Last month, if you missed the news, four African-American ex-cons from Newburgh, N.Y., were convicted of plotting to bomb two synagogues here, one of them half a block from my house. The government released a photo of some of the men casing the joint that our local paper ran the day they were convicted.
One of the men in the photo is an FBI informant, Shahed Hussain. The case seems like a slam-dunk—until you learn more about him. Hussain, driving a flashy Mercedes and using the alias Maqsood, began to frequent the Masjid al-Ikhlas in down-at-the-heels Newburgh in 2008. Mosque leaders say he would meet congregants in the parking lot afterward, offering gifts and telling them they could make a lot of money—$25,000—if they helped him pursue jihad. The assistant imam said the suspicion Hussain was an informant was so great "it was almost like he had a neon sign on him." A congregant told a reporter that, in retrospect, everyone wished they'd called him out or turned him in. "Maybe the mistake we made was that we didn't report him," the man said. "But how are we going to report the government agent to the government?"
Hussain bought meals for the group of four men he assembled because none of them had jobs or money. The owner of a Newburgh restaurant where they occasionally ate considered him "the boss," because he would pick up the tab. Among his other inducements were the offer of $250,000 and a BMW to the most volubly anti-Semitic plotter, the man the government says was the ringleader, James Cromitie. To drive that car, Cromitie would have needed a driver's license—which he didn't have. Another supposed plotter, a Haitian, was a paranoid schizophrenic (according to his imam), which was the reason his deportation had been deferred (according to The Nation's TomDispatch.com), and who kept bottles of urine in his squalid apartment (according to the New York Times). The last two, both surnamed Williams, have histories of drug busts and minimum-wage jobs in Newburgh. At trial the government asserted that the plot was driven by anti-American hatred. But in papers filed in court by defense lawyers before the trial began, Cromitie is quoted in government transcripts explaining to Hussain that the men "will do it for the money….They're not even thinking about the cause."
My only complaint about Conover's article comes when he uncritically quotes the legal scholar Jon Sherman, who argues that "we are throwing way more resources at homegrown terrorism in Muslim communities than we are in poor and disaffected communities that support militia groups in places like Ohio and Tennessee and Michigan….[I]f you put the same effort into infiltrating those communities with undercover informants, you might make as many cases if not more." As it happens, they've done the entrapment thing in the militia milieu several times as well, with the same pointless results. Manipulating a bunch of dumbos who wouldn't have come up with a terror plot on their own is a bad idea, period, no matter what demographic they hail from.
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com
posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary
period.
Subscribe
here to preserve your ability to comment. Your
Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the
digital
edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do
not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments
do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and
ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
"Maybe the mistake we made was that we didn't report him," the man said. "But how are we going to report the government agent to the government?"
That was precisely the mistake they made. As long as law abiding muslims shrug their shoulders and do nothing while some in their midst are plotting to murder people, the rest of us will be rightly suspicious of all of them.
But this person wasn't "plotting to murder people." He was acting on behalf of the federal government, trying to incite others to commit crimes. Next time you see someone doing that, go ahead and report him. But be ready to be arrested for impeding law enforcement.
Larry, They suspected him but they did not KNOW he was an informant.
This is THE problem with muslims, in my opinion. Most of them are good people, but they stand idly by while some in their midst plot murder on innocent people. Why would the rest of us not be suspicious of them in general?
Oh, shut the fuck up, wayne. You came to the likely conclusion one would if you didn't bother to rtfa beyond that point, and you are too squirmy of a rat to just go ahead and admit it.
I guess we should be suspicious of white people too, since there are many instances of white people standing idly by, watching a violent crime be committed without doing anything to help (not even calling police).
You must have missed the sentence almost right before: "The assistant imam said the suspicion Hussain was an informant was so great "it was almost like he had a neon sign on him. "
Kinda sad, really. This undercover FBI guy was not just unprincipled, he was also ridiculously incompetent.
