WASHINGTON — The arrest on Friday of a Somali-born teenager who is accused of trying to detonate a car bomb at a crowded Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Ore., has again thrown a spotlight on the government’s use of sting operations to capture terrorism suspects.
Some defense lawyers and civil rights advocates said the government’s tactics, particularly since the Sept. 11 attacks, have raised questions about the possible entrapment of people who pose no real danger but are enticed into pretend plots at the government’s urging.
But law enforcement officials said on Monday that agents and prosecutors had carefully planned the tactics used in the undercover operation that led to the arrest of the Somali-born teenager, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, a naturalized United States citizen. They said that Mr. Mohamud was given several opportunities to vent his anger in ways that would not be deadly, but that he refused each time.
“I am confident that there is no entrapment here, and no entrapment claim will be found to be successful,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Monday. “There were, as I said, a number of opportunities that the subject in this matter, the defendant in this matter, was given to retreat, to take a different path. He chose at every step to continue.”
Mr. Holder called the sting operation, in which Mr. Mohamud was under the scrutiny of federal agents for nearly six months, “part of a forward-leaning way in which the Justice Department, the F.B.I., our law enforcement partners at the state and local level are trying to find people who are bound and determined to harm Americans and American interests around the world.”
A study this year by the Center on Law and Security at New York University, which tracks terrorism cases, found that of 156 prosecutions in what it identified as the most significant 50 cases since 2001, informers were relied on in 97 of them, or 62 percent. The entrapment defense has often been raised, but as of September, it had never been successful in producing an acquittal in a post-Sept. 11 terrorism trial, the study found.
The Portland case resembles several others in which American residents, inspired by militant Web sites, have tried to carry out attacks in the name of the militant Islamic movement only to be captured in a sting operation, with undercover F.B.I. agents or informers playing the role of terrorists and, as in this case, supplying a fake bomb.
In September 2009, Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, a 19-year old Jordanian citizen, was arrested and charged with placing a fake bomb at a Dallas skyscraper. In October, Farooque Ahmed, a 34-year-old naturalized American citizen born in Pakistan, was arrested and charged with plotting to bomb the Washington Metro after meeting with undercover agents and discussing his plans and surveillance activities, the authorities said.
Some Muslim leaders in Oregon questioned how the sting operation there was carried out.
Imtiaz Khan, the president of the Islamic Center of Portland and Masjed As-Saber, a mosque where Mr. Mohamud worshiped, said several people at the mosque had questioned why law enforcement helped orchestrate such an elaborate plan for a terrorist act.
“They’re saying, ‘Why allow it to get to this public stunt? To put the community on edge?’ ” Mr. Khan said.
Mr. Khan said he and other Muslim leaders met regularly with the F.B.I. and other federal officials. In May, he was among a group of Muslim leaders in the Portland area who issued a statement condemning an attempted bombing in Times Square and thanking law enforcement for its “outstanding work” in the case.
Jesse Day, a spokesman for the mosque and Islamic center, said the circumstances of Mr. Mohamud’s arrest had stirred “some distrust, a little bit, in the tactics” of law enforcement.
The government’s 36-page affidavit filed in the Oregon case lays out a crucial conversation between Mr. Mohamud and an F.B.I. informer at their first meeting, on July 30, 2010. According to the affidavit, the informer suggested five ways that Mr. Mohamud could help the cause of Islam, some of which were peaceful, like proselytizing, and some of which were violent and illegal.
Mr. Mohamud, the affidavit said, immediately picked a violent crime: becoming “operational,” by which he said he meant putting together a car bomb. The informer then offered to put Mr. Mohamud in touch with an explosives expert, setting off the chain of events that led to his eventual arrest.
Defense lawyers may have an opportunity to challenge the government’s account of that conversation. According to the affidavit, while most of the conversations between the informer and Mr. Mohamud were recorded, that one was not “due to technical problems.”
Still, in subsequent recorded conversations, the affidavit said, Mr. Mohamud picked the target, said he had wanted to commit such an attack for several years, and repeatedly demurred when told he could walk away if he did not have it “in his heart” to go through with it.
The question of how far the police may go in inducing the subject of an investigation to commit a crime turns on whether the facts show that the defendant was already predisposed to carry out a crime should the occasion arise.
