FBI groomed a 16-year-old with “brain development issues” to become a terrorist
theintercept.com
theintercept.com
Morris writes[1]:
> The US Attorney General is announcing the sensational arrest of an army based in Miami, about to launch a full ground war on America. The FBI had saved the Nation [...]
> Two years later in Washington DC I met a witness from the resulting trial and discovered this terrifying coup would have been pulled off by seven construction workers riding into Chicago on horses. The idea was a fantasy, spun to make money. They had no guns – and no horses. An FBI informant had offered them $50,000 to attack America [...]
> The government presented it as an Al Qaeda plot bigger than 9/11. These guys weren’t even Muslims, they were Haitian Catholics. It took three trials to find them guilty. They were all jailed as terrorists.
> “I discovered this was not a freakish one off. Since 9/11 it has become Standard Operating Procedure. Informants encourage a Person of Interest to break the law and when they do, the FBI arrest them. Each plan is put together with the federal attorney. Arrest is delayed until the case will play in court. So the conviction rate is 98 per cent. The typical sentence is 25 years.
1: https://lwlies.com/articles/the-day-shall-come-trailer-chris...
I have one: solicitation to commit a felony. I think we’d be a little better off if the congress made it clear via statute that this sort of conduct falls under the existing solicitation statutes.
We’d be a lot better off if there was a permanent special prosecutor charged with identifying and prosecuting these crimes.
To reiterate what they said:
>> We’d be a lot better off if there was a permanent special prosecutor charged with identifying and prosecuting these crimes.
---
> Law enforcement needs to be forcibly rebuilt by civilian led institutions embedded into their communities in partnership with the plethora of organizations offering a cornucopia of types of support.
What does this mean in practice specifically? Which specific non-government/tax-payer funded organizations should have this responsibility?
Law enforcement agencies are civilian institutions. The only non-civilian entities in the United States are the uniformed service branches of the Department of Defense and the state National Guard units. This isn’t minor grammatical nit-picking, and is central to the point I was making: police officers are civil servants. They should be held to account under the civil and criminal code the rest of us have to abide by when they commit wrong-doing. We should not carve out exceptions for them, real or imagined [0], that the rest of us do not enjoy.
That said, if you don’t believe we can amend one law and appoint a special prosecutors office, what makes you think we can successfully rebuild these institutions from the ground up?
0 - You can read the federal solicitation to commit a crime of violence statute, 18 USC § 373, for yourself and decide if the statute permits this kind of behavior from the FBI. I’d argue such behavior as in the OP violates the statute already, but I have no doubt the courts have accepted all manner of excuses regarding ‘intent’ that would not be given the time of day with a non-government defendant. In any case, I stand with my original point: amend these laws to make absolutely clear this conduct is illegal. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/19/michigan-gov...
Yes. Your record in winning cases influences your career.
These guys were dumb and pissed off the wrong people and were made examples of. Most never are.
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/18/1118108084/michael-conahan-ma...
It's one thing to infiltrate a group and then use that information to decide to tail them or arrest them or whatever. But I think there is a line somewhere where this kind of encouragement should anull/vacate a conviction. It's not too far from handing a loaded weapon to a toddler and then being surprised they sometimes go and fire the weapon. I'm almost willing to have this practice abolished just because the system can't police itself to do the right thing.
It's a perversion of the ideals this country is supposed to stand for.
The FBI should be in prison. It was originally founded by Hoover as a US version of Stasi (that predates it!) to persecute people who challenge government corruption.
The people involved are total idiots and even crazy, but the FBI are to blame as well in the Whitmer kidnapping plot. As more comes to light, it seems they created the plot and egged the participants on. They werent just implanted to see what’s going on.
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/19/michigan-gov...
The furthest that the guardian went, was saying their claims of an FBI setup were "not entirely outlandish".
But then you introduced the story here as if the FBI "created the plot". That's not what your link said
Of the 13 people involved the FBI has admitted to 5 of them being directly or indirectly working on behalf of the FBI including the group leader. There is significant evidence pointing to the fact that if the FBI had not been involved the plot would've never happened.
At the risk of true scotmanning, no, I didn't come away from either the guardian nor wiki links thinking the evidence was "significant".
Actually I didn't see any evidence in either link, that without the FBI, no attack would have happened.
What evidence do you think could lead you to conclude, that no attack would happen if not for the FBI?
So the leader of the group who was supplying the group was also being supplied by the FBI and was an informant for the FBI and acting under the FBI's direction. I don't know how you can get much more convincing then the lead dude who is spending hours planning it and who will got all the supplies was 100% of the FBI's pocket and then come to the belief that the FBI didn't directly instigate it.
Do you think with all of those facts that the crimes they are accused of would have happened without Chappel in the lead?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-proudboys-leader-excl...
I don’t think your example supports that. “Group leader was formerly an informant for both the FBI and local law enforcement” does not indicate “FBI planted him as group leader”.
https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/how-the-fbi-spie...
Robert F. Kennedy Jr has been doing the rounds and it really begs the question. The FBI has no problem with grooming people and entrapping them. If it is willing to plot half-measure attacks and destroy lives, where would the confidence come from that they don't also sometimes plot full-measure attacks and destroy lives?
