Thanks Miriam,
This weekend Cathy and I will sit down with our new refurbished lap
top computers and see if we can make them sit up and beg. One thing
I'm hoping to do is to once again download and transfer books from
BARD to my cartridges. If and when this is finally accomplished, I'll
add this book to my reading list.
Right now we are swamped with new referrals. And tonight we are
promised about 4 inches of snow. And to add to the fun, one of our
grandsons and his wife are coming to spend a week with us. We have
finally recovered from the long Thanksgiving weekend, but the guest
room is where we dumped all the stuff we didn't want to deal with.
Now we'll need to get busy and straightened it up.
And worst of all, I'm still trying to come up with that special gift
for Cathy.
But that happens every year.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/8/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hey Carl,
There's a new book on BARD called, The Hours Count. I read it from
Bookshare
when it first came out. It is fiction, the story of a fictional friend of
Ethel Rosenberg. The story is set in lower Manhattan where the Rosenbergs
lived in the 40's when they are arrested, It's not about the case
specifically, but it certainly involves the FBI and the left wing
gatherings
in New York. It's a good story that you and Cathy might enjoy reading.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 10:47 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: FBI Policy of Manufacturing Terrorism Plots
Reaffirmed by Appeals Court
The Federal Bureau of Intimidation(FBI), serves its master well. Way back
in my dad's youth, the "Intimidators" infiltrated labor unions and
socialist
organizations, causing mischief and mistrust among members, and advocating
violence as a tool to bring in the bully boys and National Guard. In my
day, it was the aim of the Intimidators to ferret out Pinkos and Commies
from under every bush and rock in every corner of America. And where did
they find these unamericans? They discovered them in labor unions, social
movements, social minded churches, PTA's, and Hollywood. Hollywood.
Remember how our FBI discovered the huge number of Commie Jews who were
busy
twisting the minds of stupid...oops, that should be, minds of innocent
citizens?
And today the Federal Bureau of Intimidation(FBI) is busy protecting us
from
"Illegals" and Muslim Terrorists(anyone with a brown skin and an Eastern
Accent), and enemies of Israel, and pot smoking youths wearing funny hair
and clothes, and labor unions...if any can be found, and of course
Hollywood
and the PTA. I forgot the infiltration of such organizations as Planned
Parenthood and Teachers Unions, and Federal Unions and of course the worst
of the worse, Whistle Blowers.
God Bless the FBI!
Carl Jarvis
On 12/7/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
planned attacks"
Gosztola writes: "The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling
that provides further support for the FBI and its policy of inducing
individuals, typically Muslims, to plot acts of terrorism. The appeals
court additionally backed the outcome of the notorious FBI sting
operation against the Newburgh Four."
FBI agents. (photo: Joshua Lott/Getty Images)
FBI Policy of Manufacturing Terrorism Plots Reaffirmed by Appeals
Court By Kevin Gosztola, Shadowproof
06 December 16
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that provides
further support for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and its
policy of inducing individuals, typically Muslims, to plot acts of
terrorism. The appeals court additionally backed the outcome of the
notorious FBI sting operation against the Newburgh Four.
Mohamed Mohamud is a young Somali American man who was convicted of
attempting to bomb a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland,
Oregon, after he was targeted in an FBI sting operation. He is
currently serving a 30-year prison sentence.
His defense appealed a district court decision that affirmed his
conviction.
They challenged the fact that Mohamud's "defense of entrapment" was
rejected. They also challenged a district court's decision not to
suppress information collected through surveillance under section 702
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
At trial, as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals notes [PDF], Mohamud's
defense maintained a "teenager with no criminal record had neither the
means nor the intent to commit domestic terrorism" until he became
involved with an undercover FBI contractor, who went by the name of
Bill Smith, and FBI agents, who went by the names of Youssef and
Hussein. However, the government contended Mohamud's actions before he
was targeted by the FBI, such as articles he wrote for "Jihad
Recollections," indicated his "readiness to commit such a horrific act
of violence" and proved he was "predisposed" to commit a crime.
