In U.S. Sting Operations, Questions of Entrapment

[groovedaddy]

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.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/politics/30fbi.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a23

[Ozymanithrax]

1. So wouild it be better if we did not look for people...

with a hard on to murder?

[groovedaddy]

2. Looking for and entrapping are two different "strategies." n.t

[Ozymanithrax]

3. So if someone says they want to blow someone up..

Then goes out seeking the means and methods blow someone up.
Is it better to let them contact a legitimate (if I may use that word) purveyor of explosives?

ENTRAPMENT
A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

Was thee a previoius intent to commit a crime?

[groovedaddy]

5. Now you are more tightly defining the scenario. Where someone has expressed a desire to do harm,

they certainly bear watching. I heard plenty of people saying things about Bush that could be construed as threatening. Now if the FBI or Secret Service devised a scheme for anyone who expressed such sentiments, well, you know, they just don't have the personnel. The tricky part is always gauging whether or not the person expressing the sentiment has an intent to carry it out. How do you know whether they're serious or not? I'm certainly not in a position in this particular case to pass judgement about whether or not this was warranted.

[LiberalFighter]

4. Is it possible to deter those that may want to commit a crime?

How much of an impact could there be if one is suspected of such motives to bring them in and let them know the consequences? Both to them and those close to them. Could there be enough that they avoid such actions?

[groovedaddy]

6. Possibly. But, as with all law enforcement strategies, criminals will adapt to the tactics that

law enforcement is using.

[shockedcanadian]

7. I dont know much about this case, but...

I have always looked to the U.S and the U.K as nations who do not engage in entrapment, in fact, from what I understand both nations do not allow such tactics, unlike in Canada where I am from.

I can tell you unequivically that CSIS (our CIA) and the RCMP (our FBI), regularly engage in entrapment. They take it one huge leap forward by regularly targetting, young, disenchanted, often disadvantaged youths and essentially "manufacturing a threat", engaging them and helping form their ideological outlook. They can then set them up to commit a crime, or engage in a situation that they would have otherwise not be engaged in without the interference from their new found "friend". It's disgusting, pathetic and counter-productive...except to the organizations who essentially justify their existences and use these "threats"; especially the high profile ones, as a source of argument for increased funding.

To give you an example of just the type of police/spook state we are living in. Our intelligence agency CSIS is forbidden (at least officially) from operating overseas. This means that they can ONLY operate domestically, targetting, manufacturing and creating issues solely with Canadian citizens if none exist. The abuses of power, lack of accountability and transparency means they can create and "build their business" anyway they see fit, and the average Canadian is none the wiser.

I would hope that you guys are not going down this road, I have always thought of the U.S as the last bastion of libetarian democracy in the world, the types of freedoms that you not only enjoy on paper but in action, is unmatched anywhere in the world. I am a big supporter of America's institutions, not only because you provide Canada a large presence of protection, but because your democracy is far more wide-spread and inclusive. I have read alot of books, documents and real-life accounts, and the commitment your intelligence agents have shown to your constitution is to be admired, if that changes your entire nation will slowly evolve with it, for the worse. Canada has experienced that evolution, and we are currently in a dark place, though few in the world know or care about this fact.

It's easy to point out flaws and abuses in third world countries, far more difficult to point to what is occurring in traditional democractic nations like Canada, but it is and has occured.