"we are throwing way more resources at homegrown terrorism in Muslim communities than we are in poor and disaffected communities that support militia groups in places like Ohio and Tennessee and Michigan....[I]f you put the same effort into infiltrating those communities with undercover informants, you might make as many cases if not more."
Amazing. I guess it is okay to entrap people as long as you are entrapping the white trash everyone hates. Just call that guy Professor Principle.
yup, shooting an unarmed mother holding her infant while looking outside wondering what was going on... fantastic police work! That sniper deserves a medal and a parade!
Egalitarians aren't opposed to injustice per se, only that it applies to everyone (defined broadly, since it will generally not apply to the equalizers).
"But how are we going to report the government agent to the government?"
There is a secret easter egg on the FBI website. https://tips.fbi.gov/
I've pretty much reported every name on IMDB.
Newt: My mommy always said there were no monsters - no real ones - but there are.
Ripley: Yes, there are, aren't there?
Newt: Why do they tell little kids that?
Ripley: Most of the time it's true.
"""Another supposed plotter, a Haitian, was a paranoid schizophrenic (according to his imam), which was the reason his deportation had been deferred (according to The Nation's TomDispatch.com), and who kept bottles of urine in his squalid apartment"""
Is there some sort of shortage of paranoid schizophrenics in the USA that we need to keep foreign ones or was he not able to collect bottles of urine in Haiti so he had to stay in the USA? I can't see any other reasons why he should have been allowed to stay?
Not all countries (Haiti is a prime example) treat the mentally ill with the same compassion we do. It would be kinder to just kill him than send him back.
This is just what I was going to post. I suppose it's similar to another modern form of "compassion," the one that means cities allow drunks and the insane to clutter the streets and die in the gutters rather than infringe on their "rights," institutionalize them, and force them to get some treatment.
My taxes pay for their ambulance rides (in some cases nearly daily, while us taxpayers pay $1700 if we need one), emergency room treatments, and for cleaning up the streets after them. Institutionalization would be better for them and cheaper for us.
Yeah, I have no problem with the government declaring some people insane, as long as it's not abused. Let me know when it's applied to political opponents. But for the filthy homeless guy raving in the streets, take him away for everybody's good.
Why the false choice of crazies running amok or total government domination?
Empowering citizens, and only citizens, to lodge complaints about other citizens might be a way to remove the power of government to institutionalize political opponents, while preserving the ability of society to do something about people suffering from dangerous disorders.
However, keeping an apartment (even with rows of urine jars) would probably disqualify the schizo Haitian from consideration for institutionalization, as the ability to keep lodging of some sort for a period of time denotes some form of capability.
We're talking screaming, homeless street people with a history of altercations, not just people who don't behave as we'd like.
Well, to me the false choice is between having the city get the crazies off the streets and "total government domination." The former happened for a number of generations without turning into tyranny, so I'm not afraid of it.
Some sort of citizen complaint system might work, but I haven't seen even a proposal for one, and it seems susceptible to abuse and possible side effects (e.g. vengeful crazies or their friends going after the complaintant).
The security apparatus in the US has gone batshit crazy looking for terrorists.
How else can you explain wasting resources on crap like this? Are they going to be recruiting their next big terrorist bust at homeless shelters? Those sad folks will go along with anything for a promise of a hundred bucks.
Well, it makes a certain kind of sense. If it does nothing but put doubts in the minds of the people a real jihadist is trying to recruit, making them think he might be a government agent, that has to count for something.
Manipulating a bunch of dumbos who wouldn't have come up with a terror plot on their own is a bad idea, period, no matter what demographic they hail from.
This statement seems just common sensical enough that g-men will gaze upon it dully as if looking at sanskrit.
And lets not forget the possibility that one of these days some FBI encouraged clown actually gets off an attack and kills someone before the feebis can sweep in and have an arrest and press conference. This is pure stupidity.
Sure it will, all about how the diabolical terrorist stayed one step ahead of the heroic g-men, who arrived at the scene just too late to prevent a tragedy.
All mention of the support and assistance given by the entrapment operation will be "lost", along with the tapes.
Or the second one. We were listening to Bin Ladin's phone calls. The NSA knew something was up. The entire intelligence community was going nuts with chatter. But they never told anyone because Jamie Gorilich thought it was unlawful and no one wanted to compromise a means or method.
Whenever I read about entrapment cases, I'm usually left asking "would the entrapped party have committed or attempted to commit the crime without the aid and/or support of the government agent?"
You know what the answer to your stupid question is? We don't fucking know. It's an article of faith oamong dickless dimwit libertarians that nothing government does is ever any good, and that's why dickless dimwit Jesse Walker uses so many words to condemn entrapment. He could do the same thing for food inspection. It's not the thing itself; it's the government involvement. Get it?
Whenever I read about entrapment cases, I'm usually left asking "would the entrapped party have committed or attempted to commit the crime without the aid and/or support of the government agent?"
In this case it sounds like they wouldn't: "Cromitie is quoted in government transcripts explaining to Hussain that the men 'will do it for the money....They're not even thinking about the cause.'"
If that were the standard for entrapment, then practically every drug bust or prostitotion bust involving an undercover agent would be entrapment. You can't buy what isn't offered for sale and you can't sell without a buyer.
Does it matter? If they weren't placed under duress, then it seems likely that they're the sort of person who would murder, given a little incentive.
Would be interesting (scientifically) to see if they can lure eco-tards into bona fide violence. Although vandalism would be enough to put them in jail, I wonder whether they draw a line at deliberately targeting people, even "bad people".
Never thought of myself as anti-emetic, but what year and model of BMW was he offering?
"...and who kept bottles of urine in his squalid apartment..."
HEY, hitting close to home there. I am amazed that people dispose so casually of their precious bodily fluids...
That's not as bizarre as it seems. It's possible he was renting a room that didn't have its own bathroom. And if you have to go when someone else is taking forever in the bathroom, it's either go on the floor or in a bottle. And then you might forget about the bottle if you get distracted by other things, especially if the apartment is cluttered.
"Maybe the mistake we made was that we didn't report him," the man said. "But how are we going to report the government agent to the government?"
That was precisely the mistake they made. As long as law abiding muslims shrug their shoulders and do nothing while some in their midst are plotting to murder people, the rest of us will be rightly suspicious of all of them.
But this person wasn't "plotting to murder people." He was acting on behalf of the federal government, trying to incite others to commit crimes. Next time you see someone doing that, go ahead and report him. But be ready to be arrested for impeding law enforcement.
Larry, They suspected him but they did not KNOW he was an informant.
This is THE problem with muslims, in my opinion. Most of them are good people, but they stand idly by while some in their midst plot murder on innocent people. Why would the rest of us not be suspicious of them in general?
Oh, shut the fuck up, wayne. You came to the likely conclusion one would if you didn't bother to rtfa beyond that point, and you are too squirmy of a rat to just go ahead and admit it.
I guess we should be suspicious of white people too, since there are many instances of white people standing idly by, watching a violent crime be committed without doing anything to help (not even calling police).
You must have missed the sentence almost right before: "The assistant imam said the suspicion Hussain was an informant was so great "it was almost like he had a neon sign on him. "
Kinda sad, really. This undercover FBI guy was not just unprincipled, he was also ridiculously incompetent.
What else do they have to do now that they've solved the anthrax case and all.
Solve the Jimmy Hoffa case.
Hoffa will always be a cornerstone of our organization.
Hoffa will always be in a cornerstone of our organization.
"we are throwing way more resources at homegrown terrorism in Muslim communities than we are in poor and disaffected communities that support militia groups in places like Ohio and Tennessee and Michigan....[I]f you put the same effort into infiltrating those communities with undercover informants, you might make as many cases if not more."
Amazing. I guess it is okay to entrap people as long as you are entrapping the white trash everyone hates. Just call that guy Professor Principle.
What about the Michigan militia guys? Wasn't that essentially the same scheme?
Yup.
Lenny: Are you saying you want to commit some crimes?
Homer: Maybe, but first, I'd like to hear about some other crimes to get me in the mood.
Evidently he doesn't remember Randy Weaver or Ruby Ridge.
he remembers it and thought it was solid police work. He is just pissed there hasn't been more like those.
yup, shooting an unarmed mother holding her infant while looking outside wondering what was going on... fantastic police work! That sniper deserves a medal and a parade!
Isn't it fucked that the same sniper who pulled of that glorious job was also present at Waco?
Can't make this shit up
Too bad he wasn't present at OKC too.
Egalitarians aren't opposed to injustice per se, only that it applies to everyone (defined broadly, since it will generally not apply to the equalizers).
"But how are we going to report the government agent to the government?"
There is a secret easter egg on the FBI website. https://tips.fbi.gov/
I've pretty much reported every name on IMDB.
Newt: My mommy always said there were no monsters - no real ones - but there are.
Ripley: Yes, there are, aren't there?
Newt: Why do they tell little kids that?
Ripley: Most of the time it's true.
I sincerely hope you're using Tor or some other IP masking method when you're doing that.
"""Another supposed plotter, a Haitian, was a paranoid schizophrenic (according to his imam), which was the reason his deportation had been deferred (according to The Nation's TomDispatch.com), and who kept bottles of urine in his squalid apartment"""
Is there some sort of shortage of paranoid schizophrenics in the USA that we need to keep foreign ones or was he not able to collect bottles of urine in Haiti so he had to stay in the USA? I can't see any other reasons why he should have been allowed to stay?
Not all countries (Haiti is a prime example) treat the mentally ill with the same compassion we do. It would be kinder to just kill him than send him back.
What compassion, living in a urine filled slum or being entrapped in a terror plot?
Doesn't Haiti have urine filled slums or cops willing to entrap crazy guys in crimes?
"and who kept bottles of urine in his squalid apartment"
He also had a mole on his left forearm and walked with a limp.
He sounds a little like Howard Hughes.
"But Sir, it's only a..."
"I said, get in."
This is just what I was going to post. I suppose it's similar to another modern form of "compassion," the one that means cities allow drunks and the insane to clutter the streets and die in the gutters rather than infringe on their "rights," institutionalize them, and force them to get some treatment.
The alternative is giving government the power to lock-up people governent declares insane. Also: Why should taxes pay to get these people treatment?
My taxes pay for their ambulance rides (in some cases nearly daily, while us taxpayers pay $1700 if we need one), emergency room treatments, and for cleaning up the streets after them. Institutionalization would be better for them and cheaper for us.
Yeah, I have no problem with the government declaring some people insane, as long as it's not abused. Let me know when it's applied to political opponents. But for the filthy homeless guy raving in the streets, take him away for everybody's good.
Why the false choice of crazies running amok or total government domination?
Empowering citizens, and only citizens, to lodge complaints about other citizens might be a way to remove the power of government to institutionalize political opponents, while preserving the ability of society to do something about people suffering from dangerous disorders.
However, keeping an apartment (even with rows of urine jars) would probably disqualify the schizo Haitian from consideration for institutionalization, as the ability to keep lodging of some sort for a period of time denotes some form of capability.
We're talking screaming, homeless street people with a history of altercations, not just people who don't behave as we'd like.
Well, to me the false choice is between having the city get the crazies off the streets and "total government domination." The former happened for a number of generations without turning into tyranny, so I'm not afraid of it.
Some sort of citizen complaint system might work, but I haven't seen even a proposal for one, and it seems susceptible to abuse and possible side effects (e.g. vengeful crazies or their friends going after the complaintant).
Or, simply require a jury to confirm to the government's finding, the way we do when government wants to institutionalize people for other reasons.
The security apparatus in the US has gone batshit crazy looking for terrorists.
How else can you explain wasting resources on crap like this? Are they going to be recruiting their next big terrorist bust at homeless shelters? Those sad folks will go along with anything for a promise of a hundred bucks.
Drop an hundred bucks in the homeless shelter, get an extra hundred million in your budget next year.
Well, it makes a certain kind of sense. If it does nothing but put doubts in the minds of the people a real jihadist is trying to recruit, making them think he might be a government agent, that has to count for something.
Not if the govt agents are as obvious as these ones have been.
Big win on the alt-text, BTW.
Now I want a hack to turn all of Ceasar's troops into Bert and Ernie.
Since these guys were convicted, I guess there's no such thing as entrapment any more.
I liked it better when the terorists could only win if I quit buying shit I don't need.
Manipulating a bunch of dumbos who wouldn't have come up with a terror plot on their own is a bad idea, period, no matter what demographic they hail from.
This statement seems just common sensical enough that g-men will gaze upon it dully as if looking at sanskrit.
Has playing airport security replaced playing doctor yet?
And lets not forget the possibility that one of these days some FBI encouraged clown actually gets off an attack and kills someone before the feebis can sweep in and have an arrest and press conference. This is pure stupidity.
I have a feeling that operation wouldn't get a press conference.
Sure it will, all about how the diabolical terrorist stayed one step ahead of the heroic g-men, who arrived at the scene just too late to prevent a tragedy.
All mention of the support and assistance given by the entrapment operation will be "lost", along with the tapes.
Like the first WTC attack?
There were so many informants involved it is like a scene from The Man Who Was Thursday.
Or the second one. We were listening to Bin Ladin's phone calls. The NSA knew something was up. The entire intelligence community was going nuts with chatter. But they never told anyone because Jamie Gorilich thought it was unlawful and no one wanted to compromise a means or method.
Some of us believe this is precisely what happened in re the OKC bombing.
Didn't that dumbo Timothy McVeigh come out of the anti-government militia milieu?
Arf, arf... eh, why bother?
Nope.
No, but he came out of the federal military, and killed people for the government overseas.
Whenever I read about entrapment cases, I'm usually left asking "would the entrapped party have committed or attempted to commit the crime without the aid and/or support of the government agent?"
You know what the answer to your stupid question is? We don't fucking know. It's an article of faith oamong dickless dimwit libertarians that nothing government does is ever any good, and that's why dickless dimwit Jesse Walker uses so many words to condemn entrapment. He could do the same thing for food inspection. It's not the thing itself; it's the government involvement. Get it?
"We don't know".
So it should be an "article of faith" that they would have?
Food inspection = entrapment.
Whenever I read about entrapment cases, I'm usually left asking "would the entrapped party have committed or attempted to commit the crime without the aid and/or support of the government agent?"
In this case it sounds like they wouldn't: "Cromitie is quoted in government transcripts explaining to Hussain that the men 'will do it for the money....They're not even thinking about the cause.'"
If that were the standard for entrapment, then practically every drug bust or prostitotion bust involving an undercover agent would be entrapment. You can't buy what isn't offered for sale and you can't sell without a buyer.
Now you're starting to get it.
Does it matter? If they weren't placed under duress, then it seems likely that they're the sort of person who would murder, given a little incentive.
Would be interesting (scientifically) to see if they can lure eco-tards into bona fide violence. Although vandalism would be enough to put them in jail, I wonder whether they draw a line at deliberately targeting people, even "bad people".
I hear the TSA is searching more packages these days.
bing! bing! bing! bing! We have a winner! Here, good sir. One slightly banged up internet for your pleasure.
Never thought of myself as anti-emetic, but what year and model of BMW was he offering?
"...and who kept bottles of urine in his squalid apartment..."
HEY, hitting close to home there. I am amazed that people dispose so casually of their precious bodily fluids...
Protect your essence, dan.
Don't be so quick, fresno dan; it didn't say he kept bottles of his own urine.
That's not as bizarre as it seems. It's possible he was renting a room that didn't have its own bathroom. And if you have to go when someone else is taking forever in the bathroom, it's either go on the floor or in a bottle. And then you might forget about the bottle if you get distracted by other things, especially if the apartment is cluttered.
just one more trap of the satanic u.s government.these fools had no chance.should had done it LONE WOLF.