Slashdot Mirror
Man Caught Trying To Sell Plans For New Aircraft Carrier
New submitter cyberjock1980 tips news that an engineer has been caught trying to deliver schematics for an aircraft carrier to the Egyptian government. The 35-year-old civilian received security clearance four months ago after working for the U.S. Navy since February. FBI agents made contact with him, pretending to be with the Egyptian government. They struck a deal to buy documents about the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford, the first in a new line of improved, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. The man sold four CAD drawings for the carrier, and was later seen photographing another set of schematics. A bond hearing is scheduled for Wednesday.
I mean, what?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Plans sold to the Middle East?
The naval architects are now really going to regret putting in that big funnel that leads directly to the main reactor of the carrier.
So, the moron gets access to classified documents and tries to sell them to the Egyptians?
What was the thought process behind that brilliant idea?
"Hmm, no, the Russians or the Chinese wouldn't want these schematics... The Ehyptians, on the other hand... They're *totally* planning on building some aircraft carriers!"
Stolen carrier plans + 3D printer = death
Come back when they find someone actually doing something wrong without FBI grooming.
Presumably if one were a corrupt government contractor, one would start with China and Russia and work your way down until you find a government who doesn't already have a copy of the plans? ...on the other hand TFS says "FBI agents made contact with him, pretending to be with the Egyptian government" so maybe he was just going to sell them to whoever bothered to ask.
The chances of a foreign government contacting a random security cleared employee and asking to buy information is likely to be incredibly low per lifetime of each employee. Also consider that the Egyptians are both not in the market for an aircraft carrier and have enough relations with the US that they would never endanger them by doing something so obvious as building a copy of a US aircraft carrier. This "sting" is just a case of going looking for someone guilty of being stupid and greedy instead of the more difficult operation of trying to catch a real criminal.
It's just some dangerously ambitious prick deciding to shoot fish in a barrel to get a list of achievements - that's the one with the "thought process behind that brilliant idea" - present a stupid get rich quick scheme to catch the stupid.
It was a non-violent crime so he doesn't deserve to be locked up with violent offenders. He didn't steal the plans, he just infringed the copyright on them. The US still has the plans so no harm is done if he sells a few copies. Egypt can't afford to buy an aircraft carrier from the US so why shouldn't they have the plans for free? The US don't pay engineers enough so they deserved to have the plans liberated. And just about every other bullshit pro-piracy argument.
Pssst, wanna buy a nuke?
Table-ized A.I.
Really. The Eqyptians?
Surely there're countries that'll pay far more for this information than Egypt? And be able to do far more interesting things with it.
So there I was, scribbling down some notes off the PC screen by hand, when I reached for the keyboard and Ctrl-S'd.
Not the sort of hearing you want to attend. The spectre of something bad will be hanging over you.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
... caught trying to deliver schematics for an aircraft carrier to the Egyptian government.
No, he was caught trying to deliver schematics for an aircraft carrier to the FBI. Since he thought he was trying to deliver them to the Egyptian government, that makes him a scumbag, but let's not pretend an actual crime that would have occurred without the FBI's action has been thwarted here. They didn't step in and stop something bad from happening, they just found some guy who likes money more than ethics and made a good headline out of him. Arguably doing so maybe has some deterrent effect, but don't misrepresent what happened or blow it out of proportion.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
| 0 | days without an accident.
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
If we ever see the transcript of the wire that the agent was wearing, I suspect it will go something like this:
"Umm, well, it's best if the torpedo hits the hull. If it goes in front of it or behind it, it doesn't work as well."
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Most likely if it was done that way. So what? When it comes to national security issues, I am OK with it. OTOH, when dealing with a regular criminal issue, I will oppose it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
When it comes to classified information, it probably doesn't matter. To be honest, in this case, probably rightfully so.
Part of having an SC is taking personal responsibility for the protection of controlled information and accepting that when it comes to this stuff, your civil liberties come second. He was probably given a very detailed briefing explaining all of this to him and what he was agreeing to during the process.
In other words, this guy is totally fucked.
This is like a weird case of the Darwin awards; i.e., being so stupid you don't know that Egypt is not going to be interested in replicating the latest state of the art in nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.
Well thank goodness we don't have an overreaching government that drops the "national security" card at the drop of a hat. Otherwise we could end up seeing some really silly shit going down to fight a (mostly) fictional enemy.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Two differences from standard criminal charge of entrapment. First, counter intelligence personnel (CIA, FBI, DOD--whatever) are allowed to set up operations like this when government issued security clearances are involved. Second, entrapment is specifically when the entrapper targets a person and convinces that person to do something he would not normally have done. If there were suspicions about this person, I'm guessing he had raised flags already, thus negating that aspect of entrapment.
