FBI's entrapment scheme exposed by suspect, so they grab him the very next day.

page: 1
88
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+53 more 
posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Khalifah al-Akili emailed the Guardian shortly before his arrest to say he thought he was the target of an 'entrapment' sting


Khalifah al-Akili, 34, was arrested in a police raid on his home on March 15. He was later charged with illegally possessing a gun after having previous felony convictions for drug dealing. However, at his court appearance an FBI agent testified that al-Akili had made radical Islamic statements and that police had uncovered unspecified jihadist literature at his home.

Yet, despite being painted in court as a dangerous radical Islamist, the only charges brought against al-Akili were for firing a rifle...

But, in a strange twist, al-Akili's arrest came just days after he had sent out an email to friends and local Muslim civil rights groups complaining that he believed he was the target of an FBI "entrapment" sting.

In the email – which was also sent to the Guardian before al-Akili was arrested – he detailed meeting two men he believed were FBI informants because of the way they talked about radical Islam and appeared to want to get him to make jihadist statements. According to his account, one of them, who called himself Saeed Torres, asked him to buy a gun. Al-Aikili said he refused. The other, who was called Mohammed, offered to help him go to Pakistan for possible Islamic radical training. Al-Akili also refused.

Al-Akili concluded his email by saying: "I would like to pursue a legal action against the FBI due to their continuous harassment and attempts to set me up." The Guardian contacted al-Akili by email and on March 14 by phone and al-Akili agreed to talk more to the Guardian about his belief that he was being set up by Hussain. But he was arrested the next day and has been denied bail as a potential threat to the public, keeping him in jail.

Al-Akili's lawyer Mike Healey believes that the FBI may have been monitoring al-Akili's emails, and possibly his phone, and then rushed to arrest him once Hussain had been identified and al-Akili had effectively gone public with his fears.

So let me get this straight. The FBI using the exact same tactics as before, offers to "train and arm" the suspect. Realizing that this is a setup, the suspect sends out a blast e-mail to the media and makes some phone calls detailing his suspicions.

What happens next, the FBI grabs him...

They charge him with a gun crime but portray him as a "dangerous terrorist" because of "Jihadist literature"... wonder what that was, the US Constitution?

Isnt it obvious that this is complete BS? They never hesitate to scream about alleged plots with headline grabbing details. Instead they make some obscure reference to "Jihadist literature"? Guess they need time to manufacture, I mean, sort out the evidence...


Coincidentally (yah right), this case has not been mentioned anywhere.




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Interesting story, and if its accurate.....then who do we trust anymore?

I do have one question, perhaps I missed the information somehow. What caused this man to suspect the men were involved with the FBI?

S&F because this needs attention.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 

Good question. Many of the so called terrorists seem to be near mentally handicapped.

Will be interesting to see what comes of this.

The US government's credibility is already in the toilet. Unfortunately, I think they're going to make an example out of this guy.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


Maybe because people were trying to get him to make radical statements and buy a gun? That would make me suspicious too.

If true, this is a total abuse of powers. Agents should be locked up for effectively providing false testament and committing perjury.

I have never understood though how entrapment could ever be considered legal?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   
It is becoming obvious with this story the last D.C. setup as well as things like Fast and Furious something isn't right.These actions are definitely expedient. But to who's benefit? Why would you intentionally coerce people into doing things they otherwise wouldn't have the ability to do? Is it necessary?
edit on 28-3-2012 by GD21D because: (no reason given)


+14 more 
posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 

FBI "Wanna buy a gun"

Stooge "Er no!"

FBI "Wanna know how to become a terrorist?"

Stooge "Er no!"

FBI *tac*tac* "Sir we have a warrant for your arrest!"

Stooge "What have I done?"

FBI "Sir...what is this?"

Stooge "My Quran...!"

FBI "Sir you're under arrest for being in possession of "Jihadist literature"



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
I haven't done alot of research but the FBI tactics are quite disgusting.just from that article



Hussain's actions became notorious among civil rights groups due to the incentives he deployed on his targets, who were local black Muslims in the impoverished town of Newburgh. They included offering one suspect $250,000, a car and a free holiday. Al-Akili said he also found a picture of Shahed Hussain on the internet and realised it was the same man as "Mohammed".


i really didn't know they could do that,and im guessing its legal?
Would it also be legal for the FBI to find a person who is lets say a active person in a local Muslim community(like getting a youth club going or something.) Now because of this the FBI decide to look into him a monitor his phone calls.They found out his daughter is missing.Could they say to him we can help you find your daughter if you blow up a church? Its an incentive just like getting a car and $250 000 right?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by smyleegrl
Interesting story, and if its accurate.....then who do we trust anymore?

I do have one question, perhaps I missed the information somehow. What caused this man to suspect the men were involved with the FBI?

