• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Illinois man charged in plot to bomb federal office

bhkad

bhkad

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
10,742
Reaction score
1,753
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Illinois man charged in plot to bomb federal offices
Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:41pm EDT
(Updates with court hearing)

WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (Reuters) - An Illinois man was ordered held on Thursday on charges he tried to blow up a federal building in the state capital, a case unrelated to the New York terrorism plot.

Michael Finton, also known as Talib Islam, was arrested in Springfield, Illinois, and charged with attempted murder of federal officers or employees and trying to use a weapon of mass destruction, charges that carry a life sentence.

"Fortunately, a coordinated undercover law enforcement effort was able to thwart his efforts and ensure no one was harmed," David Kris, assistant Attorney General for National Security, said in a statement.

Finton was arrested on Wednesday in Springfield as he used a cell phone to try to detonate the bomb he believed was inside a van he had just parked outside the federal building.
Click to expand...

UPDATE 1-Illinois man charged in plot to bomb federal offices | Markets | Markets News | Reuters

YIKES!

He tried to detonate the fake explosives! This would have been another Oklahoma City style attack but by a converted Muslim.
 
This is another case of someone being led into plotting terrorist attacks by undercover law enforcement. It certainly walks down a dangerous path. While it is clear that this man was willing to commit an act of terrorism if given the means, that doesn't mean he would have been able to obtain said means on his own. Many people talk tough or wish terrible things, but don't actually follow through. In this case I believe the conviction should stand, but only by a paper-thing margin. Catching terrorists that you create isn't the best way to protect our citizens.
 
This man was obviously motivated by Glenn Beck and the 9/12 protests. There can be no other explaination.
 
rathi said:
This is another case of someone being led into plotting terrorist attacks by undercover law enforcement. It certainly walks down a dangerous path. While it is clear that this man was willing to commit an act of terrorism if given the means, that doesn't mean he would have been able to obtain said means on his own. Many people talk tough or wish terrible things, but don't actually follow through. In this case I believe the conviction should stand, but only by a paper-thing margin. Catching terrorists that you create isn't the best way to protect our citizens.
Click to expand...

That's kind of what I was thinking too. If the feds were involved from the beginning, this comes dangerously close to entrapment. I would expect his defense attorney to argue just that. However, in this particular case I would tend to agree that he should be convicted (assuming all the facts presented here are accurate), since he picked the target himself and was given many opportunities to walk away.
 
Similar thing happened yesterday here in Dallas.
 
rathi said:
This is another case of someone being led into plotting terrorist attacks by undercover law enforcement. It certainly walks down a dangerous path. While it is clear that this man was willing to commit an act of terrorism if given the means, that doesn't mean he would have been able to obtain said means on his own. Many people talk tough or wish terrible things, but don't actually follow through. In this case I believe the conviction should stand, but only by a paper-thing margin. Catching terrorists that you create isn't the best way to protect our citizens.
Click to expand...

The police no longer believe in entrapment.

But catching terrorists you create is a good way to keep people under thumb. Constantly release things about "plots" and other nasties so people forgive the government for wrong doings.
 
rathi said:
This is another case of someone being led into plotting terrorist attacks by undercover law enforcement. It certainly walks down a dangerous path. While it is clear that this man was willing to commit an act of terrorism if given the means, that doesn't mean he would have been able to obtain said means on his own. Many people talk tough or wish terrible things, but don't actually follow through. In this case I believe the conviction should stand, but only by a paper-thing margin. Catching terrorists that you create isn't the best way to protect our citizens.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, while gang members may talk tough, there is a huge emotional divide between talking tough and carrying a weapon/planning to shoot someone. Do you disagree?

The vast, overwhelming majority of human beings, if faced with the choice to bomb an office building, would not do it. The fact that this person was willing to be lead there, and didn't turn away from it, is very telling.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
The vast, overwhelming majority of human beings, if faced with the choice to bomb an office building, would not do it. The fact that this person was willing to be lead there, and didn't turn away from it, is very telling.
Click to expand...