Daniel C. Richman, a Columbia University professor of criminal law and former federal prosecutor, said it was largely up to juries to decide whether to accept a defense of entrapment, which in practice is often hard to win. “These are jury questions that by and large go against the defendant, although every case is different,” Mr. Richman said.
The Justice Department also has rules on how far investigators may go in facilitating a subject’s criminal activity. The F.B.I.’s domestic operations guide, which was overhauled in 2008, notes that courts have found it to be “legally objectionable” when government agents lead a political or religious group “into criminal activity that otherwise probably would not have occurred.”
The guide also has a long section of rules on what undercover agents and confidential informers can and cannot do, but it is almost entirely redacted from a publicly released version of the document.
F.B.I. officials have said the bureau requires legal reviews and higher-level approval of activities involving undercover agents and confidential informers to avoid putting convictions at risk with entrapment accusations. But they have made clear that once someone voices an intent to commit a violent act, undercover agents and informers are allowed to respond by offering to help the subject of the investigation obtain weapons.
“It doesn’t matter whether it’s a would-be terrorist who has expressed his desire to launch an attack, or a would-be drug dealer who has indicated an interest in moving a kilo of crack cocaine,” said Kenneth L. Wainstein, a former assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s national security division. “So long as that person has expressed an interest in committing a crime, it’s appropriate for the government to respond by providing the purported means of carrying out that crime so as to make a criminal case against him.”
William Yardley contributed reporting from Portland, Ore., and Scott Shane from Washington.
Carl Davidson said
This is sad, but instructive.
When you reach my age, when a supposed male peer runs a choice by you between a) the ‘wimpy social-pacifist’ option or b) the ‘real man revolutionary material damage to the enemy” option, I have enough experience to laugh out loud, and say ‘thanks, but no thanks. And what did you say your name and address was? And who told you how to get in touch with me?’
Hopefully, we’ll develop a more rational culture among revolutionary youth so that this ploy is minimalized. But I fully expect to see it again.
Mike E said
Carl writes:
It is not so simple, and it is not so reducible to your apparent equation of argument that non-militancy with common sense, and militancy with infantile male hormones.
Your spearhead is pointed at young radicals, not at the actually existing police tactics. The problem here is not militancy, the solution is not warily rejecting militancy.
We are discussing something quite different. And to be clear: the police entrapment going on has not only involved encouraging acts of violence.
A series of the recent police activities around solidarity efforts have revolved around encouraging people to provide “material support” for revolutionary groups (who are unjustly included on the U.S. government terrorist lists).
These have included suggestions of channeling money from university speaking engagements or creating a project for gathering laptops (!) for revolutionary groups.
In other words, the government has used “material support” language to criminalize activities that do not (on the surface) look like some terrorist act (or the “material damage” you refer to).
The danger of this attempted police entrapment has not been so immediately obvious — including to people who would certainly suspect (and reject) any crude suggestions of “terror plots.”
Again, I urge people to read closely on these Federal expansions of their “material support” concept. Here is a second piece.
Carl Davidson said
I agree that my comment was over simplified. Whether it worker or not, it was for the sake of brevity.
But in educating around this, we have to aim our efforts at the militants over the police. We can have some effect on them; very little on the other, if any at all.
And I agree with you also on the government’s unjust expansion of ‘material support,’ which is an outrageous attempt to attack and divide the entire peace and solidarity movement. My use of ‘material damage’ wasn’t connected to this; it simply recalled old arguments with the WUO people, and a few anarchist youth I had argued with who picked up on them in more recent times.
In any case, I think militancy involves the artful combination of audacity with knowing how to fight ‘on just grounds, to our advantage and with restraint.’ There’s a lot more to it than breaking windows or lighting garage cans.
jfsp said
The tatics of the government have not changed, remember John DeLorean?
Mike E said
Carl writes:
JFSP writes:
We are not living in the past. We are not facing some big debate on the left over Weatherman strategies.
And, the fact is, that this government (especially since 911) has invented new laws, new standards, and new tactics — and we had better become savy about this new terrain.
We are not facing your daddy’s COINTELPRO.
Two points:
First, we obviously are aiming our discussion at activists — who need to sharply study the current police tactics — which are now expanding from their previous focus on Islamic jihadists to secular, progressive, internationalist leftists.
My argument is that you seemed to asserting an approach that would blanketly demonize (i.e. make suspect) anyone who may advocate militant tactics. I am against the implication that we should automatically treat supporters of militant street tactics as if they should be (blanketly or automatically) suspect of serving police entrapment.