I'm a big support of Snowden. Much less so of Manning. This guy deserves whatever he gets.
It doesn't take nearly as much to take an aircraft carrier out of service.
The bombs and fires were basically on the flight deck. A bomb or missile exploding several decks down would cause a lot more critical damage, especially if it exploded in the ammunition or fuel storage areas. And the proximity of the USS Enterprise to Hawaii helped bring it back to service quickly, I'm sure.
As for the USS Franklin, although it was repaired, was never returned to service. Same as the USS Bunker Hill, which was also severely damaged in an attack.
Did he really think he'd get away with that after Edward Snowden's recent whistle blowing? More than anything the U.S. government would ensure the security of it's military vessels. He should have assumed - like the prince from zimbabwe offer - that it was just a scam.
RIP TRICERATOPS, YOU NEVER EXISTED
He-Man ( http://www.mattycollector.com/... ) is a celebrity.
Egypt has the largest navy in the Middle East and Africa, and is the seventh largest in the world. They were the first to successfully deploy missiles against other ships.
I'd have you over for dinner, and you'd be welcome to bring your friend from China.
Also, I regularly deal with cyber attacks from China. I know the Chinese government is attacking us and seeking new and better ways to attack us. I know they have. Chinese students and businessmen working for them do intelligence, so while they're welcome to come to dinner, there's no reason to show top secret stuff to anyone from China. The risk each time may be small, just as the risk of not wearing a seatbelt once is small, but if you get in the habit of risking disaster you'll eventually have a disaster. There's no need to; there are plenty of Americans to handle the classified stuff, and that's lower risk. Sorry. Please do stay for tea.
The documents do not describe why Awwad was targeted.
There's still a possibility that Awwad expressed his intent, even if through a pseudonym. I wouldn't presume that the feds make random cold calls to see who bites - the targets would gossip about it before long.
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
Except this wasn't some random citizen. This was a guy who signed agreements basically acknowledging his responsibilities to protect that data, and acknowledging that he understood the various conditions of holding a security clearance. When you sign those papers you (knowingly) give up certain rights.
I'm all for railing against the government using terrorism to get it's way, but this particular application makes sense. The fucker should fry.
It could be something as grubby as the rumoured infighting between Saudi and Israeli aligned factions in the intelligence community that led to that employee being targeted instead of crafting a sting for a different vunerable employee. Or it could be random. Either way someone just chose that fish in the barrel to shoot as a bit of lazy policing with a manufactured crime.
In WWII, the HMS Hood was, for all practical purposes, destroyed by a single shell. More recently, the USS Cole was severely damaged and 17 sailors killed by a small craft carrying a shaped charge.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
There is a difference between entrapment and a sting.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You can want the plans for an aircraft carrier for more than one reason than just building a copy. For example, looking at vulnerabilities or selling them on to other interested parties.
"He also described a detailed plan to circumvent Navy computer security by installing a "bug" on his restricted computer that would allow him to copy documents without drawing attention.
According to the affidavit, Awwad provided the undercover agent four computer-aided design drawings of the Ford and told him where to strike the vessel with a missile to sink it.
The two men later arranged for Awwad to make a drop on Oct. 23 in Hampton. The affidavit said Awwad removed $3,000 in cash from a camouflaged hole and put in its place a 1-terabyte external hard drive and two passport photos he thought the Egyptians would use to make a fraudulent passport. Agents found six more drawings of the Ford on the hard drive.
10 drawings and a plan to get a lot more data.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Entrapment is a really tricky defense. The Founding Father's didn't actually recognize it as a defense at all. The first case where it was used Federally did not happen until Prohibition hit. In pop culture it's usefulness is greatly exaggerated. Most people start thinking "entrapment" when a government agent says "hey let's do a crime" and somebody goes along with it, but entire categories of case simply could not be filed if that was all that mattered. For example, pretty much the only way to arrest Johns is to have a cop dress up as a hooker and offer to sell sex.
