Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Secret Service Agent Pleads Guilty In Bitcoin Theft

Posted by samzenpus on from the long-arm-of-the-law dept.

An anonymous reader writes: A former Secret Service agent has pleaded guilty to charges related to the theft of $800,000 worth of bitcoins during a high-profile investigation into the online drug marketplace Silk Road. Reuters reports: "Shaun Bridges, 33, appeared in federal court in San Francisco and admitted to money laundering and obstruction of justice....In court on Monday, Bridges admitted his theft made Ulbricht believe that another individual was stealing from Silk Road and helped lead Ulbricht to try to hire someone to kill that person."

54 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. Good by Cederic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's nice to see justice working both ways, almost gives you faith in the process.

    1. Re:Good by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      It's still not enough. He proved that, with just a little bit of governance (Silk Road), the drug market can be tamed. Thus, this DEA set up. They knew that without some real solid charges it wasn't good enough. Even if the whole "attempted murder" bullshit was thrown out he's still fucked. If he had gotten "big enough" to be noticed the cartel's would have taken him out anyway.

    2. Re:Good by msauve · · Score: 1

      It's nice to see justice working both ways, almost gives you faith in the process.

      Well, we'll just have to wait and see about that. - "Sentencing for Bridges was scheduled for December."

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:Good by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      To my knowledge he has not yet been tried for the attempted murder bit. And I don't know if they're going to bother, given he's already in jail for life.

      So, your entire premise is false. Without the "attempted murder bullshit", the drug and money laundering charges were solid enough to put him away.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:Good by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Not in the court of public perception. Without the attempted murder bullshit the silk road story remains one of consenting adults empowering other adults to make choices with regard to their own persons that no person including government persons has the moral authority to deny them.

    5. Re:Good by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Not in the court of public perception. Without the attempted murder bullshit the silk road story remains one of consenting adults empowering other adults to make choices with regard to their own persons that no person including government persons has the moral authority to deny them.

      In the court of normal public perception making money by breaking the law means you're a criminal and deserving of punishment, regardless of whether you did it via the internet or not.

      If drug laws are wrong, change the drug laws.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re:Good by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The person responsible for an attempted murder plot is the fuckbag who tried to hire a hitman.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:Good by shaitand · · Score: 1

      If by normal you mean the sort of opinions that are allowed on the news you are right. If by normal you mean what most of the population thinks... not so much.

      Anything that serves as a vehicle to enable the masses to bypass our wealthy elite controlled government and police state is a good thing.

      "If drug laws are wrong, change the drug laws."

      Right, let me just dial up my lobbying group and have a rider put in to the latest save the puppies bill that is primarily targeted at shortening the length of time pounds have to keep puppies before putting them to sleep... oh darn, forgot for a second that only the ultra wealthy can do that. Oh I know, I'll just have someone on my staff be appointed to regulate my industry and bribe them with lucrative effortless consulting gigs to be paid after they leave their position. Oh golly, forgot only the wealthy can do that too. I guess I'll just have to get all the permits and licensing to allow me to accumulate a force of arms sufficient to provide a credible threat and storm washington... oops that one only works for the wealthy.

      Individual civil disobedience is all that is left. You aren't even allowed to protest in the US without a permit... for safety.

  2. A govt employee charged with a crime? Shock!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That Shaun Bridges was even charged at all is amazing. He's a government employee, and in most of the world it's very rare for government employees to be charged with a crimes because fellow government employees refuse to prosecute them. Thank your lucky stars, America, you are not like Australia where the press reports alleged corruption, the police ignore it, and it piles up and up and up: https://archive.is/KUTAy#cases

    1. Re:A govt employee charged with a crime? Shock!!! by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > He's a government employee, a

      _Former_ government employee. The courts don't provide anywhere near as much lenience for former employees as for active employees of law enforcement agencies.

      And if you are convinced that the US government and its courts will not turn a blind eye to criminal acts by federal employees, please review the revelations about NSA criminal and unconstitutional activities published by Edward Snowden for a recent striking example. www.wikileaks.com is filled with criminal activity by many governments: the USA is not immune. Turning a blind eye to colleague abuses is a common problem.

    2. Re:A govt employee charged with a crime? Shock!!! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if you are convinced that the US government and its courts will not turn a blind eye to criminal acts by federal employees, please review the revelations about NSA criminal and unconstitutional activities published by Edward Snowden for a recent striking example.

      Not just federal employees. We see local cops getting away with murder a couple of times a week it seems.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:A govt employee charged with a crime? Shock!!! by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a big country: there are a _lot_ of local police doing good work, and it's hard, usually dull, sometimes quite dangerous work. The local officers with their boots on the ground doing the real day-to-day work are worth their weight in BitCoins.

