I know-- a lot of people are going to go, "well, even if it wasn't his idea,
he still agreed to it and should be locked up for at least 50 years".
Yeah right. And why is it inevitable that some of the recordings of
Mohamud's conversations with the undercover FBI agent have been "lost"?
It is inevitable. It is inevitable. It is inevitable. The
police ask you to believe that they just happened to go missing. What
a coincidence!
And you don't want to look like a fool
for being soft on crime, do you?
I personally would be quite satisfied if we had a justice system that would
immediately drop any charges against an individual if it becomes clear that
no crime would have been committed without the active participation or
encouragement of the
police or police agents or informants. Simple. The
police already understand that principle when it comes to prostitution.
Actually, I would not be satisfied with this because it is an innovation.
I would be satisfied with this because it's what 200 years of jurisprudence
has settled on in order to prevent the police and justice system from
abusing their powers.
Yes, there will be some crimes committed that would have been prevented
under the newer interpretation of the law. But, that's pretty well how our justice system is
supposed to work. Until recently, we in the democratic west, didn't
try to lock people up for thinking about committing a crime.
The reason is that we don't know who else might commit a crime if offered
the same "encouragement" as people like Mohamed Osman Mohamud were offered.
"His planning unfolded under the scrutiny and
even assistance of undercover agents, officials said. " NY Times,
November 27, 2010, in reference to Mohamed Osman Mohamud, who was recently
arrested in Portland, Oregon, for "attempting to use a weapon of mass
destruction".
This horrible person was planning to blow up a bomb at the
lighting of a community Christmas Tree expected to attract up to 10,000
people.
Well... was he. Did Osman Mohamud, out of the blue, suddenly
decide that he wanted to kill a lot of Americans? Or was he a rather
fanatical Moslem whom the FBI recruited for a terrorist act which the FBI
undercover informant was "planning".
The FBI got wind of him months ago when he apparently tried to contact
radicals in Pakistan. They got wind of him. Then undercover FBI
agents contacted him and offered to help him commit some kind of terrorist
act. They demurely "suggested" -- on the secret recordings, of
course-- that he do something less destructive and more symbolic, but he
insisted, no, no, he wanted to see innocent people die. That
should satisfy those human rights activists who keep complaining about
entrapment.
So the FBI undercover agent offered to help him build a bomb.
Wait a minute.... Mohamud obtained some of the materials and turned
them over to the FBI undercover agent and the undercover agent returned a
device to him which he told him was a bomb. The FBI supplied the bomb. Mohamud
then drove to the
public square at the Christmas Tree Lighting and dialed the number that was
supposed to blow it all up. That's when the FBI arrested him.
So
the FBI encouraged Mohamud to commit a crime but when Mohaumd proved too
inept to actually commit the crime on his own, the FBI kindly stepped in and
provided him with the bomb.
So if an FBI undercover agent went up to a man in a bar-- let's go crazy
and suggest a white man-- and said "I could get you some top grade
heroin" and the man said, wonderful, let's go, and he was arrested and
brought to trial, what would happen? Most judges would refuse to
convict. The question is, would the defendant have committed a
crime without the intervention of the undercover police officer? It's
called "entrapment". It's why policewomen posing as prostitutes can't
actually bring up the idea of sex for money; the man has to bring it up or
the charges won't stick-- it will look like committing a crime was the
police woman's idea. That's why policemen can't pose as drug dealers,
going around offering drugs to people. It has to be the idea of the
person committing crime.
(I feel ridiculous explaining this. I would be
very happy to learn it's not necessary-- most people understand why allowing
entrapment by the police is a bad idea. )
The police should not be
going around trying to create crime by presenting opportunities to people to
commit crimes. Among other things, this is offensive to the idea of
equality under the law, for the police have no intention of going up to just
anybody to see if he or she might be willing to consider committing a crime
if offered the opportunity. No, no, they only approach certain,
selected, unlucky individuals. Right now, they certainly don't seem
interested in approaching, say, NRA members, or members of white supremacist
militia groups, or vigilante groups, or Scientologists, any of which might have a number of
members who could easily be persuaded to commit a serious crime with the
right encouragement, and technical assistance. Say, burn down a house,
or shoot a few illegal immigrants, or burn down a mosque.
If the police
had not intervened, it is by no means certain that Mohamud would have
committed any crimes on his own initiative. He might have.
He might have remained a blustery, stupid young man who nevertheless never
had the guts to actually go out and do something with his big talk.
Like a lot of people.
He should perhaps have been charged with being an
accessory to attempted murder. The FBI agent, of course, is the
conspirator.
Ah yes... and I hear the right-wingers squawking
hysterically, "Oh! So you want to wait until a crime has been
committed before you lock someone up!"
Yes, exactly.
"So
you think the police should have let him build a real bomb and set it off at
the Christmas tree lighting?" No, but they should never have assisted
him with building a bomb. They already had him under surveillance.
They should have let him fend for himself and then arrest him if he
succeeded in building a bomb, once he had a real bomb in his possession,
before he had a chance to use it. If I were a judge, I would ask
myself again and again: would a crime have been committed if not for the
intervention of the police?
Why should that be frightening? That's how we do it with every
other crime, even murder. Did you forget that there was a price to be
paid for freedom and democracy? And one of them is that most of the
time people commit crimes before being arrested. And anyway, didn't
you want the government off your back?
All Contents Copyright
© Bill Van Dyk
2010 All Rights Reserved
Font: Verdana