Entrapment only happens legally if there's some reason to believe the entrapee would not have even considered the possibility of committing the crime absent the government's actions. In the hooker stings they generally happen in areas where people troll for hookers, so the Courts rule that either a) this particular defendant clearly had a predisposition to commit the crime or he wouldn't have been driving through that neighborhood slowly at that time of night, or b) the governments actions were not likely to entice law-abiding citizens to stop and give a hooker money because law-abiding citizens don't drive through that neighborhood slow at that time; depending on whether that particular court system uses the "subjective" or objective" tests.
In this case the defendant can't really use the defense very effectively because in the Federal system they use method a), which means he'd have to prove he was highly unlikely to take money to sell plans in the absence of a government dude offering money. He was very hands-on once they offered the money, doing numerous things that one would do if one really really wanted to sell national security information to a foreign government (such as creating "an elaborate cyber security system which included several one-time use electronic mail boxes with phantom names").
The plans are just the McGuffin. They do not matter. Nobody was buying the plans apart from the lazy sting to catch someone who is greedy.
You've been fooled into equating this with catching the agent of a foreign power who is going around looking for people who have access to aircraft carrier plans. Nothing so useful has happened, they've only caught some guy that will sell out in very specific circumstances. With the right circumstances they could probably lock up half of Virginia, all without preventing or punishing a single real crime.
Since the guy doesn't have a history of such a thing it very firmly ticks box number two for entrapment. I suspect someone's taking the lazy way up the promotion ladder and this guy is part of the way of doing it. Such bullshit is disturbingly common.
I'm not suggesting it as a defence, I'm suggesting that it's very lazy policing to fabricate a false crime and charge for that in the first place instead of going after a real crime. Would the guy have done it otherwise? How the hell would we ever know? Going after real crime is harder, but the objective is not supposed to be to fill prisons, it's supposed to be to prevent or solve crimes instead of adding to the list with faked up ones.
They were probably also the first to have a navy at all.
If you take a security clearance you give up many of the rights you would have as a normal citizen. I would consider this level of entrapment a prudent security measure, as when nine of of ten offers are traps, the resulting paranoia diminishes the risk of actual disclosure.
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
Look at it another way - what if he thought "these guys want to give me money for some secret they can never use?" Doesn't sound like betrayal in those terms, after all Egypt is a major non-NATO ally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Military_cooperation). I'm sure the sting was deliberately intended that way.
I'm also sure that most posters here work with people that would fall for similar things. There's no shortage of greedy people out there that can twist things enough that they can convince themselves that it's OK to take the money in similar circumstances. It's not China or Russia they'd say, we give them $19billion in military aid, so it's not going to hurt if I profit a bit? It's a complete waste of time to catch such people since something like that sting is not likely to happen to them in reality.
It's just a carefully crafted fantasy designed to show progress by increasing arrest figures. The Soviets did that sort of thing a lot. Why are we doing it?
Most Civil Engineers I know aren't looking to go all "Jack Bauer" toting a .45 around with secrets on a thumb drive... This guy is clearly the "bottom half" of the spy training program.
D+ A-wad.
Re "modern".
Millennium Challenge 2002 was a major war game experiment and exercise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats"
"the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed"
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Yes, the guy had a security clearance, so I suppose entrapping him can be considered part of the quality control process, but it's still ridiculous; Egypt would get much more effective military use from a dirt airstrip in the Sinai than an aircraft carrier. But hey, the FBI gets to put out a press release claiming they caught a spy! And it's less ridiculous than the time they entrapped half a dozen drunken bums in Chicago into a "plot to bomb the Sears tower", and less dangerous than the time they helped half a dozen Al-Qaeda plotters mix fertilizer explosive for the first World Trade Center bombing.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
"Greedy and gullible" makes the perfect target for actual espionage, too. Of course, even greedy and gullible people can still say "no" and follow the law.
There are proper channels for reporting such suspicious contact, and people with clearances are required by law to use them. This guy didn't. He went ahead and tried to sell secrets, compromise security, et cetera... but the key detail is that he chose to do so, rather than report the event.
Sure, he was misled. He still believed he was selling secrets to foreign nations, and chose to willfully engage in a crime.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Both Snowden and Manning disclosed internal affairs of serious government institutions. In both cases the information was secret and in both cases affairs had been unethical. I fail to see why your personal preference so so skewed.
Otherwise we could end up seeing some really silly shit going down to fight a (mostly) fictional enemy.
The truly stupid shit is people claiming that al Qaida and friends doesn't exist, and ignore the fact that they control ground.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Since the guy doesn't have a history of such a thing it very firmly ticks box number two for entrapment.
