Mohamed Osman Mohamud Convicted..why are we not talking about this?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
On January 31st, Mohamed Mohamud was convicted of attempting to detonate a bomb at a Christmas Tree lighting in Portland, Oregon, in 2010. A quick overview, for those unfamiliar:

In 2009, the young man got into contact with recruiters for al qaeda. The FBI was alerted to this, and begun to investigate. Then the story gets odd.

The FBI ran a sting operation, pushing Mohamud to commit a terrorist act, all the way down to providing him with a fake bomb, which he subsequently attempted to detonate at the Christmas tree lighting, not knowing it was fake.

Now, I definitely want to make it clear, I think it is probably a good thing that Mohamud is off the street. He is a radical, and i do believe he was capable of hurting a lot of people. But a few questions must be raised.

1)Are we really okay with the FBI baiting someone into thinking they are going to commit a bombing? SHould the FBI really be allowed to entrap in such ways?

2)Why did the FBI feel the need to go to such lengths, when the patriot act would have allowed them to arrest this man, and detain him indefinitely based solely on his interactions with Al Qaeda?

3)Where is the media coverage of this?

My thoughts as to answers to these questions:
1)No. Entrapment is wrong. Prompting someone to commit a crime, and then arresting them for that crime is not right.

2)They needed publicity. the arrest was highly publicised, and showed that 'they' were stopping some of these terrorist attacks.

3)Its being whitewashed. After the positive press that came from the arrest, it was imperative to keep the trial out of the public eye, so as to not raise questions about the tactics used to get the arrest.

To me, this seems like a blatant example of the next step towards a police state....

related articles:
www.gsnmagazine.com...
www.courthousenews.com...
www.dailymail.co.uk... ony.html
www.oregonlive.com...




posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
The FBI ran a sting operation, pushing Mohamud to commit a terrorist act, all the way down to providing him with a fake bomb, which he subsequently attempted to detonate at the Christmas tree lighting, not knowing it was fake.

Entrapment is wrong.

To me, this seems like a blatant example of the next step towards a police state....


Perhaps you would prefer the FBI waited until he detonated a real bomb, killing shoppers, before they arrested him?






edit on 1-2-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Entrapment is a very tricky thing. I do, however, think what the FBI did was wrong and strange. Why did they care so much about this one person. Surely they have bigger problems to run sting operations on. I'm definitely not saying they should have ignored a radical becoming involved with Al Queda, however, we are aware of plently of people involved with Al Queda, many radical. We don't run sting operations tempting them to blow up fake bombs.

And I agree with your opinion. The arrest was positive, the trail and conviction, I believe, would have been quite negative. The government can't afford any negative press at this time. Especially press that shows violations of liberites and misuse of power.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
The FBI ran a sting operation, pushing Mohamud to commit a terrorist act, all the way down to providing him with a fake bomb, which he subsequently attempted to detonate at the Christmas tree lighting, not knowing it was fake.

Entrapment is wrong.

To me, this seems like a blatant example of the next step towards a police state....


Perhaps you would prefer the FBI wait until he detonates a real bomb, killing shoppers, before they arrest him?





Did you not read what I said? I do believe it is a good thing this person is off the streets. Do you think its ok for the FBI to decide someone is a 'bad guy' and then set them up so that they can be arrested? Is that your idea of freedom?

And what of the fact that they didnt have to set him up-they could have EASILY held him due to his interactions with al qaeda.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
If he wasn't the type of guy who wouldn't think of killing anyone, the FBI wouldn't have been able to bait him no matter how hard they tried.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons
If he wasn't the type of guy who wouldn't think of killing anyone, the FBI wouldn't have been able to bait him no matter how hard they tried.


Very true, but does that justify the means? Are we ok with allowing our law enforcement to create crimes so as to get people off of the streets?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I heard about it on NPR. I remember when it happened.
I want someone to set up the FBI ask to meet them for bomb parts and then have the police waiting to arrest the FBI. Then maybe sue them for attempted entrapment.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I heard about it on NPR. I remember when it happened.
I want someone to set up the FBI ask to meet them for bomb parts and then have the police waiting to arrest the FBI. Then maybe sue them for attempted entrapment.


AMEN! I find it to be a very scary notion that people are ok with this type of thing.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

I heard about it on NPR. I remember when it happened.

I want someone to set up the FBI ask to meet them for bomb parts and then have the police waiting to arrest the FBI. Then maybe sue them for attempted entrapment.


The difference would be that the FBI would have no criminal intent, unlike Mohamed Osman Mohamud who was trying to blow people up in the name of Al Qaeda.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

I heard about it on NPR. I remember when it happened.

