Slashdot Mirror
US Terrorist Conviction Appealed Over Use of NSA Data (independent.co.uk)
The Independent newspaper reports that the warrantless NSA surveillance programs revealed by Edward Snowden are facing a constitutional challenge in court for the first time:
Lawyers for Mohamed Mohamud have argued that surveillance evidence used to convict the Somali-American man, found guilty of plotting to bomb a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony, was gathered in a manner that was unconstitutional. The lawyers laid out their arguments on Wednesday before a panel of judges of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Portland, close to the plaza where Mohamud tried detonating a fake bomb that was part of an undercover operation...
Stephen Sady, Mohamud's lawyer, urged the court to grant his client a new trial on the grounds that the evidence used against Mohamud should never have been permitted in the courtroom. Mr Sady told the judges that using surveillance information on foreigners, which does not require a warrant, to spy on any Americans they communicate with was "an incredible diminution of the privacy rights of all Americans⦠That is a step that should never be taken."
Last year saw a record number of wiretaps authorized by state and federal judges -- 4,148, more than twice as many as the 1,773 that took place in 2005 -- and not a single request was rejected. (More than 95% were for cellphones, and 81% for narcotics investigations.) But The Independent notes that U.S. law enforcement officials have admitted they also "incidentally" collect information about Americans without a warrant, and then sometimes later use that information in criminal investigations. In Mohamud's case, which dates back to 2010, "There's no doubt he tried to explode a car bomb in America," writes Slashdot reader Bruce66423, arguing that this case "elegantly demonstrates the issue of how far legal rights should overwhelm common sense."
Stephen Sady, Mohamud's lawyer, urged the court to grant his client a new trial on the grounds that the evidence used against Mohamud should never have been permitted in the courtroom. Mr Sady told the judges that using surveillance information on foreigners, which does not require a warrant, to spy on any Americans they communicate with was "an incredible diminution of the privacy rights of all Americans⦠That is a step that should never be taken."
Last year saw a record number of wiretaps authorized by state and federal judges -- 4,148, more than twice as many as the 1,773 that took place in 2005 -- and not a single request was rejected. (More than 95% were for cellphones, and 81% for narcotics investigations.) But The Independent notes that U.S. law enforcement officials have admitted they also "incidentally" collect information about Americans without a warrant, and then sometimes later use that information in criminal investigations. In Mohamud's case, which dates back to 2010, "There's no doubt he tried to explode a car bomb in America," writes Slashdot reader Bruce66423, arguing that this case "elegantly demonstrates the issue of how far legal rights should overwhelm common sense."
The bomb was fake, so obviously he didn't attempt to kill Americans.
- These characters were randomly selected.
Keep allowing law enforcement to commit crimes to catch criminals, that will send a message to the people.
(More than 95% were for cellphones, and 81% for narcotics investigations.)
This is the real news here. The vast sweeping surveillance powers that the government granted itself for "national security" reasons, and that they double pinky swore would only ever be used for terrorism investigations, are now routinely being used for drug cases and other things that have ZERO to do with national security. It's not like this wasn't predicted. The surveillance needs to stop.
Yup.
"The bomb Mohamud had tried to detonate was fake. The test explosion was staged. There was no secret council of militant leaders seeking a gifted Somali-American teenager to wage jihad. Youssef and Hussein were undercover FBI agents."
https://www.buzzfeed.com/nicol...
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
-- H.L.Mencken.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
The article states the evidence was "gathered in a manner that was unconstitutional." I hate to state the obvious, but isn't trying to blow people up unconstitutional??? ..or something???
I HATE this expression. Having documents rejected because you used a blue pen instead of a black pen is a technicality. In this case, and nearly every case where you see this phrase - substitute police and/or prosecutors breaking the law. That's what this is. It is definitely NOT a technicality.
I find myself rooting for the terrorist to win, and I'm ok with that.
And I am NOT ok with that.
This signature is false.
Freedom for "criminals" is just collateral damage from abusing the law. That's just too fucking bad. Maybe, if they would stick to prosecuting terrorists instead of chasing drugs and gambling, we could say, *carry on*.