That you know of. What do you think they might have found out from surveillance prior to the sting? Or didn't the thought cross your mind?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Indeed, we know the Egyptians engaged in sea battles at least 3000 years ago.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...
They may have had a navy 5000 years ago, that we don't know.
You might be just one "event" away from going all s.petry on us. (And you know what I mean.)
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You ought to learn a bit more about entrapment before trying to discuss it.
The determination of what someone would otherwise have done is based on what they do, given the means (and even encouragement). All the guy had to do was say "no".
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
How the fuck did you get modded up?
Do you have ANY fucking idea what is takes to get your clearance in the US, and nearly any other nation?
You have to give permission for them to look into your background. In the paperwork that you sign, you typically agree that you will keep things to yourself, AND that the gov has the RIGHT to follow up on any issues that present itself. I doubt that the FBI contacted this asshole. It is a NEAR CERTAINTY that he contacted somebody and said that he wanted to sell information. Then and only then, did FBI become involved. They may have intercepted initial messages. They may have an insider that told them about this guy. Regardless, once they heard that he was wanting to sell out, they have the FULL RIGHT to go after him.
Once that man agreed to allow this in writing, the FBI only did what it was legally allowed (and possibly bound ) to do. And if he was opposed to these actions, then he should never have signed a document allowing just this.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
A simple reason--I find more value in the content of Snowden's releases than in the others.
Selling military hardware plans is not ideological and it doesn't expose government abuses.
This is THE BEST STRATEGY for "keeping foreign powers from getting to the many greedy and gullible people", because now every time the "foreign powers" make their move, the gullible will think twice before selling out.
Thank you. It's not like the FBI stood out on the street like a stripper next to a secured facility going, "hey big spy man, wanna sell me secrets?" It's even more ridiculous to suggest they'd just up and call some random dude to see if he was willing to sell secrets.
I do not know what you mean. I must have missed something. Care to explain?
Manning did not sell hardware, he released a video of mass execution of civilians from a helicopter by someone who sounded like a teenager... among other fascinating stuff
Such an excuse would have been in the press release if it existed to prevent accusations of entrapment such as the ones on this page. The FBI likes to get good press so would not have left it out.
Take it up with the poster above that wrote "targets a person and convinces that person to do something he would not normally have done" if you disagree with such a definition. It certainly fits that definition if you hold the definition to be valid.
Entrapment? This wasn't a spur of the moment decision. The fellow actually followed through in deliver a 1 TB hard drive offering advice where to attach the ship. You are worried he might have been entrapped? Ludicrous.
Doesn't seem to work with those idiots that keep clicking on links in spam when they know they should not so why do you think this will be any different? The "special snowflake" will think they can get away with it this time even if others who are not so special did not, and they'll sell out just the same if given an opportunity.
Instead of filling jails with idiots how about going after those giving them an opportunity?
As is demonstrated on this page the accusations are going to come regardless of the circumstances, and I doubt the FBI cares about the whining on Slashdot.
It was a sting, not entrapment. The FBI merely provided the opportunity, he committed the crime.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Disclaimer... I am hugely drunk to an unreasonable degree which nobody my age should be.
I am all about personal liberties, and feel that our government has no business at all looking into the life of any citizen without great reason to do so. I do see a very large difference between inciting crime in a normal citizen and inciting someone with a security clearance.
Pushing a citizen into selling or manufacturing narcotics for instance is hugely different from getting someone to publish engineering details which are classified. I stand by my assessment that inciting this kind of thing in someone with a clearance is prudent and reasonable.
Knowing people who do this kind of thing for a living, they pay enough that financial troubles can be nothing other than greed or such horrifically bad life choices that it is ok to come down upon it.
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
Since I haven't seen anyone point this out:
1. According to the article, the Awwad idiot actually went through with delivering classified info at the 2nd "meeting." That means he successfully stole classified from the secure facility in which it was kept.
Now, just because he sold N files to the agents, doesn't mean he only removed N files from the secure facility. Furthermore, he delivered them to agents at a hotel. Which means "out there" in the wild! So before he was arrested he could have actually had >N files copied onto an indeterminate number of his personal net connected computing gadgets, where the info could have wound up stolen by real enemies by malware bots looking for just this sort of thing, or perhaps he sent backup copies to some place where we will never know but someone else does.
In other words, the FBI agents instigated an ACTUAL breach of classified info into the wild, which is a REAL threat to national security. The info could very well already be in the hands of the Russia, China, etc.
It is the FBI fuckers who should be sent up the river!