I want someone to set up the FBI ask to meet them for bomb parts and then have the police waiting to arrest the FBI. Then maybe sue them for attempted entrapment.


The difference would be that the FBI would have no criminal intent, unlike Mohamed Osman Mohamud who was trying to blow people up in the name of Al Qaeda.




Have you researched this story? He was prompted to do this. He did not seek out the bomb on his own. He was encouraged by the FBI to find a bomb, pick a target, and try to blow it up.

Ironic, really, when you think about it, that the FBI was encouraging him to do something in the name of al qaeda.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

AMEN! I find it to be a very scary notion that people are ok with this type of thing.


How would you deal with people like Mohamed Osman Mohamud?

Wait until they successfully blow people up?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Have you researched this story? He was prompted to do this. He did not seek out the bomb on his own. He was encouraged by the FBI to find a bomb, pick a target, and try to blow it up.



One doesn't contact recruiters for Al Qaeda in an entirely law abiding mind.

Neither does one agree to plant bombs without the criminal intent to blow people up.

The FBI have removed a dangerous jihadist from the streets and they should be commended for their diligence.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
The FBI ran a sting operation, pushing Mohamud to commit a terrorist act, all the way down to providing him with a fake bomb, which he subsequently attempted to detonate at the Christmas tree lighting, not knowing it was fake.

Entrapment is wrong.

To me, this seems like a blatant example of the next step towards a police state....


Perhaps you would prefer the FBI wait until he detonates a real bomb, killing shoppers, before they arrest him?





Did you not read what I said? I do believe it is a good thing this person is off the streets. Do you think its ok for the FBI to decide someone is a 'bad guy' and then set them up so that they can be arrested? Is that your idea of freedom?

And what of the fact that they didnt have to set him up-they could have EASILY held him due to his interactions with al qaeda.



This is actually very common. Just watch ID television and plenty of shows where, usually a spouse, wants to hire a hit man and somehow law enforcement gets hold of it and poses as the hit man. That is only one example, there are others that are very similar.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Have you researched this story? He was prompted to do this. He did not seek out the bomb on his own. He was encouraged by the FBI to find a bomb, pick a target, and try to blow it up.



One doesn't contact recruiters for Al Qaeda in an entirely law abiding mind.

Neither does one agree to plant bombs without the criminal intent to blow people up.

The FBI have removed a dangerous jihadist from the streets and they should be commended for their diligence.


You commend a loss of freedom. Fair enough.

The fact is, the man never attempted anything, until being prompted by the FBI. Period.

And I wonder, why do you ignore my other question? Why did the FBI go through all of this, when they could have just as easily held him based on the patriot act?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher


This is actually very common. Just watch ID television and plenty of shows where, usually a spouse, wants to hire a hit man and somehow law enforcement gets hold of it and poses as the hit man. That is only one example, there are others that are very similar.


Thats hardly the same thing, though. In those cases, the wife commits the crime just by hiring a hitman. In this case, the FBI came to him, before he committed any crime.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

AMEN! I find it to be a very scary notion that people are ok with this type of thing.


How would you deal with people like Mohamed Osman Mohamud?

Wait until they successfully blow people up?








I wouldnt create a crime to get them off the street, that is for sure. And again, why go through all of that, when they could just as easily hold him under the patriot act?
”He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.”



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Didn't they offer him a large sum of money along with the supplies and intel?

If you were an intelligence agency with the resources, you could go downtown, under any bridge and find a homeless/crazy person that could be coerced into doing nearly anything for $100,000.

I'm not particularly upset about this case, because the guy allegedly contacted Al Queda first, but this has happened like 19 other times. The only terrorists the FBI has gotten are terrorists they helped create.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
And again, why go through all of that, when they could just as easily hold him under the patriot act?


If they did that then the bleeding hearts would be on here and other places claiming the "FBI are holding a innocent man"



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

You commend a loss of freedom. Fair enough.



I have lost the freedom to try to blow people up?


Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Why did the FBI go through all of this, when they could have just as easily held him based on the patriot act?



The Patriot Act provides for the arrest and detention of terrorists. It doesn't provide for their conviction.

Let's face it. Someone who contacts recruiters for Al Qaeda and then tries to blow up shoppers is clearly a terrorist.

Is he not?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
And again, why go through all of that, when they could just as easily hold him under the patriot act?


If they did that then the bleeding hearts would be on here and other places claiming the "FBI are holding a innocent man"


Funny, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people being held for exactly what I said, at Gitmo, and other sites. Where's the outcry?





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join