What would it take for you to commit mass murder in the name of Allah?
Would you do it for money? For love? Out of a sense of justice? Out of a sense of religious duty?
Absurd as they may seem, these are serious questions, for as jihad mass-murder plots are being uncovered in the United States more frequently than ever, those are accused of perpetrating them and several Islamic groups are increasingly charging entrapment: that overzealous FBI agents pushed poor innocent Muslims into taking part in a jihad plot that otherwise would never have existed.
And so it is here. The same claim has been made in connection with numerous other jihad cases in the U.S. Yet charges of entrapment are silly for any Muslim caught in a jihad terror plot to try to pursue. For there is every indication that Mohamud was more than willing to do whatever was necessary to enable him to murder large numbers of Americans. The very fact that he went ahead with his plots ought to be sufficient indication in itself that there was no entrapment. Think about it: what would it take to lead you to participate in a terrorist mass-murder plot? If undercover agents approached you and tried to entice you into working to kill large numbers of innocent people, how hard would it be to convince you to do it?
Speaking strictly for myself, I have absolutely no worries of ever being entrapped in this way; there is simply nothing, under any circumstances, that anyone could say to me to convince me to blow anyone up. And so if someone showed up and started trying to cajole me into doing so, I would find him irritating, but I wouldn’t even come close to doing anything that would enable anyone to portray me as guilty of anything. Mohamed Mohamud, in contrast, went ahead with his jihad mass-murder plot. Law enforcement agents were not to blame and cannot justly be held accountable for his choices.
These increasingly common charges of entrapment should be seen for what they are: yet another attempt to divert attention from the ugly reality of Islamic jihad activity in the U.S. and around the world, and to place the responsibility for jihadist misdeeds upon non-Muslims — specifically the ones who are trying to thwart the jihadists” plans. After 9/11, we were assured again and again that the vast majority of Muslims in the U.S. and worldwide were peaceful, and sincerely condemned such violence perpetrated in the name of their religion. Yet eleven years later, we still have yet to see a sincere and effective effort within mosques to expose and report those who hold to the beliefs that led to those attacks.
Instead, we get more finger-pointing. And that means we will also get more jihad.
“Jurors in Mohamed Mohamud bomb-plot trial will inspect massive, but fake bomb,” by Bryan Denson for The Oregonian, December 19 (thanks to Kenneth):
A federal judge will allow jurors in the Portland bomb plot case to tour a van — loaded with a massive, but phony, explosive — during the terrorism trial of Mohamed Mohamud.
U.S. District Judge Garr M. King made the ruling Wednesday during a pretrial conference attended by the 21-year-old former Oregon State University student. His trial is set for Jan. 10.
The government accuses Mohamud of trying to detonate a weapon of mass destruction during the Nov. 26, 2010, holiday tree-lighting ceremony in Portland’s downtown Pioneer Courthouse Square.
Mohamud’s lawyers have mounted an entrapment defense, arguing that sophisticated FBI operatives, posing as terrorists, goaded their vulnerable teenage client into a crime he would not have devised on his own.
Jurors in King’s courtroom will go to the basement garage of the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse to view the van, which is still choked with a realistic looking explosive that weighs nearly a ton. FBI bomb techs rigged the fake bomb and the undercover operatives showed it to Mohamud as part of the bureau’s sting operation.
“It seems to me it’s a part of the case,” King said.
Mohamud’s lead defense lawyer, Stephen R. Sady, argued to no avail that showing jurors the van would unfairly prejudice them and build drama outside the scope of anything his client did.
King will allow Mohamud to take the tour if he wants, and efforts will be made to conceal his ankle shackles so jurors don’t see them….
Mohamud’s defense lawyers, citing potential bias by jurors against their Muslim, African-born client, had asked for six extra chances to strike prospective panelists. But King ruled against them, saying he was calling in a pool of 100 for jury selection. Sady said he didn’t think that would be enough to pick a jury, but the judge rejected his motion….
The judge also ruled that words such as “terrorist,” “martyrdom” and “violent jihad” could be introduced into evidence, but he expected lawyers to caution expert witnesses not to make inappropriate use of such loaded terms.
What would constitute “inappropriate use”?
King said he was inclined to let Mohamud’s lawyers show their client’s family photos and to show evidence that he lived a relatively normal life before the events that now find him in Portland’s Justice Center jail.
Yes, yes, he was a decent fellow. So what?
The notice, by the international police agency, describes one of Mohamud’s contacts — Amro Alali — as a wanted terrorist from Saudi Arabia. Interpol said Alali, a Portland State University student in 2008, “helped the Al Qaeda division in Yemen and other countries by providing them with foreign fighters to carry out terrorist attacks against western and tourists interests,” government prosecutors alleged.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan D. Knight, who heads the Mohamud prosecution, said the government had significant evidence that Mohamud knew Alali had “terrorist ties.” But defense lawyer Lisa Hay, describing the Interpol notice as hearsay, said no evidence would show that Mohamud knew Alali was a wanted terrorist. The notice was an accusation, not a conviction, she noted.