      But yes, corruption and brutal enforcement with the public as "the enemy" are terrible, easy habits to fall into for individuals and for whole departments. Some corruption is inherent in _having_ a culture large enough to require law enforcement. It's why it's so important that police, prosecution, courts, and lawmakers are kept at odds, so they can and do limit each other's power.

    4. Re:A govt employee charged with a crime? Shock!!! by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 4, Informative

      random murder of the perps is OK, stealing money that the Feds planned on seizing isn't. This is America, and he "stole" a pretty decent amount.

    5. Re:A govt employee charged with a crime? Shock!!! by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That Shaun Bridges was even charged at all is amazing. He's a government employee, and in most of the world it's very rare for government employees to be charged with a crimes because fellow government employees refuse to prosecute them. Thank your lucky stars, America, you are not like Australia where the press reports alleged corruption, the police ignore it, and it piles up and up and up: https://archive.is/KUTAy#cases

      Nah, it's pretty much the same in America.

      The difference in this case is the nature of the crime and the victim chosen. No, not Ulbricht. The victim was the federal government, because they were going to seize that money anyway. You steal from the government, or attack the government in any way, they're going to drop the hammer on you. If your victim is an individual, well, it depends in large part on the socioeconomic status of that individual. A government employee can get prosecuted for killing a poor black man, for example, but it's rare. If you're a government agency and your victim is the entire nation, you're almost certainly going to get away with it. At most you'll be told to stop, but no one will be going to jail... well, except the guy who ratted the agency out. There's a good chance he'll go to jail, if he can be caught.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re:A govt employee charged with a crime? Shock!!! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It's a big country: there are a _lot_ of local police doing good work, and it's hard, usually dull, sometimes quite dangerous work.

      It's a big country: there are a _lot_ of federal employees doing good work, and it's hard, usually dull, sometimes quite dangerous work.

      My point is that the local cop on the street is every bit as much a government bureaucrat as some FDA regulator in Washington. A government agent is a government agent, and the "small government/law & order" types seldom are willing to admit that.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:A govt employee charged with a crime? Shock!!! by crtreece · · Score: 1

      there are a _lot_ of local police doing good work

      Until that work includes investigating and arresting their corrupt co-workers, I'll consider them part of the problem and not a part of the solution. A cop that doesn't enforce the laws broken by other cops is an accomplice, not a "good cop"

      sometimes quite dangerous work.

      More like "mostly NOT quite dangerous". LEO doesn't even make the top 10 in most deadly professions. That is reserved for jobs like logging, fisherman, construction trades, mining, etc. Last year there were 117 fatalities out of 900K+ sworn LEOs in the US. Of those, 49 were related to a vehicle crash, and 20 were related to a SINGLE VEHICLE crash. If anything, LEOs should be lobbying for better driver training, and changing procedures to make dangerous vehicle pursuits less frequent. Instead, they want body armor, assault rifles, and MRAPs.

      brutal enforcement with the public as "the enemy" are terrible

      Yes, I'll agree to that. We seem to be moving/have moved away from a community policing model where officers proactively engage with the public, to an aggressive, everything-is-a-threat model that is more appropriate for a military occupation than it is for internal policing. LEOs act like terrorists, and then have the audacity to wonder why the public is scared of them and their actions.

      It's why it's so important that police, prosecution, courts, and lawmakers are kept at odds, so they can and do limit each other's power.

      When did that start in the US? The current system seems to have all of these entities trying to be on the same side. None of them want to appear "soft on crime", so they all conspire to keep arrest and conviction numbers high. The police don't want to get on the bad side of prosecutors or the courts, and don't want to lose jobs despite the falling violent crime numbers. Prosecutors are less interested in justice, and more interested in keeping their conviction numbers up, so won't damage any relationship with police or the courts, even when it involves known lying, corrupt LEOs. Courts (especially where the judges are elected) and lawmakers have to be perceived as being "tough on crime", else the right-wing law-and-order types will have a fit.

      --
      file: .signature not found
    8. Re:A govt employee charged with a crime? Shock!!! by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Most police break the law on a daily basis. Maybe not murder but they certainly aren't willing to hold themselves to the same technical the law is the law standard as they hold others.

    9. Re:A govt employee charged with a crime? Shock!!! by erapert · · Score: 2

      Courts (especially where the judges are elected) and lawmakers have to be perceived as being "tough on crime", else the right-wing law-and-order types will have a fit.

