IN AN EARLY SCENE from the HBO documentary Homegrown, an FBI agent describes his angst while tracking a teenager’s engagement in the online jihadi world. “You almost want to pick up the phone and say, ‘Son, don’t do this,’” the agent reflects. The teenager in question was Shifa Sadequee, a 19-year-old who was arrested on terrorism charges in 2006. Following a 2009 trial in which Sadequee represented himself, he was sentenced to 17 years in prison plus an additional 30 years of supervision.
The ethical issues involved in preventive counterterrorism cases like Sadequee’s are the theme behind much of Homegrown. Following 9/11, law enforcement agencies were given a mandate to halt terrorist acts before they occurred, rather than investigate crimes after the fact. This directive inevitably gave rise to some disturbing ethical questions. When is it acceptable to arrest someone for a crime they haven’t actually committed, but you think they might commit in the future? At what point do a teenager’s online postings turn into a terrorism offense?
Born in Virginia to parents from Bangladesh, Sadequee was raised largely in suburban Georgia. In the years leading up to his arrest, during his early and mid-teens, he was the subject of intense online surveillance by law enforcement. Around the age of 16, Sadequee became involved online with a group of young men who had been translating jihadi material into English. The men were generally not in direct contact, and were scattered in different countries around the English-speaking world. Online, some of them expressed support for terrorist groups and made threats of future violence.In real life, Sadequee was a socially awkward teenager growing up in a broken home. But in the virtual world, he used his language skills and scholarly demeanor to become something of a respected figure, making friends and contacts throughout North America and Europe. As time went on, Sadequee began immersing himself more deeply in this new community.
In 2005, he and another young man, Syed Haris Ahmed, made a trip to Toronto to meet with a group of men they had befriended online, several of whom were later arrested in a separate terrorism sting. Roughly a month after that visit, Sadequee and Ahmed traveled to Washington, D.C., where they made a “casing video” of major landmarks in the city. While providing limited strategic value, the videos were deeply provocative. In footage shown on Homegrown, Sadequee and Ahmed pan a camera across the Pentagon and White House while making threatening comments. The video they made was later alleged by the government to have been created for online propaganda, rather than as preparation for a specific attack. The footage was played at trial as evidence of their intent to support terrorism.
After this trip, while Sadequee’s online persona grew more fearsome, his real life continued along the path his family had expected of him. At 19, Sadequee traveled to Bangladesh to get married. But just days after his wedding, he was abducted by plainclothes Bengali police officers off the streets of Dhaka and extradited to the United States. For the next several years, he was held in pre-trial solitary confinement, an experience that had an emotionally traumatic effect on him. His lawyers and family also say that Sadequee suffered repeated assaults and psychological abuse while awaiting trial.
In 2009, Sadequee was tried, convicted, and sentenced to a 17-year federal sentence. But even after receiving that harsh sentence, the irksome fact remained that Sadequee had never actually committed an act of terrorism. The allegations against him amounted to statements and translations he had made online as a teenager. At his trial, Sadequee said that these online activities were “just talk,” and were never intended to manifest in an act of violence.
“Shifa was never accused of making any specific threat or plot. The government didn’t even have to prove that he did anything, just that he had the intent, which they did using his online chats and translation activities,” says Khurrum Wahid, who served as Sadequee’s stand-by counsel during the trial and who also appears in Homegrown. “It goes down to the issue of what you do when you come across a teenager making provocative statements online. As a society, is it our responsibility to string them along and send them to jail?”
Wahid is outraged about the government’s handling of Sadequee’s case and those of other young people that involve preventive policing. “In no other context would we accept that we arrest and jail people for further actions that haven’t happened,” he says. “The right solution in cases of teenagers like Shifa might be to call the families and do an intervention, which is what would happen in any other case. But for some reason, we decide that terrorism is different.”
