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 planned attacks"
on a synagogue and military targets at a National Guard base. But the 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 government's conduct."
It was Youssef, an informant that pretended to be from a fake religious
council, who asked Mohamud "what he would do for the cause." Mohamud told
him "anything." Youssef then suggested "five ways to be a good Muslim."
Under the guise of guidance, he said Mohamud could pray five times a 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 "attack."
The FBI contacted Mohamud after he struggled to contact terrorists he 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 'predisposed.'"
"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."
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 planned attacks"
on a synagogue and military targets at a National Guard base. But the 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 government's conduct."
It was Youssef, an informant that pretended to be from a fake religious
council, who asked Mohamud "what he would do for the cause." Mohamud told
him "anything." Youssef then suggested "five ways to be a good Muslim."
Under the guise of guidance, he said Mohamud could pray five times a 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 "attack."
The FBI contacted Mohamud after he struggled to contact terrorists he 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 'predisposed.'"
"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