Some agent is grooming someone, leaves/gets promoted, the new handler doesn't quite understand what was going on and then all of a sudden they have a "situation" on their hands.
What evidence led you to think this is MOST likely - or in fact has ever happened in history?
I really don't understand why you have theorised that a US attorney would allow attacks to take place.
Obviously an attorney is seeking closed prosecutions, and the article is about closing prosecutorial cases against people "plotting" attacks, and, therefore, no additional steps are required in order to obtain prosecution.
It is possible that they don't always using their skills legally and under supervision. It is like computer security researchers - some are law abiding, some are a bit dodgy and do things that aren't legal. With FISA in the mix we can't even be completely sure what is legal in this area anyway.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_lette...
They have a tactic they could employ in this case, commonly called "lying". Remember how FBI lawyer lied to FISA court? How long was his prison sentence after he got caught, what do you think? Trick question, because he didn't get any prison time at all. He also haven't lost his law license, because lying to the court where there's no adversarial process and that wholly relies on honesty of the lawyers to suspend human rights of citizens - is not grounds for disbarment.
This is what happens if you get caught red-handed lying in the probably hottest case in the history of the nation. In smaller cases, there's usually not even an indictment, people just shrug and move on. Testilying is routine enough to have its own word. The practice is routine enough to have a long Wikipedia article [1] (actually, two articles). Practically never prosecuted. Of course, when and if and comes out, the US Attorney who was on the receiving end probably would be pissed. So what. If the goal worth it, it will be done. They'd just present it as a routine operation, lie in the sensitive parts, and nobody will know it until it'd be too late. Or maybe long after.
I knew both of these people in my late teens and it couldn’t have been clearer that they were mentally unstable. They couldn’t conspire to do much at all, let alone the sophisticated things they were accused of.
The work that would have gone into framing them is so difficult to overstate. They would have undermined the RCMP at every turn, either through incompetence or lack of interest in the big plan.
Not through any fault of their own. Korody was nicknamed “potato” as a teen because she was about as intelligent as one. Which is awful, don’t get me wrong. I have a lot of sympathy for these two.
This case made me extremely apprehensive about the RCMP, in any case. The recent Fairy Creek debacle on Vancouver Island wasn’t as bad, but clearly exposed the rotten underbelly of the organization once again.
It’s rough because most Canadians will assume you’re some kind of conspiracy theorist or shit disturber if you hold these opinions. Our police and military possess a strange kind of innocence in our national narrative that the US counterparts don’t appear to have.
I think the USians you run into on the internet are a more well read and skeptical bunch than average. Most Americans I know in person aren’t even aware of past actions of the FBI that even the current FBI denounces, such as their abhorrent treatment of Martin Luther King Jr.
Imagine the information that isn't public about their misdeeds.
J Edger Hoover's Wikipedia:
> From the mid-1940s through the mid-50s, he paid little attention to criminal vice rackets such as illegal drugs, prostitution, extortion, and flatly denied the existence of the Mafia in the United States. In the 1950s, evidence of the FBI's unwillingness to investigate the Mafia became a topic of public criticism.
Story of 1957 Mafia meeting:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1957-meeting-forced-f...
To be extra clear given recent events, this is not commentary on the case around Trump;s actions. This is about terrorism cases, drugs cases, and various other crimes (like the attempted kidnapping of Witmer in MI).
It all about political objectives of either the individual agents (in the case of Witmer is was for the personal advancement of the agent) , or the the agency has a whole, while they ignore wide spread crime such as insider trading of congress, interstate crimes by large corporations, abuse by local police dept's, etc etc etc etc
But perhaps a different kind of attention?
Think of it as an east-coast, old-money KGB.
Every group in power acts exactly the same way as they want to keep the power. It is just human nature.
Directly? Probably no.
I mean, the FBI showed up at his house and seized a computer. How many warnings did he expect to get?
To frame them.
That their power is sometimes pointed at actual criminals doesn't change that much. For example, their relationship with Whitey Bulger did end up putting some bad people in prison. It also had some less desirable outcomes.
Incompetence, maybe, unnecessary, yes. Evil is a stretch
"drunk driving may kill a lot of people, but it also helps a lot of people get to work on time, so, it;s impossible to say if its bad or not,"
Another dimmer view: The FBI agents themselves are getting in practice for sedition, by persuading others (for now) via entrapment.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/fbi-sting-operati...
> “The FBI and other 3 letter agencies contact these unhinged mentally ill kids and convince them to do mass shootings,” Airman Teixeira wrote in an online chat group, sharing a debunked conspiracy theory after a gunman killed three people at a mall in Indiana last summer. The gunman, he claimed, was one of many mass shooters groomed by the government as part of a secret plot “to make people vote for” gun control.
Kind of strange to see the NYT prematurely assert something as "debunked" without evidence. And not even in an opinion article, but in a regular article? It seems like when the US govt is involved, any sort of journalistic standard gets thrown out
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/18/us/politics/airman-jack-t...