James Cromitie, one of the Newburgh Four convicted of domestic
terrorism offenses and sentenced to 25 years in prison, claimed the
government persuaded him to engage in the plot and violated his due
process. But the Second Circuit determined there were no violations of
his rights, even if the government "invented all the details of the
scheme" because Cromitie had expressed desire to "do something to
America" and "die like a martyr."
The Second Circuit additionally concluded government agents were
permitted to target a person's religious affiliation in order to
"probe the attitudes"
of an individual who may want to "do something to America." They are
allowed to "learn whether his religious views have impelled him toward
the violent brand of radical Islam that poses a dire threat to the
United States."
In Cromitie's case, his defense argued the government informant
exploited a relationship to "manipulate Cromitie into agreeing to the
on a synagogue and military targets at a National Guard base. But thegovernment's conduct."
Ninth Circuit believes the "illusory cultivation of emotional
intimacy" is allowed. Even though the government informant offered
Cromitie, a poor black man, $250,000 in cash, a barbershop valued at
$70,000, a new BMW, as well as a two-week vacation, this was not
deemed an entrapment scheme that violated his due process.
At sentencing, Judge Colleen McMahon declared, "The essence of what
occurred here is that a government, understandably zealous to protect
its citizens from terrorism, came upon a man both bigoted and
suggestible, one who was incapable of committing an act of terrorism
on his own.I suspect that real terrorists would not have bothered
themselves with a person who was so utterly inept.Only the government
could have made a terrorist out of Mr.
Cromitie, whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in scope."
Nevertheless, this case is part of a body of law that permits
government agents and their informants to prey on vulnerable American
Muslims and engage in highly questionable acts.
When the defense learned the government collected information on
Mohamud under section 702 and did not notify the defense, the defense
moved to suppress the evidence and requested a new trial. The defense
insisted "evidence of additional surveillance" would have made it
possible for the defense to "impeach the government's narrative with
respect to the propriety of the investigation" into Mohamud.
According to defense attorneys, the government surveillance against
Mohamud made it possible for agents to "gain an incredibly intimate
understanding of Mohamed that was then used to tailor the sting
operation in a way that would maximize the likelihood that he would
carry through with the eventual plan.
Whether this inducement was through exploiting known vulnerabilities,
such as Mohamed's confusion about his religion and need for a
father-figure, or whether it was by mimicking language found in
earlier communications, any evidence of additional government
surveillance was necessary to allow the jury to fully assess the
It was Youssef, an informant that pretended to be from a fakegood Muslim."
religious council, who asked Mohamud "what he would do for the cause."
Mohamud told him "anything." Youssef then suggested "five ways to be a
Under the guise of guidance, he said Mohamud could pray five times a"attack."
day,"
"go to school to learn something that would help the brothers
overseas, such as engineering or medicine," "raise money for the
brothers," "become operational," or "become a martyr." Mohamud showed
interest in becoming "operational."
Although the Ninth Circuit recognizes "the undercover agents
frequently flattered and praised Mohamud for his good writing or
behavior" and Youssef pushed him to make a "goodbye video," it does
not think this conduct against a 19 year-old college student was
enough to constitute entrapment.
Remarkably, the court concludes:
Many young people think and say alarming things that they later
disavow, and we will never know if Mohamud-a young man with
promise-would have carried out a mass attack absent the FBI's
involvement. But some "promising" young people-Charles Whitman,
Timothy McVeigh, and James Holmes, to name a few from a tragically
long list-take the next step, leading to horrific consequences. While
technology makes it easier to capture the thoughts of these
individuals, it also makes it easier for them to commit terrible
crimes. Here, the evidence supported the jury's verdict, and the
government's surveillance, investigation, and prosecution of Mohamud
were consistent with constitutional and statutory requirements.
The fact that the Ninth Circuit selected three white mass murderers to
make this statement does not make it less alarming. The Ninth Circuit
is co-signing a dangerous concept of radicalization among law
enforcement, which is that the adoption of radical beliefs is some
kind of first step toward committing terrorism. This can significantly
infringe upon the First Amendment.