It is the purpose of counterintelligence to protect ACTUAL national security above all else, which means not allowing classified out into the wild. They could have simply revoked Awwad's security clearance and fired him when they found him willing to commit an act of espionage, but before he actually went through with it. This would have actually protected national security, by preventing the disclosure of classified which is the whole point.
Instead they risked and caused an uncontrollable leak of classified, just to bag some idiot so he'd go to prison and the agents would get good performance reviews. These people are unethical sociopaths. It is immoral to not seek to PREVENT someone from committing a crime if you know they are willing and considering it. A sting like this should be a felony. Not to mention that now each one of us is going to have to pay a share of our life's work just to imprison the Awwad dimwit for a very long time.
2. There is something very wrong with the Navy's handling of classified, if Awwad was able to get it out at all.
In my experience, fortunately not with actual classified which I want nothing to do with since I have ADHD-like forgetfullness and work "outside the fence", but I've been trained about its handling at a national lab, it would be or should have been exceedingly difficult to steal classified in the first place.
Awwad should have never been alone with classified. It should have been on computers which, if they are networked at all, are connected to only a fully air-gapped restricted network. Even the fucking fibers can't be within like 6 feet of those from another network! The USB and other ports should be sealed off with epoxy. Swapping of classified containing hard drives to/from vault and workstation is done under direct supervision by some classified accountant. It might even be that the workers must be at least in a team of 2 or more, I'm not certain though. Workstations which process classified live in a "vault-like room." Stealing this stuff is not easy! Unless their security is very broken, it should be nearly impossible without getting caught.
Look at it this way: If the guy was stupid enough to try to sell the info yet smart enough to actually succeed at stealing some, then the Navy's security is a joke. How many have stolen information that didn't get caught?
Allowing classified to get out of it's secure facility was a collosal fuckup!
If this type of sting, resulting in the actual removal of classified from secure facilities is common practice, then the people guarding our nation are at a minimum incompetent, and at worst they are the actual traitors for being willing to risk causing actual harm to national security for the sake of their personal careers.
There is little doubt that the enemy we should truly fear is within.
This page is obviously only a minor subset of the wider discussion in various media and it's very annoying that you have pretended to be stupid enough to misunderstand that.
Which raises the question of whether the crime would have happened at all without the carefully tailored fantasy of selling to a friendly party. If we were worried about the Egyptians bombing our carriers we wouldn't have given them F16 fighter-bombers this year.
This sting stinks on multiple levels. Such pointless games in the Soviet Union provided fodder for many show trials to show the strength of the State. Why are we doing it?
If you don't have a clearance, you can't be "entrapped" by this, so worry not your pretty little head.
This is a bad seed getting weeded, nothing more.
Most people with a clearance do NOT have a "number they would sell out for". That's the whole fucking point of that thing.
Moridineas: "I'm a big support of Snowden. Much less so of Manning. This guy deserves whatever he gets."
I think this is the big telling point. Snowden is very controversial. Manning, the controversy is mostly about the magnitude of the punishment. But no one is seriously in favor of people just handing out secrets to foreign governments. Wherever you stand on the Snowdometer, this is just not that.
All the guy had to do was say "no".
Failure to report the contact would also get him in trouble.
This base canard again? To anyone paying attention, the only civilians on scene were the guys in the van. Which the guys in the chopper had no way of knowing they weren't connected to the guys carrying AKs and RPGs towards the marine component several blocks away.
Troll my fucking ass. If you think I'm defending Awwad, I'm not and you're missing the point:
ACTUAL harm to national security was done by the FBI agents instigating Awwad into stealing classified information and bringing it out into the unsecured "wild." Preventing this breach is the #1 purpose of counterintelligence. Busting people who steal classified is #2, because if it gets to that point, the harm to national security has already been occurred because:
NOW IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE CERTAIN OF THE WHEREABOUTS OF AN INDETERMINATE AMOUNT OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION!
After the Awwad creep gave them a 1TB hard drive on Oct. 23, he was STILL FREE FOR 35 MORE DAYS running amok in a facility with ineptly secured classified (or he would not have been able to steal it--it's supposed to be nearly fucking IMPOSSIBLE!), potentially stealing who knows how much additional classified information besides the photos of some printed drawing that they think they saw him photographing.
So can anyone be sure that he:
1. put everything that he stole prior to the Oct. 23 drop into the hole and that was the only copy?