      I think you're referring to the reality where soccer moms have conniption fits if a criminal who should have been in jail rapes and murders their daughter. They don't want to hear about statistics or about how rare it is when it's their daughter and neither would I and neither would you.

      Oh, and there's also the infamous school shootings. Nobody, on /. at least, points out how insanely unlikely it is to be caught up in a school shooting, or about how few people are actually killed, or about how it could have been stopped very quickly if anyone at the scene had been armed.

      No, instead let's get outraged that the courts are doing their jobs of putting people in jail... and then get outraged if they don't.

      Look. It's your job to safeguard your life. The cops are there to help, but it's ultimately your job because the cops can only get there five minutes later. That's part of the reason why we have the Second Amendment is so that we can defend ourselves.

      Now the self-righteous gun-control crowd can all go ahead and mod me down but it's not going to change reality and it's not going to change the truth.

    10. Re:A govt employee charged with a crime? Shock!!! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      It's the most heinous of crimes.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    11. Re:A govt employee charged with a crime? Shock!!! by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > More like "mostly NOT quite dangerous". LEO doesn't even make the top 10 in most deadly professions.

      I'm afraid I've had this discussion before, on Slashdot. Please note that I did not say "deadly". I said "dangerous". And not being on the top 10 most fatal list does not mean a profession is safe, anymore than not being on the New York Times bestseller list means a novel is bad. Fatalities among police are continuing to drop, in the last few decades, partly due to better training, better equipment for most departments, and a rush of funding for police in the wake of 9/11. I think it's also partly due to even faster and more effective responses by emergency crews to injuries that would have previously proven fatal. But they're still at profound risk of traffic injuries, injuries from being the first effective rescue personnel on the scene and vulnerable to bruises, breaks, and burns while trying to help, and most especially to handling domestic violence.

      >> It's why it's so important that police, prosecution, courts, and lawmakers are kept at odds, so they can and do limit each other's power.

      > When did that start in the US?

      Part of it was built into the Constitution, with federal lawmakers, courts, and military or enforcement powers kept deliberately separate. The theory is that if any one department runs amok, the others can collaborate to overwhelm them. The same principal applies to the Army, Navy, Marines, and in the last 100 years the Air Force. The frequent collaboration among the departments is _supposed_ to be about mutual benefits to the people as a while:

      There is _nothing_ unique to the modern law enforcement or to the USA in wanting to appear "tough on crime", and the abuses that can result. The novel "Les Miserable" includes precisely this in the wake of the French Revolution.

    12. Re:A govt employee charged with a crime? Shock!!! by crtreece · · Score: 1

      I said "dangerous"

      Fair enough. The only point that I'm trying to make is that the job is less dangerous than a lot of LEO try to make it sound. I also understand that some area of patrol are more dangerous than others. Back to what I was really trying to reply to, whatever danger is inherent in the job, it does not justify the blue wall of silence and the inability of "good" officers to police the bad ones. The watchers seem to be unwilling and unable to watch over themselves, are resistant to someone else watching over or disciplining them, and seem to be more hostile to their customers/constituents as time goes by.

      Part of it was built into the Constitution, with federal lawmakers, courts, and military or enforcement powers kept deliberately separate.

      I understand the separation of powers at the federal level, but it seems like there is much less separation when you get down to the city and county level. The prosecutors, police, and lawmakers are all on the same side. There has to be some way to make those relationships less friendly, more adversarial, and still maintain some semblance of order.

      --
      file: .signature not found
  3. Basic lesson in life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Basic lesson in life: Don't steal. The government hates competition.

  4. Re:Entrapment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, even if it were, that doesn't make it forbidden, either.

  5. Re:Shocked actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    While article 1, section 6, clause 1 of the Constitution provides some immunity for officials, it's pretty specific. It protects Congress, so it wouldn't apply to the Secret Service. It doesn't protect against being charged with a felony, treason, or "breach of the peace," the last of which is pretty vague. Basically, it subjects Congress to being charged with certain misdemeanors. It protects members of Congress while they're on duty or on their way to or from sessions of Congress. The purpose was to protect Congress from being charged with crimes so as to interfere with Congress from their legislative duties. There's not a lot of actual immunity for government officials from criminal prosecution.

    There is something called sovereign immunity, which isn't actually mentioned in the Constitution. This is protection from civil lawsuits rather than criminal prosecution. It's a common law principle that the courts have defined and upheld through precedent. It protects the government from monetary damages, but not from otherwise resolving legitimate grievances (the right to petition the government for redress of grievances in the first amendment). Government employees can't be sued for performing their duties or for the result of mistakes made during their duties. However, they can be sued for deliberate acts. Congress has the ability to waive sovereign immunity.

