December 11, 2010

The Handy-Dandy, All-Purpose Entrapment Defense

On December 8, Muhammed Hussein--Antonio Martinez before his conversion to Islam--was arrested by the FBI. But why? Was the evil FBI engaging in racist, anti-Muslim profiling? Not unless one considers arresting Hussein after he actually tried to detonate a bomb which was, thankfully, an FBI supplied fake, at a Baltimore County military recruiting facility to be racist, anti-Muslim profiling.

This is yet another in a series of good catches on the part of law enforcement, catches wherein dedicated, home-grown jihadists, have been discovered and intercepted before they could actually kill innocent Americans on American soil. This is the good news. The bad news is that, as always, we have to be lucky every time and everywhere, and the jihadists have to be lucky only once and only here and there. This situation also illuminates a danger to which America is uniquely susceptible due to, as usual, politically correct good intentions. I’ll explore that danger and an effective, easily implemented fix to largely remove it as a danger in a multi-part series in the near future, but for this post, the issue raised by Hussein and his supporters is: Entrapment.

Entrapment is a term much bandied about, particularly by common criminals, defense attorneys, creatures of the left, community activists and organizers and increasingly, by jihadists. It’s an easy charge to make and one easily believed because most Americans don’t know what it actually is. Even the always annoying and often disgusting Geraldo Rivera--he of the Snidely Whiplash mustache--joined in the entrapment game, perhaps because of a race-based knee-jerk reflex toward defending Hispanic criminals. Appearing on the O’Reily Factor shortly after Hussein’s arrest, Rivera sagely observed that Hussein/Martinez was “just a gullible youngster,” and of course, accused the FBI of entrapment. Hussein, by the way, is 21.

The ‘Lectric Law Library provides a useful, and quite commonly understood, definition of entrapment (here):

“A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit.”

The LLE also provides a useful, commonly understood, three part test to determine if entrapment has occurred:

“- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.”

In plain English, if someone is inclined to kill innocents in furtherance of Jihad, and the police merely provide the opportunity for that person to act on their clearly professed desires, no entrapment has occurred. Despite the howls of outrage of civil liberties types to the contrary this makes perfect sense; it is absolutely how the police should conduct business.

In the case of Muhammed Hussein, the facts are clear: He came to the attention of the FBI after posting on his Facebook page calls to commit violence against non-Muslims and expressing his hatred for infidels (non-Muslims). The FBI made contact with Hussein through an informant and rapidly determined that he was not just a loud mouthed blowhard with no homicidal intent, but a genuine, home-grown jihadist who was quite serious in his deadly desires. Unless one is willing to say that investigating such a person is a violation of their First Amendment rights and that the mere process of determining their intent amounts to harassment or entrapment, then the FBI did exactly what should and must be expected of them. The alternative is that law enforcement officers must ignore potentially deadly threats in favor of waiting until after bombs explode in the midst of innocents.

What is known of this case suggests that the FBI conducted a textbook, completely legal and honorable, sting. The idea for committing Jihad came from Hussein who announced his intent to the world. The FBI did not talk him into committing the crime and in fact, carefully and on multiple occasions, recorded Hussein expressing his murderous intent, intent that he was more than ready and willing to act upon if only he had the means, means supplied by the FBI. The FBI made such recordings over time because an attorney working an entrapment defense will try to show that their client was, as Rivera suggested, “just a gullible youngster,” minding his own business until the police--who apparently have unlimited time and resources to waste persecuting random citizens--came along and coerced him into trying to blow up a military recruiting center. In this, as in most such cases, the defendant’s own words--as well as his actions--will serve to convict him.

Once again, our security services were not only very good, but lucky, and Americans are alive because of their dedication and skill. Those who cry “entrapment” in such cases, whether media personalities or Congressmen, willfully put themselves on the side of those who would gladly kill us all. We would be well served to remember their names.

Posted by MikeM at December 11, 2010 08:05 PM

From what I've read the only prompting the FBI did was to suggest using a bomb RATHER THAN the rifles this punk was already working on buying. That's not entrapment. That's eliminating the danger.

Posted by: MikeM_inMd at December 12, 2010 10:13 PM

And European press are reporting it (if at all) as an FBI plot to incite impressionable young muslims to a life of terrorism so the country won't get tired of sending soldiers to Afghanistan and Iraq to oppress the local population.

And oh, the Stockholm bombing was a CIA plot to get Sweden to sign up for helping the US in their next war against Islam.

You heard it here first, people!

Posted by: JTW at December 13, 2010 02:33 AM