2. did not copy the classified files onto or through personal computing devices with internet connectivity and which have a significant likelihood of being compromised, potentially by the malware of real enemies hoping to one day suck up just this sort of treasure due to someone's error or incompetent criminal plot?
3. did not explicitly copy, email, or allow via automated "cloud" synchronization the copying of the data onto various internet accessible servers?
That shit could be on 1000 hard drives by now scattered across the globe.
So was this worth it, just to have the satisfaction of putting someone in prison for espionage? What is the point? To put people in prison for espionage while letting the actual golden goose get lost in the shuffle, or to protect the fucking information!?!?!?
If you don't care about the moral dimension that's Ok, because it's irrelevant to this discussion. The fact is that the FBI agents instigated a crime which resulted in the actual uncontrollable release of classified information. But if they had only revoked Awwad's clearance and fired his ass, that would have never happened.
So who is it that endangered national security, and in fact actually compromised it? The FBI agents!
This just might be brilliant! Why did you have to post as AC? Too lazy to start an account?
You're missing the point, which is to crucify people at the expense of national security.
If there were suspicions about this person, I'm guessing he had raised flags already, thus negating that aspect of entrapment.
Depends on the evidence for the suspicions, doesn't it? If they have good reason to think he's done it before but need more evidence then it's ok, I suppose. If, on the other hand, they suspect him because of his name and nationality then that's a terrible reason. Whether something is entrapment is also influenced by how readily the person agrees to the under-cover agent's offer. In any case, we don't know since "The documents do not describe why Awwad was targeted."
soylentnews.org
I can't speak to the FBI but JAG did a sting on my base a couple years ago. They planted a guy in the barracks, convinced a submariner (enlisted) to give them information. I forgot his rate but he had one of the Top Secret clearances. Close friend of his told me the details and the long and short of it is it was random. Fishing for anyone in that barracks willing to talk. They caught one.
because vetting begins and ends with a work history and criminal record check then a polygraph (and we know how completely infallible they are. Right?).
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
it is not entrapment because he is not subject to civilian jurisdiction. He is subject to the UCMJ, which means they can pull every trick out of their arses to trip people up, leaving the smart-enough-not-to-fall-for-that-bullshit-but-not-too-smart-that-they-challenge-dubious-orders in place. Yes, he is fucked because he will NOT get a jury. He will get a military tribunal with a JAG lawyer representing his legal position (which is basically selecting his last meal from the set menu).
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
if he has been issued special clearance for military intelligence, then he is subject to the uniform code of military justice, not the US civil code. Hence, he will NOT get a jury, he will NOT see a civilian judge, and the only lawyer he will see will be attached to the JAG. He be fucked.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
In countries under the rule of law, rights can not be given up. Just like a law cannot override the constitution, any piece of paper you might sign or be forced to sign cannot override the law. Not even in the case of the most obvious scum of mankind. That's because once you set up the principle that the government can selectively take away your rights, then the citizens can by the same principle selectively ignore the laws they don't like. Including those that define and give authority to the government.
Hood wasn't destroyed by a single shell, it was destroyed by several shells penetrating the deck and two just happened to penetrate deep enough to ignite the magazines - both of them - causing the entire ship to explode out of the water.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
The fish still took the bait of his own accord.
Stop trying to pretend that Awwad was somehow wronged, because he wasn't. He was obligated to report the contact promptly, and his failure to do so constituted a crime.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
It's hard to think of analogies which reflect the danger, the reputational damage and the material gain of this kind of betrayal. Murder doesn't have the element of reputational damage and material gain.
I mean, you signed a contract with the U.S., you were vetted, they did background checks, you had history together and built a battleship together, then you sold the schematics of that battleship.
If we're using human analogies, this is like selling the diary, identity information and naked photos of your overaccomplished olympian niece... and providing some genetic material to clone her.
There's no way to entrap somebody with that kind of betrayal. Regardless of money, they should actively protect and defend her from this kind of abuse. Out of a sense of decency and loyalty, protecting it even with their own life.
But really, analogies suck.
At 10:22, American SBD Dauntless dive bombers approaching from the southwest and northeast struck the carriers Kaga, Soryu, and Akagi. In less than six minutes they reduced the Japanese ships to burning wrecks.
If you want the plans for something it's not necessarily because you want to recreate it. Have you not seen Star Wars?
If the counterintel folks had an inkling that he might be vulnerable to selling out, then why the fuck didn't they simply REVOKE HIS SECURITY CLEARANCE!?!?!
