This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
For Mohamud, at issue is entrapment. It should automatically raise red flags when used. According to Law Professor Anthony Barkow:
"A person is entrapped when he has no previous intention to violate the law and is persuaded to commit the crime by government agents. But if he's already willing to commit the crime, it's not entrapment if government agents convince him to do it."
However, claiming intent doesn't prove it. Most often it's prosecutorial charges against the word of those accused, their side never getting out or is distorted.
Key unaddressed questions in Mohamud's case are why would FBI operatives incite an alleged terror attack? Did he really plan one, or did he say so under FBI provocation? Why would the FBI perhaps choose the time and/or place? Why would they give anyone a "bomb" to commit violence, real or otherwise? Why are only Muslims targeted? Might other motives be involved?
Most important is why perhaps was another innocent man incited, duped, set up, and now charged with what he may never have conceived of doing otherwise. Moreover, did he really want to detonate a bomb, or are key facts willfully concealed, especially the truth?
So far, it's unknown what he had in mind, if anything. Only FBI and corporate media accounts have explained, not Mohamud, who'll never be able to speak openly and freely, and if so, his side will be distorted.
Official accounts are notoriously falsified and exaggerated to incite fear, pitting the power of big government and big media against targeted victims, an intimidating mismatch.
The FBI said he "was in email contact with an unindicted associate (UA1) overseas who is believed to be involved in terrorist activities." In fact, he was an undercover FBI agent.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
4
4
