It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fox host likens Oregon terror 'entrapment' to East Germany

page: 1
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Fox host likens Oregon terror 'entrapment' to East Germany


www.rawstory.com

Federal agents went too far by setting up a 19-year-old Oregon man for the attempted bombing of a Christmas tree lighting in Portland, according to one Fox Business News host.

In a heated debate, Judge Andrew Napolitano, host of Freedom Watch, told Bill O'Reilly that "we will become East Germany if we prosecute people because of what they want."

Mohamed Osman Mohamud was apparently set up by federal law enforcement officials who posed as radical Islamic fighters and lured the young man int
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

"The FBI picked an easy mark. The FBI trained him in the use of explosives. The FBI itself exploded illegal weapons in his presence to teach him how to do it and in doing so committed crimes. The FBI talked him into doing this and then got him to say well, 'I was thinking about doing it before I met you guys.' And then the FBI charges him with attempting to explode a device -- a weapon of mass destruction? It was a truck filled with sawdust. It couldn't have exploded," Napolitano said.


As many people have heard me say before, I am fundamentally against the very notion of political pundits but with that, I think that at least "the Judge", Andrew Napolitano, makes sense when he does the thinking for his viewers. It's just too bad that people delegate their critical self thinking skills to political pundits.

With that being said and on the issue of what took place in Oregon, I have to completely agree with "the Judge" here. This kind of operation by our Justice Dept. smacks of East Germany, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. You can't pick someone out of the crowd, then educate them in criminal activity, as well indictrinate them to a specific cause, then turn around and arrest them for it, especially when we are talking, young children who are impressionable.

Of course we don't have all of the details but from what is known thus far and previous incidents as well, it looks like the FBI is clearly in the wrong and not adhereing to the principals of freedom and the rule of law that defines such freedom. At what point does the FBI become less responsible than the boy?


--airspoon



www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 1-12-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I keep on saying uk is like east germany under the stasi already. I have not lived one moment of privacy in 18 years, and i mean literally no privacy in all that time, with these people always second guessing what i want.

Police and intel services have to justify there existence, and you see in these cases and many more. I bet uk and usa prisons are full of targeted people with technologies(these gov agencies targeting people with techs) that make entrapment 95% certain, unless the person knows.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 
Randy Weaver claimed entrapment on his federal weapons charges that started the Ruby Ridge FBI fiasco, and the judge agreed.

This surely smacks of entrapment with what we know thus far about the case.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Had the same thing happened under Bush or any other Republican, Fox would have been praising the work of the FBI and how they saved Christmas.

IMO they went too far but I don't know the details. They needed the phone call for a conviction, kind of like giving a possible killer a gun without a firing pin so when that suspect points the gun and pulls the trigger they have a case for attempted murder.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


I was surprised by this as well from Fox. I watched the Judge when he was talking about this case and he made perfect sense in terms of what went wrong with the case by FBI actions. Going so far to say the FBI agents actually violated the laws in order to "train" this kid.

He was put on the FEds radar screen by his father, who turned him in because of his affiliations (not sure what word to use here, affiliations/thoughts/political ideology).

While I am sure the kid warranted some attention to find out what was going on, I also think the FEds went a bit to far on this one.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Flag number two. I have been saying this for years. But then you have to remember that we live in a country where the CIA is the largest drug importer. Truth and Justice have no place in American law enforcement.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
This young man is innocent until proven guilty. Knowing the FBI, he's most likely innocent.

The FBI has to prove:

  • That he was truly convinced that the bomb was real
  • That he knew where the bomb was
  • That he knew how to trigger the bomb
  • That he knew EXACTLY what to do with the cell phone to trigger the "bomb"
  • (Most importantly) That he was doing EXACTLY what he understood he needed to do on the cell phone to trigger the "bomb"

If any of those facts are in doubt or unprovable, then he is innocent of attempting to kill people with the bomb.

Here's the reason I say this: We are talking about the FBI.

If the FBI, at the very beginning of their "relationship" with this kid (which wasn't recorded, by the way) told the kid, "This bomb isn't real," or, "The bomb is in the forest, it's a test," or ,"You need to text the word 'apple5' to the number 555-1234", but the kid texted 'appleS' to the number 555-1231, then the kid is innocent.

But if the FBI can prove everything, then the kid is guilty.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
The underwear bomber was also turned in by his father
and we know that was a set up.

