Entrapment, the article says, is a very difficult defense, especially when it concerns terrorism-related charges. If the guys really did have bin Laden videos and said things about wanting to harm Americans, which it looks as though they did, then a jury would have a hard time buying that they were set up by the cops.
This, however, is different:
Also, one of the men, Tatar, called a Philadelphia police officer in November, saying that he had been approached by someone [the informant] who was pressuring him to obtain a map of Fort Dix, and that he feared the incident was terrorist-related, according to court documents.
Let me see if I can get this straight: In November, when the "terrorists" had already been under surveillance for 10 months, an undercover FBI agent tries to get map of Fort Dix from one of the terrorists; the guy calls the cops to report that someone is trying to get a map of Fort Dix and he thinks it may be terror-related; and in May we're hearing a big story about a terrorism bust? Why would you continue investigating a guy who tried to report a terrorism threat? Would a terrorist call police to report possible terrorism?
Maybe they decided Tartar was alright but they had to keep up the ruse to get other actual bad guys - but it doesn't really look that way. Tartar is the guy being paraded as the lynchpin to the plan - the pizza delivery guy who supposedly knew the base "like the back of his hand."
I don't know what else a defense lawyer would have to do to convince a jury that his client wasn't a terrorist than to show them that he called the cops to report a possible terrorist incident.
That's just weird. No, it's way beyond weird.
UPDATE: Via The Washington Times, the FBI explanation:
Two weeks earlier, according to an FBI criminal complaint, Tatar had attempted to find out whether the informant was a law-enforcement officer by contacting a sergeant at the Philadelphia Police Department, saying he had been approached by a man who pressured him to acquire maps of Fort Dix. He told the sergeant he did not supply the map and was fearful the incident was terrorist-related.
The complaint, by FBI Agent John J. Ryan, said the sergeant called the FBI in Tatar's presence and agents later were dispatched to interview Tatar. It said he told the agents he was not a part of the plot to attack Fort Dix and did not know of anyone who might be involved.
He went to the police to find out if his fellow conspirator was an informant. That wouldn't draw any attention to himself or anything, would it? Brilliant.
And on why knowing the difference between goofballs and actual terrorists matters:
Writing about these domestic terrorism busts is always a delicate task. Living in Manhattan terrorism is not an abstract issue to me. And so long as they are operating within the bounds of the law, I certainly hope the FBI and CIA have their ears and eyes on the look out for the next terror plotters. But the real jokers they actually bust turn out to be such hopeless goofs that it's hard to know whether to feel reassured that if Islamic terrorism is catching on in the US that it's only doing so among the deeply stupid or that these are the only ones our guys can catch.
Not to mention that these "Terror Plot Thwarted!" stories add to the already amped atmosphere of fear and violence, and even if you want to argue that we should be in such an atmosphere, it shouldn't be added to by bumblers like this.
No comments:
Post a Comment