Once again, a would-be domestic terrorist has been convicted of plotting a jihadist terror attack. Once again, the Council of American Islamic Relations is accusing the FBI of entrapment because the man was caught using an informant and an undercover FBI agent.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4421/florida-man-found-guilty-in-multiple-bomb-plot
It seems that CAIR is, as usual, talking out of both sides of its collective mouth. On the one hand, they are claiming that the defendant was entrapped. On the other, they are claiming that it was the Muslim community itself who reported him to the authorities. If the defendant would not have plotted terror without the urging of the government, then why did someone in the Muslim community see fit to report him to authorities?
As for the charge of entrapment, the mere use of an informant and an undercover agent is hardly illegal or grounds for entrapment. However, when you have an undercover agent testifying to the facts and it is all on tape, what other defense is there that has a chance in court? In this case, any defense of entrapment has been entertained in court and found wanting.
As I well know from my own career in DEA, undercover work is accepted practice. However, to overcome a defense of entrapment, it is necessary to show predisposition on the part of the defendant to commit the crime independent of any involvement of informants or undercover agents. That is why taped conversations are important to show predisposition. Merely affording the opportunity to a predisposed defendant is not entrapment.
As for statements of certain CAIR officials, keep in mind that Zahra Billoo is the same person who made use of that infamous poster urging Muslims not to cooperate with the FBI when they came calling asking for help from the community.
A better piece of advice would be to many of our officials and political leaders:
Don't talk to CAIR.
No comments:
Post a Comment