I may be inclined towards buying a prostitute. It doesn't mean the cops can dress up as a prostitute, persuade me into paying them, and then arrest me. Though, that sorta sounds like something that's up their sleeve. The point being, we all may have something in which we could be convinced on way or another to do something illegal. It doesn't mean it's rightful for the cops to be that voice of convincing and then arrest you when you've done what they told you.
 
Ikari said:
I may be inclined towards buying a prostitute. It doesn't mean the cops can dress up as a prostitute, persuade me into paying them, and then arrest me.
Click to expand...

They can dress up a prostitute, and arrest you when you solicit sexual acts from her.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
They can dress up a prostitute, and arrest you when you solicit sexual acts from her.
Click to expand...

Well I did say they would do the convincing, i.e. not wait for solicitation but engage in active "selling". But it wouldn't make a difference, I'm sure the cops do it all the time regardless.

As I said, the government doesn't believe in entrapment anymore. But it's not rightful act of just government to entrap people.
 
bhkad said:
Illinois man charged in plot to bomb federal offices
Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:41pm EDT
(Updates with court hearing)



UPDATE 1-Illinois man charged in plot to bomb federal offices | Markets | Markets News | Reuters

YIKES!

He tried to detonate the fake explosives! This would have been another Oklahoma City style attack but by a converted Muslim.
Click to expand...


I think the man is a idiot. He basically trusted someone on the internet whom he just practically met on the internet to help him commit a terrorist act and buy explosives from.
 
Ikari said:
But it's not rightful act of just government to entrap people.
Click to expand...

You can't entrap someone in a terror plot who doesn't strongly WANT to engage in acts of terror. Just like you can't entrap someone in a prostitution sting that doesn't want to engage the services of a hooker.

This one statement says it all:

Finton was arrested on Wednesday in Springfield as he used a cell phone to try to detonate the bomb he believed was inside a van he had just parked outside the federal building.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but thinking that you're detonating a bomb goes rather beyond "entrapment."
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
You can't entrap someone in a terror plot who doesn't strongly WANT to engage in acts of terror. Just like you can't entrap someone in a prostitution sting that doesn't want to engage the services of a hooker.This one statement says it all:



I'm sorry, but thinking that you're detonating a bomb goes rather beyond "entrapment."
Click to expand...

I think the two are completely separate, no law enforcement agents lead the John to go looking for a prostitute, nor did law enforcement agents tell the john where the prostitute is, nor did the law enforcement agents suggest to the john that he needs to get laid and get a prostitute. If I read the story right the undercover law enforcement basically went to him and helped him plot out an attack. For all we know he would be just another crazy on the internet spewing leftist drivel how Zionist Jews are doing this or doing that if he was never approached.


UPDATE 1-Illinois man charged in plot to bomb federal offices | Markets | Markets News | Reuters
"After returning from a trip to Saudi Arabia in 2008, Finton told an individual, who turned out to be a law enforcement source, that he wanted to fight against Israelis in the Gaza Strip, according to the complaint.

In early 2009, "it appeared that Finton was on the verge of taking action, so it was decided to proactively provide him with an opportunity for action that we controlled, rather than merely hoping to be able to find out and stop him," according to a government affidavit.

He was introduced to an undercover FBI agent who began working with him to plot an attack, but Finton was repeatedly told he could walk away at any time, according to the Justice Department."
 
Last edited:
rathi said:
This is another case of someone being led into plotting terrorist attacks by undercover law enforcement. It certainly walks down a dangerous path. While it is clear that this man was willing to commit an act of terrorism if given the means, that doesn't mean he would have been able to obtain said means on his own. Many people talk tough or wish terrible things, but don't actually follow through. In this case I believe the conviction should stand, but only by a paper-thing margin. Catching terrorists that you create isn't the best way to protect our citizens.
Click to expand...

He tried to set off the fake explosives.
 
bhkad said:
He tried to set off the fake explosives.
Click to expand...

While i agree that the act of trying to set off fake explosives is the obvious kicker, does he deserve the max sentence in this case?