Ooo! Ooo! I know! Because they can't revoke his memory and he'll still have the information available for sale?
That be false. Look up jurisdiction under the UCMJ.
Very good points.
I can't speak to how well protected those plans were. But it's usually painfully obvious to anyone working in those secure facilities just how unsecure they are. Worst of all you probably wouldn't even need to be secretive. Just getting people to challenge an individual doing something slightly out of the norm is difficult.
JAG don't do counter espionage, last time I checked. You're full of shit.
I'm not suggesting it as a defence, I'm suggesting that it's very lazy policing to fabricate a false crime and charge for that in the first place instead of going after a real crime. Would the guy have done it otherwise? How the hell would we ever know? Going after real crime is harder, but the objective is not supposed to be to fill prisons, it's supposed to be to prevent or solve crimes instead of adding to the list with faked up ones.
If he wasn't giving the info to a Federal informant he would not have been caught until he started taking pictures of the schematics. Even then he may not have actually gotten caught, if he could think of a good story. At which point our equivalent of the Death Star plans, with their one weak spot (he told this guy precisely where to hit the ship to sink it and kill everyone aboard), are already in the hands of some dude who knew Arabic, said he was Egyptian government, and had $3k.
Which is why we have an aggressive counter-intelligence service that has managed to convince almost all people with a) security clearance and b) common sense that c) the dude claiming to be a Finnish intelligence agent offering them money for information is actually FBI, and therefore d) they should immediately report him to their superiors. Which results in e) the one time those tricky Finns actually try some shit like this they get caught.
If this guy was some idiot who'd just converted to Islam, talked tough, and then went along with a government sting because the informant guilt-tripped him; I'd be more sympathetic to your argument. Native-grown Islamist terrorist-plots in the US are almost always some mentally unstable dude going on a rampage, and the operation I just described can't prevent those. OTOH, we do have plenty of foreign governments willing to pay our people for information. And we do need to deter that as much as possible.
For the record, I have no clue what he's talking about either.
I would mod you up if I had not been the OP.
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS.
I have already dealt with 1-2 chinese spies. It is obvious to me that spying here is endemic and that we MUST return back to the older age of when FBI did the clearance. We can NOT count on private companies to do this right.
However, even with that done, we will still have ppl that turn on us. Snowden comes quickly to mind. In about 10 more years, he will realize that he went way too far in what he exposed. There is a HUGE difference between a whistle blower (which is what he was, when he spoke about the spying on Americans), vs. a traitor (which is everything else). Likewise, this guy had no issue with getting access to this info and giving it to Eygpt, but was probably told that it would go to AQ, along with China. IOW, this guy was a true traitor, not one that simple kept walking the plank. We will always have a need to go after ppl like him. They will ALWAYS happen. BUT, we need to stop these ppl from getting in FIRST.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It depends on the level of clearance that you get. You obviously got Confidential, and probably do not have direct access to data.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"The documents do not describe why Awwad was targeted."
I'll be interested to see this if it ever comes out, too many of our federal law enforcement services don't really bother trying to find criminals these days, they are generated to provide the illusion that they're actually doing something. How many "terrorists" have been caught in the past decade who have had an paid FBI "informant" alongside the entire time giving them ideas, motivation, money, and equipment in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars.
Stopping small boat swarms is doable, but requires weapons designed for that task instead of designed to stop the russian fleet. Given that the US navy is constantly building ships it is reasonable to assume they have ships designed specifically for that task. If they don't it's negligence.
Take it up with the poster above that wrote "targets a person and convinces that person to do something he would not normally have done" if you disagree with such a definition. It certainly fits that definition if you hold the definition to be valid.
It's tricky. An obvious situation is car theft - if the police places a car somewhere with the keys visible inside, that's not entrapment. That's a normal situation that can happen in anyone's life. Telling you to steal the car makes it entrapment.
In this case the whole crime consists of being asked for information and giving it. The person offering money for information is the same as the car with the keys inside offering a free ride. I'd say that on its own is not entrapment.
I doubt the FBI is overly concerned about the amateur lawyers on Slashdot accusing them of entrapment. A more likely explanation is that there is some sensitivity (legal, security, law enforcement strategy, whatever) surrounding what originally made the FBI suspicious of him.
he should hang. plain and simple.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
seems like you might not have the idea. the FBI always contacts people to bait them into crimes. especially of national security.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Give the FBI some credit. As soon as this went down, a number of things likely happened - a pretty severe audit on what this guy had accessed, a replacement of files that he might access which were tagged / modified. A close old timey stakeout. Maybe some high tech wires - you know, all the stuff we're scared about here.
