Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssh.

I'm glad we're having this discussion. There is an important line to be drawn regarding how these kinds of stings are carried out, and I understand that some people will place that line in a different place than myself.

That said, "entrapment" is practically a non-existent legal doctrine when it the more horrific categories of crimes (mass murder, murder, rape, child molestation, etc). Entrapment as a defense is better suited to low level drug cases, burglary, embezzlement, stuff like that - cases where you may be able to persuasively argue that the defendant wouldn't have considered committing a crime but for the actions of the undercover agents.

Quite simply, the kind of person who would even entertain the invitation of strangers to commit mass murder with them can't ever be (convincingly) said to be not predisposed to committing the actual crime contemplated.

Even there, it's one thing to just silently or actively go along with a plot that you believe has zero chance of actually happening (whether to "fit in" or because you're bored), but this kid allegedly a) chose the timing and location, b) inspected the "bomb," and c) tried repeatedly to set off the "bomb." If the government can back that up, there's just no rational argument (to me) for entrapment, regardless of what was said at the first meeting.

What could the feds have possibly said to him that would have made all of his subsequent actions (if proved) understandable and unworthy of criminal punishment?

No recording of the first meeting, really? So did the kid do it because he was scared for his life the whole time?

Actually, entrapment is entrapment is entrapment. You don't get to decide how much of a legal statute applies to various alleged crimes.

And unfortunately for the FBI, an initial meeting with a perp is the keystone to determining if any case involves entrapment or not. Funny they don't have a recording of their first meeting with this kid due to "technical issues."

The fact that the FBI says the teen had no contacts or human resources already raises significant questions as to how credible of a threat he would have been without the FBI helping with this attack - to include building a fake bomb for a kid.

The big question they've not yet answered is where the kid got all the money to buy said bomb parts. They can't be cheap. Did he pay market prices or get some FBI-sponsored deal? Did he provide them with the bomb schematics?

Plus who did he get the bomb parts from? From unnamed, unindicted sources? (read: Agents and Informants) Or real terrorists?

And if he had contacts to real terrorists, why haven't they become part of a story that is rapidly coming apart at the seams?

We'll need the FBI to provide very clear answers to these questions if a jury of his peers is expected to convict a 19-year-old of being the sole ringleader with legitimate resources, connections, and planning capability to pull off this level of crime.

Entrapment? Ask yourself, could the FBI talk YOU into planting a weapon of mass destruction near a large gathering of men, women, and lots of children sheerly through the power of suggestion if you didn't already think it was a good idea?

I, too, want to commit a horrible crime. But , first, I need $2,700 (Paragraph 61 of affidavit ), $110 for bomb equipment ((Paragraph 61 of affidavit), someone to "make" a bomb for me (Paragraph 77 of affidavit ), and an apartment (Paragraph 61 of affidavit). Anyone? Oh, well. (Wait, am I in trouble?)

The way I see it, is simplistic, yet it has been pointed out by other people on this discussions.

He without any help from the FBI or anyone for that matter, could have , perfectly, have made a lesser grade home made bomb, and have killed or severed, let´s say, 5 people. To me that´s no joke. He already had his Jihad - word I hate so much - delusion on his head, something was bound to happen. I came to this conclusion after reading what he posted on line, and about what he told fellow muslim partners on e-mails.

I am not an authority about these issues in your necks of the woods by no mens, neither about the actual laws, but face it, sometimes the Law Enforcement good guys have to do stuff that may seem controversial, rock star like, to save the 5 people in my "no help from anyone" Hypothesis.

This on the security of the Land. On other issues I might differ. But not so much. I don´t have any out of this world communications in my emails, if they scan thru em, and like I hear a complete set of Lyrics being sang by X artist a couple of weeks after that may seem mine, then I´ll know who to go after first. I doubt that after like reading my 3erd email they would be interested in keep going thru my geek a ton communication with friends. UUuuu, they´ve read my e-mails. Faceless people. Who cares. Get over it. Privacy. What privacy, all the hackers in the Russian area have already years ago hacked the camera of your GF, 24/7, if she´s hot. Or semi-hot.

I care about stopping potential or minimal, "Big or small human losses", and making places safer. Think about it. It´s really about safety. By no means these people are amateurs. Besides, there are a lot of people who really hate to death people who chew gum and go to baseball games and get turkey on thanksgiving. You know who fits into that profile/description/comic like depiction. Peace out.

I would be curious to know if Mohamed Assman was a white right wing extremest, would all those screaming entrapment at the Mercury, BlueOregon, WillametteWeak, indymedia and so on would be attacking the FBI or praising them?

If I was living in a country I hated (because I'd been told it was evil my whole life) when I was 19 years old (say the former USSR) I can see myself entertaining some pretty wild fantasies of destruction. This kid is a world-class shit bird, don't get me wrong, but most 19 year old man-boys are. He's a pawn that's been manipulated first by the delusions of religious belief, and secondly by the agents of a security state desperate to prove they're "winning" the so-called "war on terror". Pathetic all around really.