They get a heads up
see the suitable patsy
and make it happen
then sit back while the kiddie porn roles in


PS the FBI went to the witnesses to the underwear bomber
and tried to shut them up
thats right from the testimony of the witnesses

Oh, but this time we are telling the truth
trust us
edit on 1-12-2010 by Danbones because: PS

edit on 1-12-2010 by Danbones because: grammer



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I agree with the comments here, and think the FBI went too far, but what if this kid would have eventually obtained a bomb and killed innocent Americans. That's when people would be saying "Where was the government, why didn't they stop this?" Did he? No. Really though in my opinion, if this kid wanted to commit "jihad" against all non-muslims, he is a threat. Especially when his father is calling him in. Like I said, did the FBI go too far to try and get a conviction? Of course, but I believe people like him who want to kill anyone who is not muslim deserve to be locked up, because whether or not the FBI set him up very well he didn't have any good intentions and that's for sure. If the FBI hadn't found him, there's a solid chance later in the next year he could have done something and taken lives. It's not like this kid didn't want to blow up Americans, he just couldn't make the bomb himself. If the FBI hadn't found him and his father hadn't called him in, this kid could have eventually obtained a bomb right here in the U.S and blew up himself along with a few others.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
"what if "
falls into the catagory of thought crimes
and minority report no?
just sayin...

even someone who is pro OS could be used.
told we need you to help us run a drill....
say, it is always a drill



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by FPB214
 
Kind of like saying if someone has ever had an alcoholic drink, that they are bound to kill someone in a car accident while they are driving drunk.

In this case, the analogy would be that the FBI took him to the bar, paid for his drinks until he was drunk, bought him a car, gave him the keys, sent him down the street and pushed a baby carriage out in front of him.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
The thing is, Oregon has no entrapment laws, which is one thing i found so interesting here.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


I know it's what if, so I understand if he doesn't get convicted. Im just stating my opinion, that it's really not as hard as people think to create a bomb, all you need to do is meet that right person. His intentions weren't going to change, and I believe within the next year or two we probably would have heard his name on the news once he found the right guy and decided he's going to commit jihad.

Like i've said, I agree with all of you, the FBI went too far, and he actually didn't blow up a bomb or kill anyone, I feel deep down though it was only a matter of time before he did. Anyone who has bad intentions as he did, are eventually going to carry through with it. Especially if they meet the right person who is feeding the fire. Im contradicting my statement above right now by saying it is a thought crime and in reality he didn't commit a real crime and therefore by law shouldn't be put in jail. I just know with guys like him he would have eventually found a way to obtain one and use it without the FBI's involvement.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon


"The FBI picked an easy mark. The FBI trained him in the use of explosives. The FBI itself exploded illegal weapons in his presence to teach him how to do it and in doing so committed crimes. The FBI talked him into doing this and then got him to say well, 'I was thinking about doing it before I met you guys.' And then the FBI charges him with attempting to explode a device -- a weapon of mass destruction? It was a truck filled with sawdust. It couldn't have exploded," Napolitano said.

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 1-12-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)


In the meantime, do we know if he passed along his newfound government sponsored knowledge of explosives to anyone else? Seems rather exceptionally stupid to train and arm someone just to make them a patsy and give the impression that the government's draconian B.S. is actually stopping terrorism.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by FPB214
 



I just know guys like him


thats what I have trouble with
no offence, but turn that around to
"I just know guys like you"


ps google death penalty innocent
edit on 1-12-2010 by Danbones because: PS



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
The only ones here guilty of anything is the FBI. They encouraged and manipulated this man and many others just so they still have "terrorists" to point at so the Government can justify the WOT, Patriot Act, TSA molesting, and all the other madness. The FBI incited the terror, they are a bunch of terrorist traitors.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Unilluminist
 


I was just following orders
didn't work for the germans
at nueremburg

We just killed all your cousins at a wedding,
now sit there and eat your cheesburger and watch TV
and like it
we killed them
so you could be free
to do
what we tell you to do.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Fact is, he thought he had met the "right person" like i've been saying. Luckily, the FBI was that "right person" who was feeding the fire. If that kid would have met the real "right person" who would have basically done the same thing as the FBI except no fake bombs, it's likely the kid would have detonated it.

Now I know this is "IF", so unless the FBI can provide all the right evidence he doesn't deserve to be locked up.

What im saying is YOU know deep down, he would have done it if the "right person" wasn't the FBI. Then at the same time we will wait and see what the FBI has to provide. In the meantime I see this kid as a threat, who would have detonated and killed Americans such as myself because we are not Muslim. We will find out if he will be locked up or not.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
It seems that Bill O'Reily makes a fair argument.. But Bill O'Reilly is not a lawyer, and thank god that egotistical jack ass has no power in this world.

I would have to side with the Judge on this one.. Since he has actual legal experience, as where Bill O'Reilly goes on what he thinks should be right.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join