Second, I can’t help but notice that suddenly you think we can have very little impact on bourgeois politics (like police tactics). I thought your guys are in power? I thought you were an advocate of pressure on the authorities, and a believer in the efficacy of such inside pressure on your “friends in high places.”
Why now suddenly, on this issue, are the police suddenly beyond pressure, and the authorities (like Eric Holder and Obama) beyond being forced to back down?
On the contrary: I think we should both educate ourselves (i.e. the militants and internationalists) in current police entrapment tactics, and also demand (of the state and those holding power) that they stop these outrageous provocateur actions — and also that they stop the bogus raids, that they stop the wiretaps, that they stop listing revolutionaries like the Nepali Maoists as so-called “terrorists” (which they obviously are not).
To be clear: I think that it is wrong to adopt a strategy of incremental reform — since the core problems of capitalism will not be abolished that way (imho).
And I think it is wrong to subordinate the popular resistance movements to as strategy of institutional pressure within the Democratic Party, and within the oppressor’s political arena.
But I also think there are specific demands we make which we should (and do!) intend to win. When we say Free Mumia — this is a reform we want to win. When we say “Stop The Grand Jury Persecution of International Solidarity and antiwar activists” this is a demand (a concession, a specific reform) that can potentially be accomplished (in specific cases), and that we should fight with the intention of winning.
louisproyect said
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/dossier-on-fbi-entrapment-in-war-on-terror/
[moderator note: Thanks Louis, we will post this separately here on kasama]
Carl Davidson said
MikeE says:
I’m against demonizing militants. But I’m also against a liberal not countering foolishness when it arises among them. We, meaning we older veterans, owe them a straightforward exchange of views, neither putting ours heads above them nor theirs above ours. And the vast majority of those engaging in ‘street tactics,’ whether wisely or unwisely, have nothing in common with the police.
Then:
Nobody is beyond pressure. But in order to bring pressure, you have to have something to bring pressure WITH–a network of organized voters, an alliance of disciplined and united trade unions, or community and youth groups who can fill buses and the streets, or even writers who can get into the mass media regularly. I think you know we have very little of this, especially any that can reach into the upper ranks of power. I’ve been preaching that one of our main tasks is to build these kinds of organizations, as well as revolutionary organizations, for some time now. It’s one of the main reasons we engaged in some electoral work in the first place.
But in any case, you’re right, we should press demands even if we have little influence. CCDS wrote up its solidarity statement on the FBI raids and made the same demands as those under fire. We urged others, like Pete Seeger and Angela Davis, to speak out independently, which they did. But I have no illusions about the relation of forces here. After the defeats and reverses it faced from getting off to a bad start, Team Obama is in the firm grip of finance capital, from the Blue Dogs to the DLC to the GOP and rightward. There won’t likely be any attention paid to the progressive side of politics without a huge outburst of fierce class struggle in the streets.
It’s building up–prepare for it, but don’t hold your breath. It may take a while.
Mike E said
Carl writes:
Yes, exactly, the vast majority of those you disagree with have nothing in common with the police.
So why are you inserting your intra-left tactical differences in a discussion of police entrapment?
It is inappropriate. And overshadows the dangers that activists actually face: which is the criminalizing of international solidarity using the very-fluid category of “material support” — and then using that “moving legal goalposts” for this outrageous new police entrapment and raids (aimed at the left).
carldavidson said
Mike asks:
Because police entrapment, in order to work, requires a certain naive mindset about tactical options on the part of the trapee. You started this off with the situation of the Somali-American kid in Portland. His entrapment is quite different than what you are now talking about, with international solidarity workers raising funds, taking trips, and so on. One is old as the hills, the other is new, I’d agree, and we have to deal with both of them.
But unless I’m missing something, I don’t see any problem here between us, at least on how the matter has been framed.
jfsp said
@Mike, what I was trying to say is that they have not changed their tactics but technology and laws have advanced but the aim is the same. Enemies of the state will be entrapped and attempted to silence and discredit. It is a continuous process of learning from their tactics and adapting. The States aim is always to stifle but it is up to the dissenters to adapt to the changing rules of engagement.
chicanofuturet said
The ruling class and it’s national security state-
They ain’t fucking around!