    Congress has the ability to grant immunity, as well. While not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, a member of the Secret Service wouldn't be charged with a crime for actions consistent with his or her duty to protect the life of the President. However, a member of the Secret Service who deliberately commits an illegal act beyond the duties of his or her job can still be charged with a crime and prosecuted.

    Immunity is pretty limited, and certainly won't protect this individual from prosecution.

  6. Re:How can you "steal" a bitcoiin? by Necroloth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    bank accounts are just data too

  7. At what point by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does the "attempted murder" thing become just a case of entrapment? We have this admission here and the knowledge that the guy who planted the idea in Ulbricht's head and helped coax him down that road was a DEA agent.

    In general, police should not allowed to do evil that good may come of it. One of the things that bothers me about these cases is that when the police merely create the appearance of evil, they're still coarsening society. When people think evil abounds, it increases their own temptations. That applies from here, to the knowledge that there are tons of cops online posing as underage girls to try to capture would-be lawbreakers there as well. Merely posing as an enabler of crime creates some serious moral hazards.

    1. Re:At what point by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Does the "attempted murder" thing become just a case of entrapment? We have this admission here and the knowledge that the guy who planted the idea in Ulbricht's head and helped coax him down that road was a DEA agent.

      In general, police should not allowed to do evil that good may come of it. One of the things that bothers me about these cases is that when the police merely create the appearance of evil, they're still coarsening society. When people think evil abounds, it increases their own temptations. That applies from here, to the knowledge that there are tons of cops online posing as underage girls to try to capture would-be lawbreakers there as well. Merely posing as an enabler of crime creates some serious moral hazards.

      If the USSS agent had taken the bitcoins under orders or as part of the investigation then it could be a case of entrapment. But since he stole the bitcoins for personal use (or not in an official, sanctioned capacity) it's plain simple theft.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:At what point by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      "You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?" Me too, and in an ideal world we'd be right. But it seems the Feds employ this methodology all the time, including the FBI and CIA. This whole trap was just to destroy Silk Road the only way they knew.

    3. Re:At what point by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      I think they are referring to the whole "murder for hire" setup, not this theft.

    4. Re:At what point by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      "When people think evil abounds, it increases their own temptations."

      'Evil' does abound but part of being human is to be able to control one's own animal urges regardless of temptation.

      "That applies from here, to the knowledge that there are tons of cops online posing as underage girls to try to capture would-be lawbreakers there as well."

      There are probably 'tons' more real underage girls on the net than there are cops posing as underage girls so the police are not 'creating the appearance of evil'.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    5. Re:At what point by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Why do people think that any time law enforcement is within shouting distance it is entrapment?

      What would a normal person do if someone stole $800,000 from them? Call the cops. What did DPR do? Solicit a hitman. That's not entrapment, that is a criminal that is already disposed to paying to have people killed..

    6. Re:At what point by PPH · · Score: 1

      it's plain simple theft.

      And murder committed in the comission of another crime is treated as aggravated murder. Even if you didn't pull the trigger but only drove the getaway car, if the bank guard got killed, you can be found guilty.

      The theft is the aggravating offense. Bridges caused someone to attempt murder. So he should be charged with aggravated attempted murder.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  8. Re:How can you "steal" a bitcoiin? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    Since patent and copyright violations, and even theft of trade secrets can be prosecuted as theft, yes, it could certainly be considered theft. Whether Bitcoins are considered currency or not, they're considered valuable trade goods by the owners of the Bitcoins, and they have a pretty clear market value. The extortion and obstruction of justice engaged in by this agent hopefully make it even easier to prosecute.

  9. Re:Entrapment by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Nope.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  10. Re:How can you "steal" a bitcoiin? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    It's actually considered a "commodity" per the IRS for tax purposes. This data has a specific value, only valid for that particular combination of bits. Technically, these bitcoins might even be worth "more" or "less" depending on the market and their actual brands. There are at least 200 different "bitcoin" "currencies".

  11. Bought to you by... by wbr1 · · Score: 2
    The war on drugs:

    Gangs..
    Attempted murder
    death
    lives ruined
    crappy black market substitutes
    corruption
    graft
    and a smug sense of superiority...

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Bought to you by... by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 2

      Replace "The war on drugs" with "prohibition".

      Won't we ever learn?

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    2. Re:Bought to you by... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, and one of those things is the governmentalization of words. Before newspeak, we called that "slavery", and when slavery was illegal, we didn't need to check at the border for it. It was just plain illegal and those witnessing it did something about it.