S&F because this needs attention.


Yeah he got pretty suspicious because




he detailed meeting two men he believed were FBI informants because of the way they talked about radical Islam and appeared to want to get him to make jihadist statements. According to his account, one of them, who called himself Saeed Torres, asked him to buy a gun. Al-Aikili said he refused. The other, who was called Mohammed, offered to help him go to Pakistan for possible Islamic radical training. Al-Akili also refused. In the email al-Akili recounted that he obtained a phone number from Mohammed and put it into Google. The search returned a reference to the case of the Newburgh Four, where an FBI confidential informant called Shahed Hussain helped secure the convictions of four men for attempting to blow up Jewish targets in the Bronx.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
The FBI is complicit in every major false flag that has happened in america, and ou knobs wanna know if maybe theres something wrong!
Good Lord! The FBI is an arm of the NWO bankers now....
Its been compromised for a long time.
Take the organisation down, and expose their records to the public, and theyll want to hang the brass......
Time to revolt kiddies



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
This is going to get me flamed, but nevertheless,

Why does this event have to be a "false flag?" To me, the term false flag implies an intention to cause a crisis on purpose. Perhaps I misunderstand the term, if so please help me understand it better.

Can this not be a case of a couple overzealous agents (if indeed they are FBI) with a personal agenda? We are in the same type of atmosphere as the Communist Witch Hunts. Perhaps these agents were so eager to capture the "extreme Islamic terrorist" that they set this individual up....



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Well, didn't ya know? They need terrorists for this whole farcicle War on Terrorism to sound credible. Now, seeing that the terrorism pool seems to be on the wane, one could see how that could hurt their credibility. So they pull crap like this, trying to trap honest people into their little schtick. It makes me sick, to be quite honest with you.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by smyleegrl
This is going to get me flamed, but nevertheless,

Why does this event have to be a "false flag?" To me, the term false flag implies an intention to cause a crisis on purpose. Perhaps I misunderstand the term, if so please help me understand it better.

Can this not be a case of a couple overzealous agents (if indeed they are FBI) with a personal agenda? We are in the same type of atmosphere as the Communist Witch Hunts. Perhaps these agents were so eager to capture the "extreme Islamic terrorist" that they set this individual up....

I won't flame, but I will retort. For arguments sake lets say that this was a case of overzealous agents. Then we have an issue of law enforcement setting people up being promoted as a good thing. This is a fundamental issue on how we govern ourselves, and it needs to be examined either way.The other problem is that a good portion of U.S. citizens don't trust anything they hear from official sources. Maybe those officials should examine what they're doing to cause so much distrust. Or maybe they just don't really care.It's good to keep an open mind. Not everything happens for nefarious reasons. I think that the lines have been blurred so much we can't tell what's good or bad, so you have to question everything.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
It is so sick and disgusting that they are preying on innocents and entraping them to manufacture the false war on terror. Karma has its ways, and you know what, when those guys who are preying on the innocents will get theirs. There are days when a bus runs a light and smack.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by GD21D
 


Excellent points, and thanks for the no flames!

If these were agents of any organization, what they did is wrong. I didn't mean to imply that the behavior was excusable.

Isn't there a law against entrapment?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
OK....let's all hang on 1 second here. All we have heard is this guy's side of the story. We haven't heard the FBI's side of it. At least it doesn't seem to me that I see it from what's posted.
And I would bet....75% of the people in prison would claim they were framed.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


what do you expect when we have things like this coming to light www.abovetopsecret.com... and we will still do nothing. These guys will get prosecuted as soon as the bankers who orchestrated our economic destruction get prosecuted.
That being said I dont hold much hope for this country, its' citizenry, or our future on this planet.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


It's not really a "false flag" in the sense that something happened
It's a "controlled reaction" in the sense that they wanted to set him up and bust him before anything happened
This approach accomplishes two goals at the same time. Make people scared, and make them think the FBI is capable of protecting us before bad things happen.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 

There have been many complaints of entrapment in the past, almost every case if I remember correctly.

One could argue that its a typical defense but lets be honest. In order to perpetuate fear and justify the domestic police state, the government has to keep catching "bad guys".



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


This wouldn't be the first time the FBI has "stopped" their own homegrown terrorists, and they always make themselves out to be the heroes who saved the day yet again.....




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Let me get this straight. A FELON is arrested for illegally possessing a gun...and despite the attempts to paint him to be a dangerous terrorist, the only charges brought against him were for firing the rifle?

Where's the problem, it sounds like the system actually worked for once?

It's not like they forced this guy at gun point to fire the weapon that he cannot legally be in possession of due to the fact that he's a felon, so why did he fire it?

edit on 28-3-2012 by AutOmatIc because: spelling



top topics
 
88
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join