November 28, 2010

"The FBI successfully thwarts its own Terrorist plot."

Was Mohamed Osman Mohamud entrapped?

71 comments:

John Lynch said...

I thought the same thing.

If there had been no investigation, would a crime ever have been committed?

AllenS said...

I believe I had the same concerns.

Chase said...

In a simple word:

Possibly.

And I say that as someone known as a "law and order" conservative guy among his friends

John Lynch said...

And way to go spending all these time and resources finding one 19 year old who wants to kill people.

I don't mind that he's off the streets, but it doesn't seem very efficient. Surely there are some people who have already killed someone who need to be caught?

Maybe there's more information out there that makes this investigation more important?

edutcher said...

Greenwald, the prototypical moonbat, is always against the US (much like Cook), even if it's The Zero's US in this case.

But I had the same thought reading about this when the news broke. It does sound like entrapment. There were a lot of exchanges where the Feds reminded him about loss of life, etc., but that may not be enough to get them through this.

Some of the commenters yesterday seemed to feel otherwise and had more experience in this sort of thing, so I'll happily defer to them. But Greenwald's point about how a lot of good-looking Federal busts (insert pun) go a-glimmering in front a judge is certainly true.

Capt. Schmoe said...

Perhaps. It sounded rather DeLoreanesque to me.

It will depend on exactly how it went down, what worrds were used. I think the U.S. Attorney's are usually pretty cautious about these type of things, we'll have to wait and see.

somefeller said...

I'm sure Mohamud's attorneys will claim that it was entrapment, and if that fails, that he was crazy or was driven to do it by eating too many twinkies. That's their job. Doesn't mean the rest of us should believe such arguments.

sane_voter said...

What I would like to know is how many stings are aimed at getting some good-ol-boys ensnared in a mosque bombing plot, compared to the number of stings run to catch corresponsing muslims who want to bomb infidels. In otherwords, is the fishing in muslim waters much more productive than in non-muslim waters, and how much are they fishing in each?

MadisonMan said...

I think that's what his defense lawyer will claim.

I'm not so sure, because I don't know all the facts. I suspect Glenn Greenwald doesn't know all the facts either.

New York said...

So now if a young Muslim is approached by extremists (for whatever purpose), he will be worried that it is actually an FBI operation.

Kirk Parker said...

All I can say is, it's a most uncomfortable day in VRWC-land when we find ourselves mostly agreeing with Mr. G. G. What's next--Excitable Andy having something reasonable to say?

SteveR said...

the flimsiest basis: namely, that he was in email communication with someone in Northwest Pakistan

Hardly flimsy.

Chad said...

Does it really matter? It will send the message that we are not to be messed with. Personally, I am not going to lose any sleep over this punk Muslim rotting in some prison. I just hope they don't give him some civilian trial. This is why we have military tribunals.

Hagar said...

I think Mohamud mostly is a somewhat confused and knuckleheaded kid living in fantasy land.
In five months the FBI had plenty of time and reasonable cause to call him in and bring him down to earth and send him home to his mama.
To try to make this into a triumph of vigilant counter-terrorism work is just ludicrous.
Also a hell of a waste of time and resources, when there are plenty of young people out there - misguided innocents or real terrorists, as the case might be - with their own explosives and directions for how to use them.

Ann Althouse said...

"I'm not so sure, because I don't know all the facts. I suspect Glenn Greenwald doesn't know all the facts either."

Greenwald is saying that the facts we have are all as told by the FBI. Knowing one side of the story, the government's, what questions do you have? That's what he is doing, asking the questions. I don't understand this as a basis for being suspicious of Greenwald's analysis.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

It is a pretty fine line.

Can you entrap someone to do something that they wouldn't already be predisposed to do?

It would be impossible to trap someone like myself into planting a bomb that I believed would blow up thousands of people.

murgatroyd666 said...

Is it "entrapment" when a man who wants to murder his wife advertises for a hired killer and gets an undercover cop instead?

If the FBI's statements can be believed -- and I think they can -- Mohamed Mohamud was corresponding by e-mail with violent jihadists in Pakistan and offering to undertake a "martyrdom" mission. The FBI agents offered him assistance in what he said he wanted to do. He tried to do it.

They allegedly have a recording of him saying he'd wanted to be a martyr since he was fifteen. If he hadn't been intercepted in this "mission," our young jihadi wannabe might have more easily plowed an SUV into a crowd of Christmas shoppers or opened fire on the idolatrous infidels at a Beavers football game.

Give him a fair trial for attempted mass murder and terrorism, execute the SOB, and then bury his body in pig feces pour encourager les autres.

I used to be a liberal!

wv: "cathy" ?!

Nora said...

"First, the FBI was monitoring the email communications of this American citizen on U.S. soil for months (at least) with what appears to be the flimsiest basis: namely, that he was in email communication with someone in Northwest Pakistan, "an area known to harbor terrorists" (para. 5 of the FBI Affidavit). Is that enough to obtain court approval to eavesdrop on someone's calls and emails? I'm glad the FBI is only eavesdropping with court approval, if that's true, but certainly more should be required for judicial authorization than that. Communicating with someone in Northwest Pakistan is hardly reasonable grounds for suspicion."

I would be very suspicious about Somali guy communicating with somebody in Pakistan, especially in the Taliban favored area.

Also, Greenwald can not know whether FBI initially arrived to this guy buy monitoring USA outgoing emails or North Pakistan arriving emails.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

New York said...

So now if a young Muslim is approached by extremists (for whatever purpose), he will be worried that it is actually an FBI operation.

Good point! Reason enough to thank the people behind this. Making the players distrust each other is a good thing.

If the story is as we first were told...

1. He made initial contact with radicals in Pakistan.

2. He continued to try to reach them after they went dark.

3. The FBI claimed to be part of the same network, and he then pursued the relationship.

4. He sent bomb parts to them.

5. He laughed off repeated concerns about the deaths of children.

...then I have a hard time buying entrapment here. It seems like he went shopping for jihad, they offered to make the deal, he took posession of the goods and tried to use them. He demonstrated the intent to murder innocents.

murgatroyd666 said...

In five months the FBI had plenty of time and reasonable cause to call him in and bring him down to earth and send him home to his mama.

Yeah, that's the ticket! Pat this adult on the head and tell him to be a good little jihadi. Then next time he'll know better than to tell anyone else of his murderous plans before he carries them out.

I've got it! When the FBI gets word that the Mafia's going to do a hit on someone, why don't we just tell them to call it off so nobody gets hurt and everyone goes home safe and happy?

Uncle Jimbo said...

Greenwald is intimately familiar with entrapment. Once a sock puppet of his tricked him into admitting he was wrong. But it was OK he figured out he had just outsmarted himself.

Cordially,

Uncle J

The Drill SGT said...

First, the FBI was monitoring the email communications of this American citizen on U.S. soil for months (at least) with what appears to be the flimsiest basis: namely, that he was in email communication with someone in Northwest Pakistan, "an area known to harbor terrorists" (para. 5 of the FBI Affidavit). Is that enough to obtain court approval to eavesdrop on someone's calls and emails? I'm glad the FBI is only eavesdropping with court approval, if that's true, but certainly more should be required for judicial authorization than that. Communicating with someone in Northwest Pakistan is hardly reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Like I said in the previous wikileaks posting, I used to be in SIGINT.

Nothing we have read yet indicates that the FBI was reading thrid party emails. I'll give you several theories:

1. We (NSA) conduct "traffic analysis". we monitor email traffic, (but dont read it) between lots of addresses in the Mid East to the US. We note the sending address and the recieving address, but dont read the contents. When we capture some AQ laptop, the first thing we look at is the Outlook addressbook. all those foreign addies are put on the watch list. correspond with one of them and you make yourself somebody of interest.

2. Next Level. FISA allows us to monitor and open the emails from those foreign targets. Analigous to having some Mafia guy, on whom the FBI has a wiretap order, call you up and order a pizza. guess what, you may be an innocent Pizza Parlor, but the conversation from the Mob guy to you is fair game on the court order.

3. Having stumbled on info on a US person, while focused on a foreign person, FISA allows you to go get a court order for the traffic of some Somali punk who chats with the trtbal areas and who uses words like Jihad, bomb and operational in his emails

bearing said...

I especially wonder if it might be entrapment if you're dealing with someone who's even slightly mentally imbalanced.

*Short* of entrapment, I do see a potential value in stringing would-be jihadists along all the way to the end before a public reveal and shaming -- it strikes me as a deterrent to other would-be jihadists. Let them think all the jihad organizations are infiltrated with FBI, maybe they'll think twice before trying to connect with one. But I haven't the faintest idea how to calculate that value and compare it to the cost.

Synova said...

If it's a case of someone actively looking for someone to kill his wife and then getting an undercover cop, then I wouldn't call it entrapment.

So if the fellow was trying to sell himself as a jihadist and offering and trying to get support from them and the FBI stepped in and said, "sure," that seems OK to me. Even without getting help from those he was corresponding with he well may have tried to prove himself eventually by undertaking an attack.

If the FBI is going around to non-violent peace protest groups and trying to rile them up and essentially bully them into building bombs with expert help, I think that's different. Granted, I still don't think that an *innocent* person could be persuaded to plant a bomb to kill people, but any number of idiots might fantasize about it and never do it.

Presumably the FBI has this fellow on record begging to be useful while they are reluctant. Anything else would be stupid on the part of the FBI.

paul a'barge said...

Was he entrapped? I certainly hope so.

Kill him.

The Drill SGT said...

The Drill SGT said...
Martin L. Shoemaker said...
5. He laughed off repeated concerns about the deaths of children.

6. He used his cellphone to send the trigger message to the car bomb and a sign came out of one of the 55-gal drums that read "BANG"

bad luck loser...

Synova said...

Of course Greenwald brings up that this is retaliation for OUR bad behavior, so how can we call that criminal.

Somehow it's only reasonable for "terrorists" to want to kill us for what we do.

Perhaps what we ought to do every time we send a drone someplace is make a statement that killing those women and children was *on purpose* as retaliation for 9-11.

Better yet, maybe we ought to start killing women and children *on purpose*.

Glenn Greenwald would be fine with that.

Synova said...

The FBI doesn't encourage stupid 19 year old Somali-Americans to kill women and children...

Glenn Greenwald does.

Every freaking last time he pens that moral equivalency and praises the impulse for revenge.

And then he'll moan over the evil FBI. When will he accept his own part?

dbp said...

Not as flashy as their sting operation, but it might have been more productive to put the young man under long-term surveillance. Essentially, he would be an unwitting undercover agent. If he ever made contact with real jihadies then more resources could be focused on what they are up to.

Lincolntf said...

His aim was to slaughter scores/hundreds of Americans in the pursuit of an Islamist war against the West. Does anybody doubt that? That this "engineering student" ended up with a few hundred gallons of colored water, and a probable life sentence, instead of a truck bomb doesn't obviate the threat he posed. Diesel fuel and fertilizer might very well have been next on Mohamud's shopping list. Fortunately the FBI showed up first.

Revenant said...

What I would like to know is how many stings are aimed at getting some good-ol-boys ensnared in a mosque bombing plot

Well, we've been doing the same thing to militia group since Clinton's first term.

holdfast said...

As I said in the other thread, he sure seemed to have all the mens rea you could ask for. He pushed the button, thinking he was about to kill dozens. I for one I am glad he's off the streets. There are a lot of big talkers out there in the Muslim community, but I for one don't think that many of them would be ready to push the button.

Sure the Obamaphiles are hyping this to make the gov't look tough on their watch, but I can live with that.

Synova said...

Greenwald portrays this young man as non-violent, entirely innocent... but he sounds sociopathic and Greenwald can't get around that at all.

His explanation?

"...that the U.S. Government dispatches its military all over the world -- invading, occupying, and bombing multiple Muslim countries -- torturing them, imprisoning them without charges, shooting them up at checkpoints, sending remote-controlled drones to explode their homes, imposing sanctions that starve hundreds of thousands of children to death..."

That explains sociopathy. It's the fault of the US. The preceeding paragraph could be taken directly from one of Bin Laden's own statements or a Michael Moore film. It's at the end, the final paragraph, so it constitutes Greenwald's thesis statement, his conclusion.

Obviously, our mistake is not to seek revenge and retaliation, for not acquiring that *understandable* sociopathy and seeking to destroy families, women and children.

brakewater said...

The Drill SGT, you had me at SIGINT. I like it.

mesquito said...

If it sows murderous raging paranoia among the Jihadists I'm for it.

TRO said...

From what I have read there is no entrapment here. Not even close. Of course that doesn't mean a good defense attorney won't convince some wimpy judge (i.e. liberal) that he was. Or that a wimpy jury won't let him go because the big, bad FBI picked on him if a judge doesn't see entrapment.

Here's hoping though that he is convicted and spends the rest of his life in prison. With a cellmate named Tyrone (or Bubba if you feel that's racist).

Michael said...

The FBI has been hard at work trying to get Mormons to turn to terrorism but without success. Who is to say that they didn't talk Timothy McVeigh into bombing the Federal Building in Oklahoma and forgot to give him the phony detonator?

shirley elizabeth said...

Wasn't there another story similar to this within the last year, except it wasn't someone so young? And no one found anything wrong with the FBI's actions? I seem to remember something about the agent being an undercover friend or coworker of the aspiring terrorist, and then when it finally came to action they stopped him. Or something. Am I just remembering a weird dream?

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Was he entrapped?"

Look, the FBI cannot catch real, actual terrorists who come into the country ... people like Abdullahmuttab. Real terrorists are able to enter the country despite being on the TIDE list of known terrorists. Real terrorists come into the country with the express written permission of the Secretary of State - Hillary Clinton.

Real terrorists come into the country with bombs. Real terrorists aren't searched at the airport (only little girls and boys are ... and grandmothers.)

Real terrorists make a mockery of the FBI.

So, the FBI need these sorts of entrapment cases to boost the morale of their hapless officers and form the basis for their budget requests.

So if they entrapped this punk fucking Muslim, well, it's a small price to pay.

And any other Muslims who don't like it should get the fuck out of our country and move to Saudi Arabia.

american girl in italy said...

Didn't the FBI pretty much do what Al-Qaeda does? They found a guy who was reaching out, wanting to commit acts of terrorism. They provided him with the *means* to commit said acts.

We are lucky that he was communicating with the FBI and not Al-Qaeda.

1. He made initial contact with radicals in Pakistan.

2. He continued to try to reach them after they went dark.

3. The FBI claimed to be part of the same network, and he then pursued the relationship.

4. He sent bomb parts to them.

5. He laughed off repeated concerns about the deaths of children.


Entrapment? Hardly.

Robert Cook said...

"Personally, I am not going to lose any sleep over this punk Muslim rotting in some prison. I just hope they don't give him some civilian trial. This is why we have military tribunals."

He was arrested in America. That alone entitles him to a civilian trial. Furthermore, he can't be said to be a soldier caught on a battlefield. To seal the deal, he's an American citizen.

Do you believe every indictment brought against every suspect in every criminal matter in this country? Do you think trials in general are a waste of time and money? After all, if the government says a person did something, he must be guilty of it, so why try him?

Why do you hate America?

rhhardin said...

Entrapment is how stuff is stopped.

The bad guys have very high odds of winding up in a FBI plot, if they set about it seriously.

Robert Cook said...

"Give him a fair trial for attempted mass murder and terrorism, execute the SOB, and then bury his body in pig feces pour encourager les autres.

I used to be a liberal!"


I don't think so.

Synova said...

Still is a liberal, probably.

Liberal used to mean caring that someone was out to commit mass murder.

american girl in italy said...

leave it to greenwald to write that crap...

Cedarford said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...
It is a pretty fine line.

Can you entrap someone to do something that they wouldn't already be predisposed to do?

It would be impossible to trap someone like myself into planting a bomb that I believed would blow up thousands of people.

===============
Exactly, DBQ!!!

Many of the leftists, progressive Jews, and Muslims moaning about "entrapment" forget that for 99.8% of Americans, blowing up random crowds of their fellow Americans is unthinkable. It is those that have a Qu'ranic or other "predisposition" that are the area of concern.

You address them - the predisposed - by monitoring them and testing them. Many you suspect - turn out to just be mouthing off. A few are dead serious. In that smaller than 0.2% of Americans, you cannot wait for them to strike, but are best served by being proactive...you let someone of ill-will towards Americans fall into a terribly high consequence and embarassing trop of their own initiative.
And not only do you get them, you intimidate other "predisposed" persons into rethinking action in favor of just "mouthing off" because they learn they cannot trust others in any conspiracy.

It is an old tactic in counterespionage and in counter-foreign influence. We "bait" people we think have dual loyalty, or just pure loyalty to nations like China and Israel - to hand over defense secrets or disclosures that will end up destroying US industries and jobs. We bait others thought to be financially susceptable - they may not sell out America to China or Israel - but for the right money, or right position of power AIPAC or the China Lobby promise to put them in - its negotiable.....

So we snag one ring of spies and hit them as hard as we can - not just to punish them but deter others from accepting the 40K in an envelope.

Whatever you think of "terrorist's rights under the Sacred Parchment (US Constitution) - it is an essential tactic in vexing a deterring the Islamoid enemy from carrying out enemy actions inside the US and abroad.

Overseas, if you dismiss the notion that enemy have full rights under the "Sacred Parchment" - few things are sweeter than nailing one group of Talibani Islamoids without a 20 million dollar civilian trial..just a bomb..and getting the survivors to start a blood feud with another pack of Islamoid animals that had nothing to do with it -By use of entrapment, false flags, cleverly planted false evidence, sowing the idea that no one met claiming to be a "fellow in Jihad" can be truly trusted.

Robert Cook said...

Greenwald does not deny that this young man might be entirely guilty of all accusations against him, he merely points out that we know nothing about him or the circumstances other than what the FBI has stated.

You can be sure they will say that which will make their best case for themselves. It's not as if law enforcement agents ever lie, right?

It it's true this young man was willing to kill innocent people with a bomb, and if the facts in evidence can convince a jury of his guilt, he will rightly be sent to prison.

However, the issue of entrapment is tricky, and one thing about it is this: by approaching this man and seducing him into taking part in this plot, they created the crime; yes, if he went along one can pretty much assume he was predisposed to a violent act, but there are many potentially violent people in this country. If the circumstances do not present themselves to such people, they may never commit an act of violence. In this case, the FBI created a situation that might never have otherwise presented itself to this guy, and he might have passed through life and never have involved himself in any violent behavior.

The crux of it is, is it a productive use of resources to fabricate criminal opportunities like this to create and bag suspects who otherwise might never have conducted themselves criminally when there are--presumably--other actors out there who are actually motivated and already engaged in plots to commit violent criminal or terrorist acts?

It seems like such cases are always meant more to burnish the image of those who "crack" the cases than to really fight crime...that is, to apprehend already active violent offenders or would-be offenders.

Big Mike said...

Was Mohamed Osman Mohamud entrapped?

I rather doubt it.

Certainly Greenwald's article is unconvincing.

I take particular exception to Greenwald when he writes that "[c]ommunicating with someone in Northwest Pakistan is hardly reasonable grounds for suspicion." Well, that depends on with whom he is communicating, doesn't it? If the whom is a known terrorist, or someone who has been part of terrorist recruitment efforts in the past, I think a reasonable judge would authorize a wire tap.

Juba Doobai! said...

From what I read, it sounds as though the guy had been sending out requests. He got an answer, but not from a terrorist. It seems to me that the FBI types played a role with him, one that gave him several opportunities to walk away from his jihad, to renounce his hatred of Americans. He chose to wallow in his hatred and death lust. Therefore, the FBI followed through on his requests. I think had they not offered him an out several times he would not have wound up behind bars. Entrapment? No. If they'd gone looking for him and started him off, then yes. He went knocking. Lucky for us, the FBI answered.

Job said...

Robert Cook sez "He was arrested in America. That alone entitles him to a civilian trial. Furthermore, he can't be said to be a soldier caught on a battlefield. To seal the deal, he's an American citizen."

Wrong. We tried the Nazi sabateurs in a military court in WWII although they were caught on US soil. Two of them were US citizens, I believe.


Robert Cook sez "Greenwald does not deny that this young man might be entirely guilty of all accusations against him, he merely points out that we know nothing about him or the circumstances other than what the FBI has stated."

Wrong. He doesn't just "merely point out" that we only have one side. Greenwald also equates our troops who risk their lives to protect civilians and liberate countries with terrorists who deliberately murder women and children in the process of enslaving societies.

Zero-for-two, Robert.

Juba Doobai! said...

Althouse, I won't believe anything the kid says that counters the FBI for this reason: the Koran of Islam teaches Muslims that it is okay to lie to non-Muslims if the lie advances the Islamic agenda.

Meade said...

First They Came for the 19 year-old males who contact people in northwest Pakistan, asking how they can travel to northwest Pakistan and join the fight for jihad...

And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a 19 year-old male who contacts people in northwest Pakistan, asking how I can travel to northwest Pakistan and join the fight for jihad...

Juba Doobai! said...

What gets me with this little Somali shit is that he is in the country BECAUSE the U.S. has provided refuge for tens of thousands of Somalis who were rotting and starving in their own ISLAMIC country. We help Muslims and these people think we should be happy that Muslims kill us. If we kill one Muslim, they ignore all the Muslim lives we've saved and they want to kill all of us. Lesson for us: let them wallow in the hellholes that Islam has made of their countries.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"... we know nothing about him or the circumstances other than what the FBI has stated."

We don't even really know that this person actually exists ... except that the FBI claims so.

Frankly, Obama's FBI is not a trustworthy organization. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if this whole thing wasn't ginned up by the Obama Administration to distract attention from the Wikileaks.

Notice how they keep finding these alleged terrorists in the liberal strongholds.

It's almost like Obama is trying to firm up his base and get the lefties to stop criticizing him for undermining civil rights in America.

I wonder if they're buying it.

Mark said...

Jeez, Ann. Would you warn us when the link goes to Greenwald. I actually clicked on it to try to read. Now I'm going to have to take a shower.

I feel so used.

murgatroyd666 said...

> I used to be a liberal!"

I don't think so.


Your response would be far more accurate if you left off the last word.

When I was a college freshman I called myself a "Fabian Socialist." I was convinced that we'd have a better society if resources were controlled and allocated by the smartest people (i.e., me and people like me). I could see citizens making stupid political and economic decisions -- the old False Consciousness trope, as exemplified by What's the Matter withj Kansas? -- and I knew< that these decisions should be made by the Best and the Brightest (coincidentally, also me and the people like me) for other people For Their Own Good.

Then I saw what worked and what didn't, and I learned a bit about human nature and game theory and economics, and I talked with people who had lived in countries governed by the Best and the Brightest, and I realized how much I didn't know about why other people did what they did. In a short time I wised up.

Tell me, Mr. Cook -- in what ways other than the identities of the people in charge of things does your political philosophy differ from that of, say, Erich Honecker?

former law student said...

However, the issue of entrapment is tricky, and one thing about it is this: by approaching this man and seducing him into taking part in this plot, they created the crime; yes, if he went along one can pretty much assume he was predisposed to a violent act, but there are many potentially violent people in this country. If the circumstances do not present themselves to such people, they may never commit an act of violence.

Chris Hansen presented this similar scenario many times: Would the men who expected to have sex with the underaged girls they met in Internet chatrooms have done so with real underaged girls, not just with middle aged policemen pretending to be underaged girls? After all, it was the middle aged policemen who proposed those particular crimes. If Joe Pervo never met a 15 year old girl seemingly willing to have sex with him, he likely never would have shown himself to be a child molester.

somefeller said...

When I was a college freshman I called myself a "Fabian Socialist." I was convinced that we'd have a better society if resources were controlled and allocated by the smartest people (i.e., me and people like me).

So in other words, you were kind of a weird kid in college. Also, liberalism in this country doesn't argue for a society in which the resources are controlled and allocated by the smartest people or the state. It argues for a capitalist economy with governmental involvement in various sectors to deal with market failures or other economic problems. A mixed economy, in other words. So maybe you never really were a liberal, in the common American meaning of the word.

Chad said...

Greenwald should be tried in a military court and hanged next to this Muslim punk as a traitor.

traditionalguy said...

If this was the NBC's series showing entrapped older men going over to 15 year old girl's homes when the parents are away after seducing the willing young girls on the internet, then we would be all for the entrapment. Are innocent Americans' lives worth as much as 15 year old girl's virginity? No, not as long as Holder is AG...this case will be tossed out.

Mary Beth said...

He looks a bit feminine. I've only seen one picture of him and I'm going by that...it makes me wonder if he was teased for it. Mohamud, I mean, not Greenwald.

(I don't think that being teased or bullied is an excuse for violent behavior.)

Robert Cook said...

"Tell me, Mr. Cook -- in what ways other than the identities of the people in charge of things does your political philosophy differ from that of, say, Erich Honecker?"

I don't know anything about Erich Honecker, so I can't even begin to consider your question.

David S. Lott said...

Greenwald: "But it may also just as easily be the case that the FBI -- as they've done many times in the past -- found some very young, impressionable, disaffected, hapless, aimless, inept loner;"

Lee Harvey Oswald, call your Mommie!

murgatroyd666 said...

somefeller wrote:

So in other words, you were kind of a weird kid in college. ... So maybe you never really were a liberal, in the common American meaning of the word.

What's so "weird" about being a socialist as a callow freshman, other than the fact that the ideology is unworkable and detrimental to human freedom? Look at all the "Progressive" politicians in the Democratic Party who are members of the Democratic Socialists of America.

I was a "liberal," and a registered Democrat, after I wised up about socialism. Then I evolved even further.

Are you an adult? Do your political views match Mr. Cook's? That's what I would call weird ...

William said...

Hapless, disaffected, impressionable: these are words that I would use to describe any number of young men who have been drawn into terrorist plots. Not all of these plots have been hatched by the FBI, and some of them have have succeeded. This young man was an offensive weapon in search of a guidance system.

AllenS said...

The Minneapolis, MN newspaper, the Star Tribune, has been reporting for quite a while how young Somali men from the area have been joining and training for this Islamic war in Afghanistan and Pakistan for a long time. There is a huge Somali population in the Twin Cities. We have a problem here. The FBI could do this over and over and catch one after another. This is not an isolated incident.

AllenS said...

First they came for Meade, and we said "who cares."

JAY said...

This tidbit is interesting:

In 2005, leaders in Portland, Oregon, angry at the Bush administration’s conduct of the war on terror, voted not to allow city law enforcement officers to participate in a key anti-terror initiative, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. On Friday, that task force helped prevent what could have been a horrific terrorist attack in Portland. Now city officials say they might re-think their participation in the task force — because Barack Obama is in the White House.


What a principled bunch those leftists are, huh?

Meade said...

@AllenS: Ha!

Fen said...

"...that the U.S. Government dispatches its military all over the world -- invading, occupying, and bombing multiple Muslim countries -- torturing them,

Sure. I escort food convoys across Somolia, fighting off mercs and saving thousands of Muslim lives... and this is the thanks I get? To be blown up with my family as I am celebrating christmas?

Death to Islam!

former law student said...

Not that this changes his culpability in the slightest, but hearing that his parents had split up at the same time that he moved away from home to go to college gave me a twinge of sympathy for Mohamud.

Dropping out of Oregon State in October was a warning sign. Too bad no one was able to interpret it.