On the other hand, the other AC's point of charging the officers for violating the constitution instead of letting the guilty go is right on!
Youssef and Hussein were undercover FBI agents."
So these agents, paid with my tax dollars, recruited, trained, encouraged, and entrapped a teenager in a make believe crime when he would have otherwise been studying for his midterms. It is so wonderful to see how my government is keeping me safe.
So, the obvious answer here is to prosecute both him and the LE officers that broke the law.
Is it breaking the law to not detonate a bomb that doesn't exist?
The bomb was fake, so obviously he didn't attempt to kill Americans.
Right, but he thought it was real. And that's what the law considers. In fact, you can go to prison for selling fake weed or pills, even if you know they're fake.
If I read the case right it appears that the the FBI pretty much pushed him into doing this (which never should have happened) but his intent was clearly there, despite being egged on by the very people who are supposed to be preventing this shit.
The FBI seems to have manufactured a criminal act=, and whether he would have done this on his own without them seems dubious at best. But he went along with it, and that's what the court is focusing on.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
So these agents, paid with my tax dollars, recruited, trained, encouraged, and entrapped a teenager in a make believe crime when he would have otherwise been studying for his midterms. It is so wonderful to see how my government is keeping me safe.
Yep, the very people that are supposed to be preventing this shit are actually the ones promoting it and facilitating it. The FBI agents should be on trial, in my opinion. This guy was a nobody who was essentially encouraged by the FBI into committing a criminal act.
If that's not entrapment, I'm not sure what is. It's certainly facilitating what the target thinks is a criminal act, even if it was all staged.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Is it breaking the law to not detonate a bomb that doesn't exist?
It's all about intent as far as the court is concerned. It's illegal to sell fake weed or crack, even if you know it's fake.
But the real nugget is that the FBI manufactured and facilitated this whole thing from start to finish in order to be able to claim they caught a "terrorist". That's what this is really all about- upping their stats.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
No - trying to blow people up is not unconstitutional.
No - murder is not unconstitutional.
Most of the constitution deals specifically with the form our government takes, such as the three branches of our government.
Generally, when most people talk about unconstitutional, they are talking about our constitutional rights, such as the freedom of speech.
What the constitution does does is establish the process by which federal, state and local governments can enact legislation that makes things like 'trying to blow people up' and 'murder' illegal, not unconstitutional.
This is a good thing because by and large the constitution does not lay out any penalties for violating constitutional rights. Ask yourself, what is the penalty for the government violating your right to free speech?
So if you 'try to blow people up,' that is illegal. In order to punish someone for that crime, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime pursuant to the constitutional rights of the accused, such as trial by jury and due process.
If the government violates the constitutional rights of the accused, then evidence can be tossed and convictions can be overturned.
And there's evidence that Omar Mateem, the Pulse mass-murderer, was being cultivated for a similar operation. He was reported repeatedly for his violent and radical views, and the FBI let him off after a little chat. He just surprised them by going queer hunting instead of waiting for the target and timetable they were preparing for him.
But by THEM taking him and training him it wasn't possible for other terrorists to train him.
Same logic as me taking a bomb on every plane ride. There has never been a plane with two bombs and I know I won't explode mine, so the flight is safe.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So if I make you a dinner with tomatoes and think that tomatoes are poisonous, I'm in for attempted murder?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's quite simple: If they upheld the law they swore to uphold, they would not be stuck with bogus evidence now.
There is by no means any shortage of very valid evidence they could get. It does take a little more work, though, they tried to pull a fast one, hoping that the towelhead can't afford a lawyer who could bail him and they lost. Sucks, but that's the logical consequence if you try to fudge.
The police has an incredible arsenal of very legal and very effective ways to gather evidence and even get a lot of leeway when it comes to luring potential criminals out of hiding. The line is drawn where they actually ENCOURAGE it. For good reason.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So these agents, paid with my tax dollars, recruited, trained, encouraged, and entrapped a teenager in a make believe crime when he would have otherwise been studying for his midterms.
I doubt he would have been studying for his midterms. He would have just looked for another source of a way to attach infidels.
Based on what evidence you assert that assumption? This could have potentially been your standard angry young person that had trained professionals manipulating him and pushing him. I have always found the American acceptance of entrapment to be perplexing.
This has been happening for several years, this is not the first time or the last.
Gotta justify that sweet, sweet government money.
It all depends; did you accidentally spill the beans to anyone, in particular law enforcement? ;-)
This guy was never really a threat. Some undercover agents started asking around who wanted to plant a bomb. This genius said ok and the FBI made a fake bomb and let him press the button. He never would have done this by himself. Sure he deserved to be locked up but this was hardly some mastermind they captured.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
If that's not entrapment, I'm not sure what is.
You're not sure what entrapment is, then.
Entrapment is when the government agents make you commit a crime that you weren't otherwise willing to do. For example, if they threaten you or your family, that's entrapment. If they make you believe that what you're doing isn't actually a crime, that's entrapment. If they manipulate circumstances to where you believe you have absolutely no choice but to commit the crime, that's entrapment.
What is not entrapment is asking "Hey, are you willing to commit a crime?". It is also not entrapment to hand you the tools to commit the crime, and it's also not entrapment to drive you to a location for the crime, hand you the tools, and pay you a lot of money to commit the crime. Those things are not entrapment (though their legality may depend on having proper authorizations and approvals in place). You still have the option to avoid all criminal culpability by not doing the crime (though even if it turns out the tools they gave you were fake, what matters is that you thought they were real). If someone offers to help you and/or pay you to commit a crime, you can walk right down to the local police department and tell them all about it.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
IIUC, H.L.Mencken was pretty much down one everyone. And was popular because he did so in such elegant verbiage. It's not really proper to call someone who dislikes everyone an anti-semite just because he includes Jews as a part of everyone.
OTOH, I admit I'm judging him by his reputation. I haven't read much by him, because biting put-downs aren't my thing.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Based on what evidence you assert that assumption?
That's based on the fact that he willingly went along with the first guys to offer support.
It's not entrapment. It's a sting. There are very important differences, and you'll find the situation to be much less perplexing once you understand those differences.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Yes, you are correct about the legal definition of entrapment, but it's still ridiculous. The Milgram experiment showed that under the right circumstances you can manipulate 2/3 of people into killing somebody!
In other words, the FBI can pick somebody at random and probably figure out how to get that person to commit a Federal crime. It is not beneficial to society to have an arm of the government whose job it is to randomly choose people for imprisonment.
The fact that this sort of behavior is not only legal but commonplace is shameful.
dom
I have always found the American acceptance of entrapment to be perplexing.
We have very specifically crafted rules around what makes up entrapment, and what makes a sting. The FBI is very careful to follow these rules, because they don't want all of their hard work to get thrown up. Plus, I suspect, that they would rather be spending their effort on someone wanting to commit the crimes, not someone who isn't.
the difference is that the psychological influence is more subtle in a sting - but it's still possible that the guy would never have done anything without FBI prodding.
The FBI didn't prod. He proposed, and they answered.
I am sort of in agreement with what you say, but you are phrasing things so incorrectly, you're still distorting the meaning of entrapment.
Entrapment is when the government agents make you commit a crime that you weren't otherwise willing to do.
This is wrong. Obviously, if gov't agents "make" you commit a crime, that's entrapment. But the lack of overt coercion does not mean the agents have a clean indictment. The standard is, "you would not have committed the crime without the active inducement by law enforcement to commit the crime".
Ifs not entrapment to merely ask, "Hey, are you willing to commit a crime?". But once law enforcement goes beyond that point they risk sabotaging the legal case. If they "hand you tools" which would otherwise be beyond the ability or inclination of the perpetrator to make/acquire, that's still entrapment. Also, if they paid you "a lot" of money, which they knew you needed for medical treatment of a loved one, that would be considered "entrapment", because those agents, knowing how desperate the target was, induced the target to commit a crime society would normally believe they would not do. If the crime was murder, it would not be considered entrapment, because no normal citizen would consider committing murder for money. If the crime was fraud, that's a lot easier to argue entrapment, if the perpetrator was "induced" to do something they normally would not do.
Speaking out of this context, I really don't appreciate the legal argument these defense lawyers are trying to make. The argument, as far as I can tell, is not entrapment. They are arguing that the evidence collected via FISA wiretaps should be inadmissible, because the defendant has American citizenship but the person he was talking to was not a citizen, thus the conversation required a warrant to be admissible. Given how the SCotUS has gone roughshod on standards, allowing evidence even when it originated from an "accidentally" improper manner, the defense team will probably lose, and set precedent to further erode the legal rights of American citizens.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
It's all about intent as far as the court is concerned. It's illegal to sell fake weed or crack, even if you know it's fake.
So if I'm not selling drugs, but I *believe* that's what I'm doing, I can be put in jail.
If I put classified information on an unsecured server, but I don't *believe* that I'm doing anything wrong, I won't be charged.
And here I was, thinking that evidence of a crime is what you went to jail for.
Silly me...
What about the case when the government spends a year getting you into the state of mind where you say "yes"?
There is a difference between what is legally entrapment and what people think should be entrapment. This falls into the latter category.
I think that the purpose of these operations is to make the real terrorists afraid of any communication, not knowing if they are communicating with a real jihadist, or an agent of the FBI. It sucks to be the poor person who is used by the FBI as their communications disruption tool.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
If there's evidence, present it.
That's based on the fact that he willingly went along with the first guys to offer support.
It's not entrapment. It's a sting. There are very important differences, and you'll find the situation to be much less perplexing once you understand those differences.
I understand the difference; they already had him on numerous charges without playing the entire episode out to the point of placing a fake bomb. Yes sure, they offered multiple alternatives, prayer, made him aware there will be children and women present, no one is saying this terrorist aint a stinking pile of shit, but the FBI had him when they did the "practice run".
While technically waiting to make the arrest with the fake car bomb is not exactly entrapment, the sting operation could have concluded with the detonation or even construction of the "test" bomb. Actually, it probably could have concluded long before that with a conviction. Yes, I understand getting prosecution is harder than it sounds, but they have ample evidence prior to the fake bomb run, shit prior to the test run of his intention and activities. Also, what went wrong in this young mans head to push him this direction? Could have the perceived assistance of these agents, who to this idiot were willing accomplices (knowledgeable ones) that apparently supported his position?
I have always found the American acceptance of entrapment to be perplexing.
We have very specifically crafted rules around what makes up entrapment, and what makes a sting. The FBI is very careful to follow these rules, because they don't want all of their hard work to get thrown up. Plus, I suspect, that they would rather be spending their effort on someone wanting to commit the crimes, not someone who isn't.
One area of entrapment probably was met: This terrorist POS had limited ability to construct, plan and carry out such attack. One could argue that the FBI agents were able to provide the support (albeit in a very limited sting operation sort of way, i.e. the POS taking the lead) to push him along to carry out his plans.
1) The idea for the crime must have originated from the government agents and not from the accused person.
2) Government agents persuaded the person into committing the crime, as opposed to just giving him or her the opportunity to do so.
3) The person was not ready or willing to commit the crime before speaking to the government agents.
Three could apply here and while you think we have "We have very specifically crafted rules around what makes up entrapment" looking at legal precedence/case law in the USA those rules seem to be more blurred than clear. In the case of this POS, they technically had him on a number of charges that would have given him a life sentence before they got to the fake bomb stage, hell even before the test run, we have put people in Gitmo for way less...
...what matters is you thought they were real
This type of tactic has been used countless times by law enforcement to a successful prosecution. However, entrapment is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. It's really up to the court and jury to decide if the defendant was entrapped. There is an "objective test" which basically asks if anyone in the same circumstances would have done the same thing. Most states however employ a "subjective test" to help determine if entrapment had actually occurred.
Legal or not, it's still very murky water, because the tools were not, in fact, real; and no one was harmed. I can't help but wonder if not for the involvement of the FBI, would this person have ever committed a crime? I can't help but wonder if the person even did commit a crime! Does thinking that you are committing a crime, actually mean that you are committing a crime? Doesn't that make it a...thought crime?
Me: I thought I was doing 75 mph in a 65 mph zone.
Officer: No, the radar says you were going 65, I just pulled you over as a friendly warning that your taillight is out and you need to replace it.
Me: Yes, but I thought I was going 75. So, am I guilty of speeding?
There's a lengthy article here that outlines the "aggressive policing" used to fill prisons, and much of the history in and out of the courtroom, including SCOTUS, surrounding such actions.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
There has never been a plane with two bombs
Got ya! ;)
Ezekiel 23:20
So if I make you a dinner with tomatoes and think that tomatoes are poisonous, I'm in for attempted murder?
Yes, if you really thought you were feeding me something that was poisonous, you could in theory be charged with something. Possibly attempted murder, but I'm not sure what the actual charge might be.
As far as I know, it's a crime in every state to "deliberately poison food, drinks or medicine intended for human consumption". Penalties include fines and up to several years in prison.
So yeah, if you really thought you were poisoning me, yes, you may indeed be charged. In this case it's all about intent.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
It is also not entrapment to hand you the tools to commit the crime, and it's also not entrapment to drive you to a location for the crime, hand you the tools, and pay you a lot of money to commit the crime.
According to what I've read, that could indeed meet the definition of entrapment. It goes beyond mere "facilitation", and I suspect if those circumstances were part of your case you might very well get it thrown out.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I understand the difference; they already had him on numerous charges without playing the entire episode out to the point of placing a fake bomb.
Maybe, and maybe not... either way, if they let him just continue, the prosecution's case is that much more complete.
Yes sure, they offered multiple alternatives, prayer, made him aware there will be children and women present, no one is saying this terrorist aint a stinking pile of shit, but the FBI had him when they did the "practice run".
And at all those points, he could have said "no", and walked away... That'd be the law-abiding thing to do, and would be the easy way out of the sting.
While technically waiting to make the arrest with the fake car bomb is not exactly entrapment, the sting operation could have concluded with the detonation or even construction of the "test" bomb.
It depends on the particulars, but probably not, actually. In several states, building bombs is perfectly legal. Setting them off is also perfectly legal. In fact, I have done so personally in the past. Usually (and in my case) what would be illegal would be for that bomb to damage anyone else's (or public) property, injure any person or animal, or be transported on public roads without the proper approvals. Again, there may have been minor crimes along the way, but not enough evidence to make a case that the perpetrator was trying to commit a serious offense.
Actually, it probably could have concluded long before that with a conviction. Yes, I understand getting prosecution is harder than it sounds, but they have ample evidence prior to the fake bomb run, shit prior to the test run of his intention and activities.
What kind of irrefutable evidence did they have, exactly? Prior to actually executing the fake attack, the defendant could just argue that he took the opportunity to gather names and details into a nice little package that he planned to turn over to the authorities, and had to play along to do so. The defense could claim he was a hero all along, and the FBI just sprang their trap before he sprang his. To a jury of scared citizens who keep being told that if they "see something, say something", and with the common fantasies of being a big hero, if only they had the opportunity... Who wouldn't sympathize with this guy who just tried to do the right thing?
Also, what went wrong in this young mans head to push him this direction? Could have the perceived assistance of these agents, who to this idiot were willing accomplices (knowledgeable ones) that apparently supported his position?
How is that any different from the willing aid of an actual terrorist organization? He started by seeking willing accomplices. His head already had the criminal element. The agents just let it run its course in a (somewhat) controlled environment. In his mind, he was willingly committing a crime, and that's the ambition that the justice system is trying to remove from the rest of our law-abiding society.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Well the guy did attempt to murder people, so it's hard not to convict him for it. On the other hand for every terrorist there are 1000 times more people who play around with the idea but are never going to act on it unless someone else really takes him by the hand and guides him through it. So the attempt would not have happened unless it was for the FBI. That is why a terrorism expert like Marc Sageman in his studies doesn't even use the people the FBI turns up with. The FBI is only helping themselves with these cases, not reducing terrorism.
The question is, why is this a common practice in the US?
Do they need more people in prison for slave work?
Do they get a bonus for case numbers?
Do they think catching a few unstable people benefits the society?
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
You clearly aren't bright enough to see the point here but don't feel bad; it would have required an IQ of at least 105 but that's even higher than average(!)...
Well, the CEOs running the private prisons across the USA will always make room for another inmate, as long as you include a regular monthly check with him.
Hookers and blow ain't cheap.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
This is completely wrong. I mentioned Marc Sageman in another post, he's an expert on these things. Statistically many people are somewhat sympathetic to terror attacks in some form, but only the tiniest minute fraction will actually go ahead by themselves and do it. Even the fact that some people are very radical in their statements is no indication. The FBI approach of coaxing someone into a terrorist attack is completely useless. Just look up one of his speeches on youtube.
Hell, even my late dad often had vengeful fantasies about taking out a few people. It comes with frustration. Maybe you can claim that's not terrorism, but the difference between revenge and terrorism is a bit thin.
I'm sure they want to do that. And it's useless. The criterium should be 'what are the chances the guy would commit the crime if we ignore him?'
Pepsikid, in cases like this, Google serves up gold and shit pretty well mixed together. If you struck gold, be generous and share it. Spare our hands (and minds) sorting through shit.
Mens Rea, Guilty mind, aka Criminal Intent.
Great!
I'll take a small box and put a big red button on it and label it "Planetary Core Detonator", put it on a bench in a park, and then we can put to death anyone that pushes the button for attempted mass murder, genocide, and crimes against humanity for trying to destroy the Earth. They had the intent, right?
"Mens Rea" is not the only factor. Other factors must be present, like means and opportunity.
If they just took some random idiot hater with no means or opportunity (knew nothing about bombs or bomb-making, had no explosives or means to obtain them, had no van or money/credit to buy/lease/rent one) and supplied him with means and opportunity (supplied him with the things I listed above), that is not only entrapment, it's a ringing alarm bell that the system is out of control and needs to be dealt with.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The question is, why is this a common practice in the US?
Because it is easier to scare people into telling politicians that they want their rights taken away than it is to argue why they should be taken away.
Do they need more people in prison for slave work?
Always. A slave workforce competes with the civilian workforce and drives down wage costs. An all round win win for those with the capital.
Do they get a bonus for case numbers?
Probably.
Do they think catching a few unstable people benefits the society?
No, but they are certainly easier to manipulate than sane normal people who would say "I'm not doing that, are you fucking crazy"
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
He proposed what where to whom
The bomb was fake, so obviously he didn't attempt to kill Americans.
A fake device is still terrorism, because the fundamental purpose is still to cause people to fear for their life, in order to chill their behavior or achieve political ends. Because the scare from a fake threat will still disrupt law and order, and prevent the planned event going forward.
Also, the motivation can still be the same..... disrupt Americans' culture, way of life, freedoms, by causing security backlash or additional constraints, etc.
It is also not entrapment to hand you the tools to commit the crime, and it's also not entrapment to drive you to a location for the crime, hand you the tools, and pay you a lot of money to commit the crime.
Right.... that's not entrapment, that is conspiracy.
If a person offers you to do any of those 3 things after you come to agreement to commit a crime, their action is a furtherance of the crime, then that person is an accessory and conspirator to the crime, and just as guilty as you.....
What about the case when the government spends a year getting you into the state of mind where you say "yes"?
That is called brainwashing, and makes the gov't agent(s) partly guilty of the crime.
No, mang. The rule is, you don't make people Google for you. And if you're my friend, I want your detailed report of evidence in that respect. Bye.
"Undercover Cop Disgracefully Tricks Autistic Student into Selling Weed, Court Denies Family Justice"
http://www.rollingstone.com/cu...
Look, a new member of the no-nothing party.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Oups
"The Entrapment of Jesse Snodgrass"
http://www.alternet.org/civil-...
So, first off - I think this guy is clearly guilty. That being said, any evidence that isn't gathered properly should never be allowed in the courtroom. Given that it's the 9th Circuit though - and the shitty rulings they've been making for a long time now - I doubt they'll do the right thing.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
He didn't know it was fake, right? He attempted to kill Americans, but had no real chance of doing so.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.