Do they not have entrapment law in America? Because setting up a terrorist plot, cajoling some random kid into joining in, them arresting them for terror offences, seems like the living definition of entrapment.

As I understand it, the test for entrapment in UK law is basically that the accused would not have been likely to carry out the action without police encouragement (so, for example, I’m guessing that an undercover policeman approaching a passer-by and convincing them to buy drugs is entrapment, but an undercover policeman approaching a drug-dealer and convincing them to sell him drugs is not).

I also wonder what purpose all this serves. Obviously there’s a potential PR motive. But it might also be mission-creep: go into a community to uncover suspected radical elements, find no radical elements, then feel the need to keep going until you have a reason to arrest someone and justify the outlay.

This shit’s been happening for well over a century: three’s a fascinating book about 19th century radical movements and their subversion by agent provovateurs called The World That Never Was: A True Story of Dreamers, Schemers, Anarchists and Secret Agents by Alex Butterworth.

Apparently the security services penetrated Marx’s inner circle so thoroughly they could examine his hemorrhoids.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/mar/27/world-never-was-alex-butterworth?cat=books&type=article

@Shatterface #2:

Apparently the security services penetrated Marx’s inner circle so thoroughly they could examine his hemorrhoids.

I hope that’s just a figure of speech…

As discussed on previous threads, see _The Man Who Was Thursday_ by G K Chesterton (spoilers at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Was_Thursday).

@Chaise: “Do they not have entrapment law in America?”

I first thought to suggest that recent awareness of the concept is based on USA practice (eg John DeLorean drugs charge case*) before recalling the Rachel Nickell travesty. The latter is often described as a “travesty of justice” but it is one that delivered plain justice; the judge determined that it was a stitch up; the travesty occurred when police officers operated with “excessive zeal”, a judicial expression that will no doubt tie courts in knots in future years.

*John DeLorean case: DeLorean (deceased) and Colin Chapman (deceased) stole millions from UK tax payers, and at least one from the other. As an experienced crook, DeLorean spoke to the wire tap in hypothetical terms so the drugs charge could not be substantiated. DeLorean did not know that he was being entrapped but, every day, he ensured that entrapment would be a defence. It’s why he never spent a day in prison.

I hope that’s just a figure of speech…

No, amazingly Colonel Wilhelm Steiber examined Marx’s piles while posing as a doctor!

@ Charlieman

Hang on. Why do people call that a travesty of justice other than the horrendous stitch-up of Colin Stagg? (Using a method of policing that was roughly equivalent to “solving” a murder by tapping a random passerby one the shoulder and muttering “a murderer says what”.)

And is it too cynical to think… how many “un-foiled” plots begin in a similar way?

@6. Chaise: “Hang on. Why do people call that a travesty of justice other than the horrendous stitch-up of Colin Stagg?”

In common vernacular and sloppy thought, police investigation and the prosecution process are seen as part of justice. Those two can also deliver justice — investigators and prosecutors can offer a formal caution (a questionable cross over of roles*) or an informal warning. But it is not their primary role.

In the Stagg stitch-up, he obtained justice in the courts at enormous cost to his reputation and mental well being. I agree, we should call that stitch-up for what it was.

* Accepting a caution is admission of guilt, which may have repercussions for the accused.

Anyone who plans to commit an a terrorist action belongs in jail, as says the law of this country, and the United States. If it makes you feel any better, it is also the law in Sweden, and probably also Venezuela (fair trial issues aside). I find it quite incredible such a statement is apparently so controversial on a site like this.

So the OP thinks it would better if non-FBI people ‘encouraged’ terrorism in cases such as these? Let us keep to your line that is was the FBI who radicalised these men and gave them intent (which is is untrue actually). If the FBI could convince them to kill people, so could an al-Qaeda propagandist, yes? You see the importance of this point? And ‘real terrorists’ would have no intention of stopping the planned attack, and not provide materials that don’t actually work? Wait, would not the bombs actually go off in such a case?

Wait a second, your actually think the people who are radicalising western jijadists are the security agents of the state? I assume you feel the same sympathy for drug lords who have been busted buying or selling to FBI in undercover stings? Why not, you seem to have a great deal of sympathy for people soon to convicted of terrorst plotting – ‘the FBI made me do it’. Do you think the Judge or jury is going to buy that one?

You realise of course this a process to gather evidence?

There is one final point that is the most important one. The FBI did not give them intent. It was not the FBI who radicalised them. Radicalisation is a process, not a single event. The age of the terrorists partly reflects how younger people are more vulnerable to radicalisation. The FBI did not give them terrorist intent, it started looking at them as soon it find out they might be thinking about something. It gave them *capability*, which something very different. It have them capability to, so they could gather evidence for a trial. Intent and capability not the same. Exactly the same thing happens in this country, with the police and security services giving terrorists capabilities so they can show evidence to a court. I assumed you would like that?

@9

The FBI did not give them intent.

Apparently not considering Ayman and Yassir reported the FBI’s recruit to the FBI because they were scared he was nutter and going to bomb something.

I assume you feel the same sympathy for drug lords who have been busted buying or selling to FBI in undercover stings?

Would these be related to the drug lords the ATF sold a fuck-load of weapons to and have yet to arrest a single one of them? They have managed to arrest their own middle men though. Little victories and all that.

@10

If you want to address anything I actually said I am happy to respond.

The case of the missing weapons (the epic Obama Fail, not talked about LC?) has nothing to do with the above.

@11 Well as you said “anyone who plans to commit a terrorist action belongs in jail”, given the FBI actions in regards to Operation Flex – ie they were planning a terrorist action, do you agree that the FBI belongs in jail?

@11 Also the Gunwalking Program was started in 2006. Obama wasn’t president then.

@10. Cylux: “Would these be related to the drug lords the ATF sold a fuck-load of weapons to and have yet to arrest a single one of them?”

Sorry, Cylux. Gissa hand on that story.

@14 Here ya go – http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

@ 8 Charlieman

Oh, ok, so it’s mixing up justice with the police process. To be fair I think you could say that Stagg’s treatment at the hands of the cops lacked justice, in that it was hugely unjust, but obviously if people start throwing legal terminology around that treats the police as “justice” there’s room for confusion.

I thought you were saying people thought Stagg “got away with it” or something. Which seemed unlikely given that they caught the man wot dunnit.