    3. Re:Bought to you by... by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Yes, things that hurt another person. Smoking pot or doing a line aren't similar to slavery/human trafficking. Conflating them is profoundly incorrect.

    4. Re:Bought to you by... by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should stop declaring war on things, instead of countries. You know, especially since it NEVER WORKS.

      I'm not suggesting ignoring the problems, but throwing money at it and addressing the problem with jack-booted Nazi thuggery is not the answer, that's for certain.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    5. Re:Bought to you by... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Yes, things that hurt another person. Smoking pot or doing a line aren't similar to slavery/human trafficking. Conflating them is profoundly incorrect.

      You don't think that anyone's hurt by heroin or crystal meth addiction?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  12. Re:Entrapment by oobayly · · Score: 1

    No. It wouldn't even have been entrapment if the the agent had gone to Ulbricht "you should kill the guy who's been stealing Bitcoins" and Ulbricht could simply have said "no". It would be entrapment if the agent corrupted Ulbricht into doing so.

    The Illustrated Guide to Law - Entrapment

  13. Re:Shocked actually by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    Actually, any government employee can get that protection since under the Westfall act, with the certification of the AG, they can say the employee acted as part of his duty and substitute the government itself as a defendant.

    Course, that isn't so likely in a criminal case since it would basically be the same people filing the charges as excusing him.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  14. Re:Entrapment by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Entrapment of whom? The person who wasn't charged with attempted murder? That's the only entrapment I can imagine and there was no charge.

  15. Re:But its all OK by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Give it a rest, seriously. It's embarrassing to read your confused, xenophobic rants. The fact you readily confuse Islamism and Islam doesn't help your arguments, as why should anyone listen to you complain about or condemn something you don't even understand?

  16. How was he caught? by countach · · Score: 1

    Anybody with the inside scoop on exactly how he was caught, given that bitcoin is supposed to be anonymous?

    1. Re:How was he caught? by PPH · · Score: 1

      The wallets can be anonymous. But it's a simple matter to trace Bitcoin through a series of wallets. Once the real owner of one of these is identified, one can trace certain transactions back the other way.

      For Bitcoin to be of any use, eventually it will be spent on actual goods. And these can be traced. Very few people have the discipline to maintain multiple completely separate lives.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  17. You are missing something... by CrackheadMob · · Score: 1

    This secret service agent and a DEA agent were stealing BTC from the silk road. Why was this evidence not allowed to be presented at trial? These guys had admin access to the SR servers and needed a fall guy....

  18. Re:How can you "steal" a bitcoiin? by bengoerz · · Score: 1

    Fiat notes are just paper and ink, yet we still prosecute their theft.

  19. WoD breeds corruption. by briancox2 · · Score: 1

    I've been saying it for years. Creating laws against possession and distribution of anything corrupts the entire legal system. The War on Drugs creates the same patterns of crime that Prohibition created. Thanks for proving me right, Shaun...

    --
    We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
    1. Re:WoD breeds corruption. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Creating laws against possession and distribution of anything corrupts the entire legal system

      Chemical weapons? Land mines? Nuclear bombs?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  20. Wait a minute by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    If I read this right, it appears that his theft was the impetus for Ulbricht trying to hire a hit to kill someone.

    I'm not sure if there's some follow-on charge that could be applied there, but it almost seems like there should be because if Bridges hadn't stolen the bitcoin, Ulbricht wouldn't have wanted to kill someone for the theft.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  21. Sweet entrapment stimulus program by HongPong · · Score: 1

    Well here is the way out of the economic doldrums. The government just needs to hire a fake terrorist, a fake sex worker and a fake drug dealer to stand outside your door every morning. They spam you with various goodies and opportunities. If you turn them down, you don't get a tax credit but you don't go to jail either. If you do take them up on it, everyone involved gets "statistical accomplishments" and it keeps the lawyers busy!

    Synthetic decision tree spam (i.e. entrapment, stings) are pernicious and limitless, but there's no reason we can't use them to fix the economy. It's been working great for decades at a smaller scale.

    --
    --hongpong.com
  22. Re:But its all OK by rezme · · Score: 1

    Someone says "I'ts terrible the way that Muslims keep sex slaves and kill non believers". Someone else says .... "ah but Christians in the time of the crusades did the same, so you can't say its terrible or you are a hypocritical islamaphobe".

    If you're a christian condemning another entire religion for terroristic acts of a fractional percentage of its followers in the name of their faith, that doesn't necessarily make you an islamaphobe, but it does make you a hypocrite. And it's not just "in the time of the crusades", there's been plenty of christian themed atrocities in modern times as well...