Remember the TLAs can put a lot of resources on a single case if need be. That's why you don't want to raise yourself above the noise floor. Of course, most of us here couldn't do that if we tried. But this guy managed to.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Police can even pose as a passer-by, encouraging someone to steal the car, or as a chop-shop owner offering no-questions-asked cash for cars.
In these cases, the legal system is punishing people for their antisocial behavior, just as with crimes that don't involve stings. Even if the crime actually occurred in a controlled situation, the perpetrator still fulfilled the legal requirements for culpability: They were aware that what they were doing was against the law, and they did it anyway of their own free will.
Being offered a large sum of money or a convenient opportunity doesn't magically dissolve the perpetrator's free will, despite what dbill seems to think.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
... would he have done ANY of it had the FBI not goaded him into it in their attempt to create a terrorist from whole cloth?
Now you've added how I think to the list of fantasies.
"How I think" was in the post way above and others in this thread. A pointless waste of resources that should be used chasing crimes that have actually happened. A process prone to abuse that has been used to inflate arrest figures for those seeking promotion. A precursor to Soviet show trials. Other stuff you've added which I have not written is your strawman that you just happen to have put my name on.
Society is full of people that will commit crimes if offered the right inducement and a chance to get away with it. We put up with them because most of them will never get that trigger and never actually become criminals. Stings almost always work because there are plenty of gullible and greedy people around, but it's very lazy policing with little or no benefit and a lot of potential downsides.
Free will does not vanish but far more people than either of us like would use their free will to choose a large sum of money or a convenient opportunity if they see little personal risk. I'm sure you work with several like that and given enough time you will be able to identify a few of them. So long as they don't get that chance they are not criminals.
so i can't waive my right to state provided legal counsel?
for some rights you can definitely sign away your claim to them.
You have the right to lie to people, but apparently you lose that right if you sign an affidavit.
If you are coerced into signing something, yes, you might have a point. but this is a term of employment, judged for the most part fair by our courts.
And I don't think people have the *right* to lie: having a right to something doesn't mean having the permission to do that thing, it means that there's some law stating explicitly that that something must be given to those who haven't got it.
Anyway, I was wrong in my post above: there appears to be no explicit law against entrapment, if I understand correctly it's just a matter of interpretation by the courts, which has oscillated over the course of years.
You are right in the fact that most constitutions, and probably that of the USA too, comprise some kind of exceptional procedures allowing the government to override the rule of law in the case of an emergency. I think that they're required in order to deal with those cases such as angry people with pitchforks burning down cities etc, something that still happened once in a while in the past century, but I don't expect those procedures to have been applied often nowadays.
That's not nearly an accurate description of events. The helicopter crew is clearly aware of the rules of engagement that prevents them from opening fire on the van. They comment on those rules just moments before the vans shows up. But when the van comes on the scene they really, really want to fire on it, so they flat out lie to their chain of command to receive permission to do so.
It's clear to anyone that's listened to the actual CVR...
Stefan Axelsson
Show me where I do instead of your imagined strawman doing it. Or is the mere fantasy of thinking I suggested it enough?
Oh that's right, your entire objection is based on "but what if it WAS real?" and completely misses the entire fucking point that it was not - it's a sting based on fantasy that is never going to happen and so will catch people that may never become real criminals.
Did I make that obvious enough for you yet?
Do you get that I haven't even touched on real espionage one way or another yet?
I really don't get why some people here build elaborate houses of cards just to have their strawmen utter them in the name of others instead of very simple statements like mine way above which should not need extra explanation. It looks like pointless dishonesty.
You keep on going on about what about if the fantasy is real. It's not real. That is the problem. This isn't fucking minority report, this is the fucking FBI and they should be expected to act like professionals and not like cartoon characters. Am I getting through yet? How clear do I have to make it?
He was led by the nose into a fucking fantasy world peopled by FBI agents playing roles to a very unlikely script. What the guy did was what he was told to do. There was no crime until he was given instructions and followed them.
Don't take this personally, but this may illustrate the situation better if empathy is the problem. It appears a sting on you would work if someone told you they were working for the FBI or similar agency and wanted you to take something from your workplace for them. If you do it you are proved "untrustworthy" to your workplace, but it's an entirely pointless exercise unless someone has a quota of people to catch. That sort of stupid loyalty test was very frequent in the early Soviet Union.