Posted on 11/30/2010 5:26:24 PM PST by Red in Blue PA
“I agree with this if it means allowing the perp to build the bomb”
Small wonder that PA is blue
“You think it’s easy for me to defend him? I would love to execute all jihadists....but we have a Constitution to live by”
Are you, by chance, Arlen Specter? You sound just like him
Based on the arrest warrant Mohamud did not build the bomb. He ordered the components and chose the location after being given numerous opportunities to opt out, but he did NOT put them together.
Then he filmed his jihadi video statement after changing his clothes telling the fed agents he wanted to be wearing “Sheik Osama style’ clothes.
The day of the planned attack he left his location to look at the bomb which was fully inert and contained in the back of a late-model white panel van
The bomb was constructed by FBI technicians.
After looking at the fake bomb, Mohamud smiled and said it was “Beautiful”
They retreated to the hotel room the meeting was conducted in. He was then asked if he was sure he wanted to go through with the attack - TWICE. The room they were in at the time had the local tv news coverage on - they were reporting that 25,000 people were at the tree lighting event. Mohamud smiled and said he was pleased there was such a large crowd.
Mohamud and the agent drove the van to the location that MOHAMUD had identified as the prime location. They parked the van and MOHAMUD attached the blasting cap to the inert device MOHAMUD then flipped the toggle switch on the inert device. He then walked with the agent to the rendezvous point and dialed the number on the cell phone (MOHAMUD had purchased the phone) that would detonate the bomb.
It didn’t detonate. The agent suggested he step out of the van and try again - the signal might be better.
Mohamud stepped out of the van and dialed again.
He was arrested kicking and screaming Allahu Ackbar.
Concur, but the initial solicitation does not have to be to the police. If someone is overheard talking about their desire to have someone killed and find a hitman to do it, then its not entrapment to provide one.
I've long had some serious concerns about any kind of police "sting" operation like this -- where the government goes out and builds a case against a defendant based on a "Crime that Didn't Really Happen but Might Have Happened if the Undercover Police were Actually Terrorists Supplying This Guy with Weapons and Explosives" scenario.
Would it have mattered if it was something else?
The intent was clearly there...
I agree. I guess what we have to see is did the FBI seek him after he declared he wanted to blow something up, or did they seek him out and convince him to blow something up.
It reminds me some of Ruby Ridge, where they asked a guy to saw off a shotgun, then tried to prosecute him for it. He wanted to sell a legal gun, and did not advertise as selling illegal weapons. If the same happened here, I will feel the same way, regardless of his religion, that I do about Ruby Ridge.
As far as I have seen, the initial contact has not been released, but I would be interested in seeing it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.