FBI Plays Terror-Assistant
Published in Süddeutsche Zeitung
(Germany) on 18 October 2012
by Reymer Klüver (link to original)
Can the government lure people to their perdition? The young Bangladeshi, whose attack plan was thwarted by the FBI, would never have been capable of obtaining the bomb's components without the help of the FBI’s investigative authority. He would not even have undertaken the attempt; an FBI informant persuaded him. The fight against crimes that do not exist at all takes on an increasingly Orwellian character in the United States.
Once again, so it appears, America has sidestepped an Islamic act of terror by a hair's breadth. In New York, the FBI apprehended a young man just in the moment when he wanted to blow up a delivery truck fully loaded with explosive substances, via his cell phone — symbolically in front of the American Federal Reserve in Manhattan.
The only problem is: the detonator would never have functioned and the purported explosive material was harmless. Everything (including the delivery truck) had been provided by the FBI for the young Bangladeshi, who with this act wanted to make a name for himself in the terror network al-Qaida, an organization with which he had never had any contact. However, the FBI monitored him for months and supported him in carrying his pretended bloody deed into execution.
This has occurred in the United States every once in a while. Islamists intended to burn off kerosene tanks on New York's JFK Airport and detonate the Sears Tower in Chicago. They planned assaults on the metros of New York and Washington and wanted to bring down a U.S. military airplane. In all cases, the FBI was not only aware, but had also principally supplied the pseudo-terrorists with the material they required for the envisaged act. Nearly three quarters of the approximately twenty Islamic assassination attempts in the United States during the past century have resulted from this method. Without the help of the FBI, they would have stuck to posturing.
When Fear Forms Logic
Preemptive prosecution is the name of this FBI practice: law enforcement getting ahead of itself. This manner has been vastly increased since the attacks on 9/11 and is legally pillowed. But is this also right? Can the government lure people to their perdition?
The Bangladeshi seized in New York, a youth without terroristic background, would never have had the ability to obtain the explosive substances without the FBI. In addition to that, he would not have attempted the attack, which will now presumably put him behind bars for the rest of his life, had the FBI not inveigled him to do so.
He did dream of a martyr’s death, but rather wanted to return home beforehand. Nevertheless, an FBI informant persuaded him to trigger the bomb via remote control immediately. This method is based on fear and wrong-headed logic. Fear, because the U.S. investigators do not want to be accused once again of having overlooked indications of a terror attack.
This calculation is perverted because the elimination of concrete danger is not the point in these actions. There was never jeopardy in the cases in which the FBI gave private lessons to the delinquent. The threat was brought into being in order to eliminate it spectacularly. If nothing else, this method should be used to discourage potential assassins who really have what it takes to organize an attack. At first glance the data seems to justify the methods: since 9/11 not a single Islamic strike of a grand scale was registered in the United States (if the gun rampage of a lone operator in Fort Hood is overlooked).
A Veiled View on More Real Dangers
The price for this method is high: The fight against crimes that do not at all exist, but which could happen, takes on an increasingly Orwellian character. The incitement to criminal actions by government agencies that should prevent these actions would hardly be imaginable before 9/11. Preemptive prosecution only shows how deeply the fear of Islamic terror has changed the country.
Besides that, this approach clouds the view on much more real danger: Between 2009 and 2011, only 26 would-be assassins with Islamic backgrounds were apprehended. During the same period, 55 right-wing extremists were put behind bars because of planned terror acts. All of these were caught in time. But not a single one of them was subject to preemptive prosecution.
Once again, so it appears, America has sidestepped an Islamic act of terror by a hair's breadth. In New York, the FBI apprehended a young man just in the moment when he wanted to blow up a delivery truck fully loaded with explosive substances, via his cell phone — symbolically in front of the American Federal Reserve in Manhattan.
The only problem is: the detonator would never have functioned and the purported explosive material was harmless. Everything (including the delivery truck) had been provided by the FBI for the young Bangladeshi, who with this act wanted to make a name for himself in the terror network al-Qaida, an organization with which he had never had any contact. However, the FBI monitored him for months and supported him in carrying his pretended bloody deed into execution.
This has occurred in the United States every once in a while. Islamists intended to burn off kerosene tanks on New York's JFK Airport and detonate the Sears Tower in Chicago. They planned assaults on the metros of New York and Washington and wanted to bring down a U.S. military airplane. In all cases, the FBI was not only aware, but had also principally supplied the pseudo-terrorists with the material they required for the envisaged act. Nearly three quarters of the approximately twenty Islamic assassination attempts in the United States during the past century have resulted from this method. Without the help of the FBI, they would have stuck to posturing.
When Fear Forms Logic
Preemptive prosecution is the name of this FBI practice: law enforcement getting ahead of itself. This manner has been vastly increased since the attacks on 9/11 and is legally pillowed. But is this also right? Can the government lure people to their perdition?
The Bangladeshi seized in New York, a youth without terroristic background, would never have had the ability to obtain the explosive substances without the FBI. In addition to that, he would not have attempted the attack, which will now presumably put him behind bars for the rest of his life, had the FBI not inveigled him to do so.
He did dream of a martyr’s death, but rather wanted to return home beforehand. Nevertheless, an FBI informant persuaded him to trigger the bomb via remote control immediately. This method is based on fear and wrong-headed logic. Fear, because the U.S. investigators do not want to be accused once again of having overlooked indications of a terror attack.
This calculation is perverted because the elimination of concrete danger is not the point in these actions. There was never jeopardy in the cases in which the FBI gave private lessons to the delinquent. The threat was brought into being in order to eliminate it spectacularly. If nothing else, this method should be used to discourage potential assassins who really have what it takes to organize an attack. At first glance the data seems to justify the methods: since 9/11 not a single Islamic strike of a grand scale was registered in the United States (if the gun rampage of a lone operator in Fort Hood is overlooked).
A Veiled View on More Real Dangers
The price for this method is high: The fight against crimes that do not at all exist, but which could happen, takes on an increasingly Orwellian character. The incitement to criminal actions by government agencies that should prevent these actions would hardly be imaginable before 9/11. Preemptive prosecution only shows how deeply the fear of Islamic terror has changed the country.
Besides that, this approach clouds the view on much more real danger: Between 2009 and 2011, only 26 would-be assassins with Islamic backgrounds were apprehended. During the same period, 55 right-wing extremists were put behind bars because of planned terror acts. All of these were caught in time. But not a single one of them was subject to preemptive prosecution.
Previous article![]( "Why Many American Arabs Support Assad and Syria")