Thanks for digging out those numbers, Super Chuddy.

I think the question comes down to - he had an evil intent, sure, but intent isn't normally a crime. Would he have had the means, without the FBI's help? That's why the word 'entrapment' comes up. Did the FBI artificially escalate things, to get a juicier crime?

I mean, just their press release - 'the public was never in any danger!' Well, if there there was never any danger, was a crime really committed?

@Andy from Beaverton Bruce Turnidge (aka "white right wing extremest") made his own bomb with his own money. He wanted to achieve maximum destruction and unfortunately he did.

This poser, Mohamed Assman, did not commit as serious a crime by talking about committing a terrorist act. (Otherwise, there's plenty of O-Live commenters that would be arrested.) The FBI wanted to catch this guy in the act, but to do so they "needed" to supply him with money, supplies, and other resources--resources he would never have gotten without them.

But please do keep crying about the sky is falling and raining down Islamic jihadists on us.

@Reymont Who the f__k is "Super Chuddy"?

Andy - who cares?

Your MO seems to be "asking questions by putting words into people's mouths". It's boring.

Don´t be wusses, the guy wanted to kill you guys and might have been successful with a home made bomb. Am surprised he hasn´t gotten lynched by the Portlandians Punks Anarchists and Vegans already.

Send him to Juvi? Take him with all expenses payed to the Super Bowl where Black eyed Peas will perfom? (4 hot dogs, three super size cokes, one burrito, and 2 corn dogs), or get him an netflix discount cyber coupon, or maybe while he serves 47 years of prison (-part of the "Rehabilitation Process" - "hmmmm, this isn´t so bad, neither do the guys" -).

@Super Chundy - No one. Nevermind.

Uhm, am not advocating for violence, nor for nourishment or encouragement of a lesser degree of seriousness for the treatment of this matter. Am just giving a different picture about it.

@ Raymont - Well, if there there was never any danger, was a crime really committed? -

I think that´s cuz he was being monitored the whole time, and since months ago. When he started talking about killing people. That´s a safety plus right there.

@Leaky - What's a safety plus? And don't LOTS of people talk about killing folks without ever acting on it?

He's probably guilty of SOMETHING terrible. I sure don't know the answer, I don't have the facts - I'm just glad someone is asking "Oh, hey, this isn't entrapment, is it?" If the real answer is "Nope! We're all good!" that'll be great. Just so long as the question gets asked! :)

This seems to boil down to a question of the proper role of law enforcement - is it just to apprehend and process those who have committed crimes, or is the goal to also actually prevent some crimes from occurring?*

It's fair to say you want only the first role, but that means you must accept that other than processing criminals after the fact, you can't complain that the government or police didn't protect citizens from ongoing crime (including terrorism).

It's also fair for me to point out that you're in the extreme minority. For the rest of us, the debate then is where to draw the proper lines between permissible investigation and governmental coercion.

* Beyond the simple deterrence value of would-be criminals seeing other criminals processed.

@Colin - If by 'processed' you mean 'liquidated,' I'm totally on board.

@ Reymont : When you all of the sudden turn Islamic, with extremist views, then start to like x out all Elvis Presleys images in Portland with a big ol red marker, change your name to Musrafat Oli Khan, start to learn how to make bombs, praise the term Jihad, and you treathen me to death if I attend a "infidels reunion of wasted souls" (that is a My Bloody Valentine Concert), I´d be concerned.

If I spill slurpy on you, by all means accidently, and you say "Leeeeakkkkyy, am gonna kiiiiill youuuuu". There I´ll run. XD

The plus meant that he was being monitored, so If he would think that his "Jihad Brothers" were insufficient atrophied minds to carry out "a task", and tried to fly solo, he would have been stopped dead on his tracks. Very fast.

@CC: I don't know if you realize it, but you're getting into some Philip K. Dick fiction when you start talking about looking at the arrests of potential criminals before they commit any actual crimes simply because we think they might... :)

@buck: Yeah, like everything PKD did, the precrime unit from Minority Report represents a caricature of a nightmarish future: in this case, what might happen if every last limit to investigation were removed + technology + a public terrified enough of any crime at all to willingly trade all rights.

It doesn't change the fact that almost all of us are OK with online pedophilia stings, or well-run infiltration of would-be terrorists. We draw lines in our world, where there are few/none in PKD's.

Our legal system (through sentencing) already takes into account the lower moral culpability between an "attempt" to have sex with a child, or blow up a car, and the actual completed act.

No one is arguing that an attempt is the same thing morally as successful completion of an actt, except the legal system of PKD's science fiction. We just regard the mental intent, combined with taking real world steps (essential to prove attempt), as appropriately deemed a criminal act in it's own right.

The FBI has a rich history of radicalizing patsy's to carry out politically charged crimes (underwear bomber, shoe bomber, world trade center bomber of 91', OKC bombers) so that an agenda can be ramrodded through for the cowering public. Just sayin'.