As pointed out previously by multiple posters, the Feds are going to have to prove (with surveillance proof of ALL encounters with this guy) that he was actually attempting to find "like thinking" individuals, or was attempting to form an underground extremest group.

The Fed's simply cannot dress up like highly connected criminals, and attempt to recruit the likes of some discerned individuals under a false dilemma. The sheer act of pretending to be a connected crime figure (or something of the mold) only distorts the actions of the people under investigation. Yes, the guy was no doubt "willing" to push the button, but without the fake help, would he have?

So my question is, why not try to stop the real illegal arms/materials/explosives smugglers instead of dressing up like them? And if this is a case of penetrating such a ring of criminals, why blow the cover?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
While i agree that the act of trying to set off fake explosives is the obvious kicker, does he deserve the max sentence in this case?
Click to expand...

Do you know what he will be convicted of and what the max sentence is?
 
"trying to use a weapon of mass destruction, charges that carry a life sentence."
Click to expand...

Yes, but was he coerced into believing he could be successful, and should do this? If the answer is yes, then does he deserve the life sentence?

With this charge in mind, did he in fact try to use a real weapon, or a fake weapon of mass destruction?
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
Yes, but was he coerced into believing he could be successful, and should do this? If the answer is yes, then does he deserve the life sentence?

With this charge in mind, did he in fact try to use a real weapon, or a fake weapon of mass destruction?
Click to expand...

Thanks for bringing this to my distracted attention. If left to his own devices the perp WOULD have detonated a REAL WMD.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
You can't entrap someone in a terror plot who doesn't strongly WANT to engage in acts of terror. Just like you can't entrap someone in a prostitution sting that doesn't want to engage the services of a hooker.

This one statement says it all:



I'm sorry, but thinking that you're detonating a bomb goes rather beyond "entrapment."
Click to expand...

You most certainly can be entrapped. Who's to say he'd go through with any of this if it wasn't for the convincing and provided "materials" by the government. It's the same as prostitution. Maybe I'm not going to buy (or is it rent?) a prostitute. But a cop comes up to me dressed as one and pushes the case till I think it's an ok idea. That's entrapment. I think we must be wary with what we do and allow from the government in terms of finding terrorists (or criminals in general).
 
Ikari said:
But a cop comes up to me dressed as one and pushes the case till I think it's an ok idea.
Click to expand...

What would a cop have to say to give you the idea that it's a good plan to pay for a blow job? I'd like a synopsis.
 
bhkad said:
Thanks for bringing this to my distracted attention. If left to his own devices the perp WOULD have detonated a REAL WMD.
Click to expand...

But would he have??? We can only speculate, and therefore it becomes more of a gray area.

There is a significant difference between blowing up a building and to. I am curious as to what RNYC has to say in regards to the case.

However, whether or not this guy would have been able to locate such materials/explosives brings up a critical point; had this been a sting operation, with an attempt to infiltrate a true terrorist organization, why has it been exposed at such an early stage?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
What would a cop have to say to give you the idea that it's a good plan to pay for a blow job? I'd like a synopsis.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, maybe I'd be drunk and horny at the time headed home. Minding my own business, not really looking for a lady of the night. When one comes up and starts talking all sorts of things. Until such point that I think "what the hell, I mean, I was going to go home and play some Halo 3 ODST but maybe I'll get gamer points for this too". Point is, the cops provide the criminal act for the purpose of getting me to commit a criminal act; which is entrapment.
 
A Republican Congressman's office in Illinois was a secondary target of this bomber, according to an article I just read. The Congressman is Aaron Schock, the youngest Congressman currently serving (also one of the people I listed in the thread asking which members from the 'other side of the aisle' do you respect?) I wonder why this guy would be targeted?


Rep. Aaron Schock's office was terror target - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com
 
jackalope said:
A Republican Congressman's office in Illinois was a secondary target of this bomber, according to an article I just read. The Congressman is Aaron Schock, the youngest Congressman currently serving (also one of the people I listed in the thread asking which members from the 'other side of the aisle' do you respect?) I wonder why this guy would be targeted?


Rep. Aaron Schock's office was terror target - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...

He was the nearest Republican Congressman?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom