April 25, 2013

"Is the FBI focused enough on the real bad guys?"

WaPo asks.
[A]t the same time the FBI was concluding that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was not a threat in 2011, it launched an elaborate sting operation in Boston against Rezwan Ferdaus, who eventually pleaded guilty to charges of plotting to attack the U.S. Capitol with a remote-controlled model airplane loaded with grenades. In his case as well as others, it’s not clear that a sometimes far-fetched plot would have gone forward without the encouragement and help of FBI informants.

22 comments:

edutcher said...

The reverse of, "I'm sure glad they're on our side".

Robert Cook said...

This just goes to show that our entire "anti-terrorist" mania and program is misbegotten and counterproductive.

When one becomes so hyper-fearful that "danger threatens" such that one becomes suspicious of all, one can't possibly keep track of every one of the presumed potential dangers on the ever-metastasizing list. It all becomes noise, amid which the few actual possible dangers easily become lost.

Pogo said...

It turns out that the FBI's serial murderer profiling techniques are pretty much useless in finding serial murderers.

I would predict their terrorist profiling is equally wrong.

Marshal said...

In his case as well as others, it’s not clear that a sometimes far-fetched plot would have gone forward without the encouragement and help of FBI informants.

Shorter WAPO: counterterrorism is wrong when it doesn't stop terrorists, and it's wrong when it does stop terrorists. So maybe it's more accurate to say it's not clear that WAPO editors and Mother Jones "journalists" have a grasp of reality.

DADvocate said...

We really need to catch some right wing, Tea Party, gun-nut types plotting terrorism so we can further shred the Bill of Rights. Fighting real terrorism is incidental. Focus. Focus.

traditionalguy said...

The secret is that ALL government Agencies are seeking favorable News Media write ups all day long. It's part of the budgetary circus that picks winners and losers in DC.

The cases they work are the ones that will get a headline from some unique aspect. The other cases based on boring facts of just another day, another Muslim Madman are shunned.

Firehand said...

Hey, catching real terrorists is hard!
Whereas finding some mouthy idiot and building him up so you can bust him, well, that's easy!

One of my concerns? What happens when they try this with someone who plays them, and uses their help to put a REAL bomb in place?

David said...

After 9/11, we discovered that the FBI, while exemplary at investigating crimes that have already been committed, is terrible at counter-intelligence. In fact, being a good law enforcement agency makes the FBI terrible at counter-intelligence, but apparently we haven't done anything about it.

William said...

Those two brothers sure had some beginner's luck with the first two bombs they ever made. Making bombs is not that easy. Ask the Times Square bomber and various defunct Weathermen. I suspect that there's more to this story.

edutcher said...

Robert Cook said...

This just goes to show that our entire "anti-terrorist" mania and program is misbegotten and counterproductive.

Right, we should just forget the whole thing and spend all that money on welfare.

Actually, our counter terror programs have worked. Until we put a terrorist sympathizer and enabler in the White House.

And, no, this wouldn't be happening if J Edgar was running the Bureau.

Mitch H. said...

One of my concerns? What happens when they try this with someone who plays them, and uses their help to put a REAL bomb in place?

It seems as if FBI practice is to manipulate would-be bombers into leaving the bomb-making to FBI plants, who supply them with inert duds. IIRC they set up a half-dozen or more of these sorts over the last decade, counting solely those that make it to the papers.

I guess the FBI had a bad case of boy-who-cried-wolf in regard to continual Russian complaints about Chechen emigre "terrorists", and mis-filed the Tsarnaevs in that cognitive slot.

Tom said...

We should never confuse activity with results. For too long, we've rewarded the activity and not the achievement. We should encourage the correct activities. But the reward and praise should only be for the result. And the result is that the last five years has seen a huge uptick in the number of Jihadist related/inspired attacks on US soil.

No doubt, our nation and government was caught sleeping on 9/11. But from that day to the end of 2008, the attacks on US soil dropped. And now they're back. And there needs to be accountability for that!

Tom said...

In fact, let's run throught the results since 2008. Name one result that is better today than it was in 2008:

Terrorist Attacks on US Soil? No

National Debt? No

Employment? No

Lower Taxes? No

Personal Debt? No

Personal Income? No

GDP? No -- at least not growing at a rate that will sustain job and wealth creation
Poverty? No

Americans on Social Welfare Programs? No

Health Care Costs? No

Health Care Access? At the moment, it's hard to afford health care without a job, so probably no. We'll see if that improves.

So, what parts of the nation are bucking these trends? Who's succeeding and why?

Who in the country is not confusing Activity and Results?

Hagar said...

For now, the primary interest in any agency involved will be to garner as much credit for whatever went right to itself and deflect all criticism for whatever went wrong onto those other agencies.

How did Dzhokhar manage to shoot himself in the throat if he was unarmed?

Robert Cook said...

"Who's succeeding and why?"

The 1% (and above).

Because that's who Washington works for.

Hagar said...

B.S. Cookie, "Washington" just works for itself, like everybody else.

Matthew Sablan said...

"How did Dzhokhar manage to shoot himself in the throat if he was unarmed?"

-- He may have shot himself, dropped his weapon, and then withdrew to the boat to bleed out? Or, the reports were wrong.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

In his case as well as others, it’s not clear that a sometimes far-fetched plot would have gone forward without the encouragement and help of FBI informants.

Sting operation and entrapment. The government does this ALL the time to create the illusion that it is doing something effective. Find some schmuck, set him or her up, encourage and even help them commit the crime or infraction then...>TA DAH.....they bust the perp and then try to look like the heros.

href="http://books.google.com/books/about/Ambush_at_Ruby_Ridge.html?id=75raAAAAMAAJ">Ruby Ridge was one of those sting operations.

Quite often, no crime would have happened without the encouragement and active participation of the FBI or other government agency.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Let me try the link again

Ambush at Ruby Ridge

I personally know people who were caught in a FBI generated criminal operation. It happens more often than you want to think.

Hagar said...

There also was a M-4 found at the scene, and I think a SWAT officer may have some s'plaining to do.

The final shootout apparently started when the cops on one side of the boat decided to disorient Dzhokhar with flash grenades and shooting blanks, and the cops on the other side thought Dzhokhar was shooting at them and let fly in return.
It is a wonder some cops did not get shot by "friendly fire."

Ken said...

Since Tamerlan Tsarnaev was not a tea partier of, nor a part of the DHS's right wing groups, which they labelled "extremists", but a Muslim, he was a-okay according to Obama and Holder, thus a-okay for the FBI. The fish rots from the head, as they say. As long as these two knuckleheads continue to blame America first, particularly those who believe in the founding principles laid down in the Declaration and Constitution, and embrace multiculturalism and extreme anti-Western ideas, people like Tsarnaev will continue to be ignored, then explained away, as the left is furiously trying to do, after they've killed a bunch of people.

Ken said...

Also, it doesn't do the left any good to look at someone who is supported by the welfare state. After all, welfare recipients are in need, thus it's in fact our duty to support these people, as they commit their time to gangs and violence.

If the assumptions of the lefty welfare state and mutliculturalism are questioned publicly, then everyone would be forced to admit these are fraudulent systems based on patronage, on which the democrats and the left depend to use tax payer money to support their political campaigns.