It was the FBI that transported Mohamud to Portland to commit the
The FBI contacted Mohamud after he struggled to contact terrorists he'predisposed.'"
was apparently trying to reach overseas.
In the study [PDF], "Inventing Terrorism: The Lawfare of Preemptive
Prosecution," attorneys Stephen Downs and Kathy Manley wrote,
"Ordinarily the law prohibits the government from entrapping innocent
citizens into crime, but the law provides an exception when the target is
"Although the term 'predisposed' usually describes someone who wasplanned attacks"
already involved in similar criminal activity, or where evidence shows
he or she was inclined to do so without any government inducement, in
preemptive prosecution cases the government has successfully claimed
that the term can mean that the target 'readily responded' to the
inducement and did not subsequently withdraw from the plot."
That is what the Ninth Circuit emphasized in this ruling.
"So far, this 'ready response' theory has been upheld by the courts,
and so in all practical respects the entrapment defense no longer exists.
Moreover,
it appears that based on Islamophobia and ignorance about Islam,
Muslims are often considered to be predisposed to terrorism simply due
to their religion, especially if they are religiously conservative."
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
FBI agents. (photo: Joshua Lott/Getty Images)
https://shadowproof.com/2016/12/05/fbi-policy-manufacturing-terrorism-
plots-
reaffirmed-appeals-court/https://shadowproof.com/2016/12/05/fbi-policy
-manuf acturing-terrorism-plots-reaffirmed-appeals-court/
FBI Policy of Manufacturing Terrorism Plots Reaffirmed by Appeals
Court By Kevin Gosztola, Shadowproof
06 December 16
he Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that provides
further support for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and its
policy of inducing individuals, typically Muslims, to plot acts of
terrorism. The appeals court additionally backed the outcome of the
notorious FBI sting operation against the Newburgh Four.
Mohamed Mohamud is a young Somali American man who was convicted of
attempting to bomb a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland,
Oregon, after he was targeted in an FBI sting operation. He is
currently serving a 30-year prison sentence.
His defense appealed a district court decision that affirmed his
conviction.
They challenged the fact that Mohamud's "defense of entrapment" was
rejected. They also challenged a district court's decision not to
suppress information collected through surveillance under section 702
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
At trial, as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals notes [PDF], Mohamud's
defense maintained a "teenager with no criminal record had neither the
means nor the intent to commit domestic terrorism" until he became
involved with an undercover FBI contractor, who went by the name of
Bill Smith, and FBI agents, who went by the names of Youssef and
Hussein. However, the government contended Mohamud's actions before he
was targeted by the FBI, such as articles he wrote for "Jihad
Recollections," indicated his "readiness to commit such a horrific act
of violence" and proved he was "predisposed" to commit a crime.
James Cromitie, one of the Newburgh Four convicted of domestic
terrorism offenses and sentenced to 25 years in prison, claimed the
government persuaded him to engage in the plot and violated his due
process. But the Second Circuit determined there were no violations of
his rights, even if the government "invented all the details of the
scheme" because Cromitie had expressed desire to "do something to
America" and "die like a martyr."
The Second Circuit additionally concluded government agents were
permitted to target a person's religious affiliation in order to
"probe the attitudes"
of an individual who may want to "do something to America." They are
allowed to "learn whether his religious views have impelled him toward
the violent brand of radical Islam that poses a dire threat to the
United States."
In Cromitie's case, his defense argued the government informant
exploited a relationship to "manipulate Cromitie into agreeing to the
on a synagogue and military targets at a National Guard base. But thegovernment's conduct."
Ninth Circuit believes the "illusory cultivation of emotional
intimacy" is allowed. Even though the government informant offered
Cromitie, a poor black man, $250,000 in cash, a barbershop valued at
$70,000, a new BMW, as well as a two-week vacation, this was not
deemed an entrapment scheme that violated his due process.