I’m not a big Michael Moore fan by a long shot.But I have to give him credit for showing in a very popular manner the dangerous and destructive face of the national security state..specifically post-911 Patriot Acts and other draconian laws which serve to widen and extend repression through harassment,intimidation and imprisonment.
In his documentary Farenheit 911 Moore presented actual cases of FBI intimidation-
cookie baking grannies,weight lifters,sewing and social groups,book stores and other people-just “regular folks” who dared to question imperialist war and authority- do their own research.
This type of popularization educated many of the basic people.It brought to the screen burning questions of repression by the state,brought it directly to their own doorsteps-into their lives.Farenheit 911,far from perfect in the way communists imagine nevertheless in it’s limited way educated the people in greater numbers than the revolutionary left has been able to do for a long,long time.
This should be a lesson for us..
Recently,I have taken notice of something relatively new-a qualitative expansion/enforcement of the national security state against wider segments of the people.
Historically,most vicious-violent law enforcement has been carried out primarily on people of color.Beatings,arrests,humiliation,imprisonment,assassinations are things we people of color have known all too well.Such things being part of our lives and of our history.We live with these things every day.
I have observed the national security state broadening their attacks to include greater numbers of white workers and even middle class types…men and women..young and old…worker and professional.
Police meting out insane humiliating sadistic beatings-injuring –killing people over routine traffic and other violations.
The police have taken to savagely intimidating,terrorizing white drivers and others in much the same fashion as they have historically drivers and people of color.We see the police beating,injuring,killing anyone of any age..older men and women,teens…workers and professionals.The state attempting to beat the people into submission.To break their resistance.
I think this is by design,
The ruling class senses a loss of power and control over the working class,over increasingly large numbers of white people.They sense their loss of political-social credibility and authority ..being questioned and doubted.Combine this with imperialist wars and other world events,the objective obstacles it faces with global rivalry-fierce international competition.
We see the state gradually removing the “velvet glove” exposing within it’s “iron fist” to the working class.The ruling class is in trouble and has deepened it’s policy of “cracking down”..”restoring law and order”.Like I said above..
”They ain’t fucking around”.
Needless to say,the ruling class-it’s national security forces have a million and one ways to fuck with us.They in a destructive sense are very creative this way.They have at their disposal an almost endless pool of resources from which to draw.I leave it to your imagination to figure out the many ways they go about doing this.
No doubt,in time,the ruling class will “go after” the leadership of popular resistance (especially the revolutionary left and people of color).
I am sure many leaders of the revolutionary left are resigned to the fact that there exists a very real possibility that in the course of the revolution many will be either imprisoned or assassinated by the national security state….
“dare to struggle,dare to win”…This is the choice we have made..
Broaden and deepen popular resistance in an inclusive manner to oppose the ruling class and it’s criminal national security apparatus and policies of war and imperialism.
This requirement must be recognized and addressed by the left in order to meet the challenge of resisting opposing the brutal tactics of a state which aims to instill fear and intimidation into the hearts of the working class,break their will,pound them into submission and acceptance of their rule.
“The house is starting to burn down”
We see the left(revolutionary left too) continuing in it’s old ways remaining divided and scattered-arguing and fighting over questions of ideology,tactics and strategy in the face of a potential monstrous killing police state.This is to be expected of course.
I think it is a question of how to handle these contradictions at certain particular stages of history.
IMHO,The revolutionary left has been practicing political cannibalism for some decades now.
Constantly at each others throats,fighting for leadership,recruits and resources they rarely come up for a breath and take the time to look around and see what’s going on beyond the dust of the dog pile.I know why this has taken place.
I believe in principled debate and struggle around questions of ideology,direction and issues of the revolution.
This is both inevitable and correct.No true communist would oppose this.
BUT,there are certain times in history when issues of basic survival and security,becoming almost matters of life and death to the progress of revolution,
require the revolution stay alive (physically) by uniting with greater numbers of the people in a united front.
(An old saying..“there is greater safety in numbers” ..is still valid to this very day.)
I am suggesting this is a time in history which calls for a sense of heightened urgency.the national security state we face today is a high tech monster of unimaginable terror and capability.
IMHO,we should unite in broad coalitions in order to better deal with some very real aspects,questions of survival,so that the revolution may live to fight another day,to struggle,to provide leadership to the people.
Now,I believe,we should try to form a broad united left front with the people in order to more effectively oppose the state and defend ourselves against the national security apparatus.