he had met in Oregon who had returned to the Middle East, according to a law enforcement official who described the man as a recruiter for terrorism. According to the affidavit, the man had moved to Yemen and then northwest Pakistan, a center of terrorism activity.

According to the New York Times, the FBI placed Mohamud on a terror watch list, making it impossible for the young man to fly to Alaska to take a summer job. It was only after Mohamud was blocked from taking the job in June of this year that the FBI -- which had been monitoring him since 2009 -- made contact with the suspect.

Later in June, aware of Mr. Mohamud¡¯s frustrated attempts to receive training as a jihadist overseas, an undercover agent first made contact with him, posing as an associate of the man in Pakistan. On the morning of July 30, the F.B.I. first met with Mr. Mohamud in person to initiate the sting operation.
The revelation adds fuel to the fire of critics who argue the FBI's sting operation manufactured -- rather than stopped -- a domestic terrorist


FBI stopped Portland bomb suspect from taking job before sting | The Raw Story

Click to expand...

The FBI blocked Mohamud the chance of making a living, led him to the wrong way. Then gave him a bomb. If they gave him a real bomb, then we would have seen another OKC bombing or 911 attack. This time they gave him a fake one to show FBI is at working. Or rather, to create a terror case. They got everything prepared, then gave him a phone button to push at. That’s the story.

Hound lost value to exist when the fox extinguished. To justify its value to exist, modern hound cultivate fox.

katsung47 said:

The FBI blocked Mohamud the chance of making a living, led him to the wrong way. Then gave him a bomb. If they gave him a real bomb, then we would have seen another OKC bombing or 911 attack. This time they gave him a fake one to show FBI is at working. Or rather, to create a terror case. They got everything prepared, then gave him a phone button to push at. That’s the story.

Hound lost value to exist when the fox extinguished. To justify its value to exist, modern hound cultivate fox.

Click to expand...

They didn't block him from getting a job. They blocked him from getting on an airplane. He could have taken a bus. He could have driven himself. He could have gotten a ride from a friend or family member. The reality here is that he was on a watch list for a reason. If the simple act of losing a job is all it took for him to go all Jihad on us, then it wasn't entrapment. Let's not forget, he pushed a button that he thought would kill people. He wasn't tricked. He knew what it would do. He chose to do it. He will lose his case.

Entrapment has been the defense in every recent FBI terrorism bust. What else are you going to say?

A lawyer says his client shouldn't go to jail.

Only see that in.... well, every case in every court in history.

ksu_aviator said:

They didn't block him from getting a job. They blocked him from getting on an airplane. He could have taken a bus. He could have driven himself. He could have gotten a ride from a friend or family member. The reality here is that he was on a watch list for a reason. If the simple act of losing a job is all it took for him to go all Jihad on us, then it wasn't entrapment. Let's not forget, he pushed a button that he thought would kill people. He wasn't tricked. He knew what it would do. He chose to do it. He will lose his case.

Click to expand...

What a defense. If he did as you suggested, then he would be blocked from taking a bus, blocked to drive..... Otherwise, there was no meaning that FBI blocking him getting on an airplane. I have a question. If school teacher train students to do terrorist work, what will you do to the teacher? He will be sued. That's what FBI had done in those sting case. And you blame the kid who following the instruction. Why didn't you teach him something good to lead him to a right way?

Shocked I say, completely shocked to discover that the US government would deceive or entrap in any way!

katsung47 said:

What a defense. If he did as you suggested, then he would be blocked from taking a bus, blocked to drive..... Otherwise, there was no meaning that FBI blocking him getting on an airplane. I have a question. If school teacher train students to do terrorist work, what will you do to the teacher? He will be sued. That's what FBI had done in those sting case. And you blame the kid who following the instruction. Why didn't you teach him something good to lead him to a right way?

Click to expand...

Yes I do. Because if the FBI tried to train me (or any sane person) to kill innocent people I WOULD NOT DO IT! NO BODY WOULD!

Read this:

Manufacturing Terrorists

Inside the FBI's terror sting operations.

Michael German | January 15, 2013

In addition to providing leniency, if not forgiveness, for heinous crimes, the FBI pays these informants tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, creating a perverse incentive for them to ensnare dupes into terror plots. Aaronson quotes an FBI official defending this practice: "To catch the devil you have to go to hell."

Such an analysis might make sense when police leverage one criminal to gain information about more serious criminal conspiracies—in other words, to catch a real "devil." But Aaronson's research reveals that the targets in most of these sting operations clearly pose little real threat. They may have a history of angry anti-government rhetoric, but they take no steps toward terrorist acts until they receive encouragement and resources from government agents.

Aaronson takes pains to avoid portraying those caught in the stings as completely innocent of malice. But he demonstrates that they almost universally lack violent criminal histories or connections to real terrorist groups. Most importantly, while they may have talked about committing violent acts, they rarely had weapons of their own and lacked the financial means to acquire them. Yet the government provides them with military hardware that would cost thousands of dollars and would be extremely difficult for even sophisticated criminal organizations to obtain, only to bust them in a staged finale.

Manufacturing Terrorists - Reason.com

So the FBI duped some moron and get to claim they "prevented a terrorist attack" to justify un-Constitutional warrantless wiretapping of any American citizen, and the ability to kill anyone abroad (even legal American citizens) with unmanned drone strikes.

9/11 brought a paradigm shift to this country that is disastrous for our freedoms.

Speak up people.

StringBean said:

So the FBI duped some moron and get to claim they "prevented a terrorist attack" to justify un-Constitutional warrantless wiretapping of any American citizen, and the ability to kill anyone abroad (even legal American citizens) with unmanned drone strikes.

9/11 brought a paradigm shift to this country that is disastrous for our freedoms.

Speak up people.

Click to expand...

This is no different than the "war on drugs". It is just as easy to "find" illegal drugs and then get paperwork to show "probable cause" for that find. The "war on terror" is modeled after those same principles, guilt presumed by association. The scarier the crime the more lenient that the law eneforcement to deal it is made. The big problem now with gang/drug crime, the lack of witnesses, is what is behind "gun control". Once you make the thing (gun or drug) into the crime then witnesses are no longer needed - simply find the bad thing and lock up the "criminal" for having it, inventing "probabale cause" excuses is simply a formality then.