At sentencing, Judge Colleen McMahon declared, "The essence of what
occurred here is that a government, understandably zealous to protect
its citizens from terrorism, came upon a man both bigoted and
suggestible, one who was incapable of committing an act of terrorism
on his own.I suspect that real terrorists would not have bothered
themselves with a person who was so utterly inept.Only the government
could have made a terrorist out of Mr.
Cromitie, whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in scope."
Nevertheless, this case is part of a body of law that permits
government agents and their informants to prey on vulnerable American
Muslims and engage in highly questionable acts.
When the defense learned the government collected information on
Mohamud under section 702 and did not notify the defense, the defense
moved to suppress the evidence and requested a new trial. The defense
insisted "evidence of additional surveillance" would have made it
possible for the defense to "impeach the government's narrative with
respect to the propriety of the investigation" into Mohamud.
According to defense attorneys, the government surveillance against
Mohamud made it possible for agents to "gain an incredibly intimate
understanding of Mohamed that was then used to tailor the sting
operation in a way that would maximize the likelihood that he would
carry through with the eventual plan.
Whether this inducement was through exploiting known vulnerabilities,
such as Mohamed's confusion about his religion and need for a
father-figure, or whether it was by mimicking language found in
earlier communications, any evidence of additional government
surveillance was necessary to allow the jury to fully assess the
It was Youssef, an informant that pretended to be from a fakegood Muslim."
religious council, who asked Mohamud "what he would do for the cause."
Mohamud told him "anything." Youssef then suggested "five ways to be a
Under the guise of guidance, he said Mohamud could pray five times a"attack."
day,"
"go to school to learn something that would help the brothers
overseas, such as engineering or medicine," "raise money for the
brothers," "become operational," or "become a martyr." Mohamud showed
interest in becoming "operational."
Although the Ninth Circuit recognizes "the undercover agents
frequently flattered and praised Mohamud for his good writing or
behavior" and Youssef pushed him to make a "goodbye video," it does
not think this conduct against a 19 year-old college student was
enough to constitute entrapment.
Remarkably, the court concludes:
Many young people think and say alarming things that they later
disavow, and we will never know if Mohamud-a young man with
promise-would have carried out a mass attack absent the FBI's
involvement. But some "promising" young people-Charles Whitman,
Timothy McVeigh, and James Holmes, to name a few from a tragically
long list-take the next step, leading to horrific consequences. While
technology makes it easier to capture the thoughts of these
individuals, it also makes it easier for them to commit terrible
crimes. Here, the evidence supported the jury's verdict, and the
government's surveillance, investigation, and prosecution of Mohamud
were consistent with constitutional and statutory requirements.
The fact that the Ninth Circuit selected three white mass murderers to
make this statement does not make it less alarming. The Ninth Circuit
is co-signing a dangerous concept of radicalization among law
enforcement, which is that the adoption of radical beliefs is some
kind of first step toward committing terrorism. This can significantly
infringe upon the First Amendment.
It was the FBI that transported Mohamud to Portland to commit the
The FBI contacted Mohamud after he struggled to contact terrorists he'predisposed.'"
was apparently trying to reach overseas.
In the study [PDF], "Inventing Terrorism: The Lawfare of Preemptive
Prosecution," attorneys Stephen Downs and Kathy Manley wrote,
"Ordinarily the law prohibits the government from entrapping innocent
citizens into crime, but the law provides an exception when the target is
"Although the term 'predisposed' usually describes someone who was
already involved in similar criminal activity, or where evidence shows
he or she was inclined to do so without any government inducement, in
preemptive prosecution cases the government has successfully claimed
that the term can mean that the target 'readily responded' to the
inducement and did not subsequently withdraw from the plot."
That is what the Ninth Circuit emphasized in this ruling.
"So far, this 'ready response' theory has been upheld by the courts,
and so in all practical respects the entrapment defense no longer exists.
Moreover,
it appears that based on Islamophobia and ignorance about Islam,
Muslims are often considered to be predisposed to terrorism simply due
to their religion, especially if they are religiously conservative."
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