Sadequee was not arrested until the age of 19, but it appears that the government had been surveilling him closely for many years before that. Among the accusations against him were that he had sought to join the Taliban in December 2001. At that time, Sadequee would have been 15 years old.
Mubin Shaikh, a specialist on counterterrorism and former undercover agent, infiltrated Sadequee’s group of Toronto friends a few months after his 2005 visit to Canada. Although torn about sending young men in terror cases to prison for extended terms, Shaikh says that law enforcement often has little choice. “The dilemma is, What happens when you’re watching someone and you blow the undercover part and confront them with their family in their homes? A suspect might remain committed to a plot, and then go alert his co-conspirators to derail a broader investigation,” he says. Shaikh further notes that were an individual to go on and commit a criminal act after a failed intervention, public criticism would inevitably fall upon law enforcement for failing to stop someone who was “known to authorities.”
“Perhaps a third option could be to provide counseling in prison to help reduce their sentence once incarcerated,” he says. “But it’s not clear if Western institutions are even prepared for such programs yet.”
Over roughly 90 minutes, Homegrown discusses the case of Sadequee, as well as others like Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan Malik, from the perspective of law enforcement, local communities, and the families of the accused. As a film, it succeeds in offering a more nuanced take on the subject of radicalization than many other mainstream productions. Over generic footage of Muslim Americans going about their lives, the film airs voiceovers from counterterrorism officials describing the threat of terrorism as wildly overblown in the public imagination. Left unspoken, however, is the somewhat underwhelming nature of even those “terrorists” who do end up being identified and apprehended in the United States today.
Since the rise of the Islamic State, a steadily increasing number of young men similar in profile to Sadequee have been arrested due to statements and postings they’ve made online. A report issued this week by George Washington University’s Program on Extremism found that since March 2014, 84 individuals, mostly young men, have been arrested in the United States for allegedly supporting ISIS. Some, like Khalil Abu Rayyan, 21, were seemingly disturbed young men who thought they were interacting online with friends or potential love interests. Others, like John T. Booker, had well-documented histories of mental illness before their postings brought them to the attention of authorities. In many of the cases, it seems highly questionable whether the individuals involved had the capacity to commit a crime without the assistance of law enforcement.
In the film, Sadequee’s older sister Sharmin emerges as a powerful advocate on his behalf. Since his arrest and incarceration, she and her sister have devoted themselves to his case, as well as to the cases of other young men whom they say have been railroaded by law enforcement agencies.
“We are a family who learned firsthand how the counterterrorism industry actively seeks to destroy innocent people with manufactured terrorism cases,” Sharmin Sadequee told The Intercept. “The government conceded at his trial that there was no plot or plan of a plot to harm anyone or anything. So why is Shifa in prison for 10 years? These types of cases are used to assault us with fear and hysteria and silence us from protesting our government’s wars abroad.”
The Thought Police is alive and well, it would seem.
Shame that the FBI doesn’t use one third of this effort to arrest actual criminals, like drug dealers, pedophiles, sex slavers, zoophiles, serial rapists and homicidal neo-nazi hate groups.
Nor does the FBI bother to look into the massive amount of murder committed at the hands of the police, particularly towards non-white and/or poor citizens and misdemeanours.
Hell, if the FBI was really interested in preventing organized terrorism, it would shut down the CIA. Few organizations on Earth are as vicious as the CIA, responsible for assassinating countless foreign (democratically elected) dignitaries, social activists and communists, setting up puppet dictators and organizing crime groups abroad to instil fear and obedience in locals.
Fbi criminal minds:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/03/431815.shtml
Delve into the criminal minds of fbi and examine the crimes that the fbi actually commits.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/03/431815.shtml
Meanwhile, a group of “armed protesters” seized the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, and occupied it for 41 days until their leaders were finally arrested by the FBI. They threatened to kill federal employees, stole U.S. government vehicles, and even discussed planting IEDs. Some of these people have been arrested on serious charges, but the government isn’t calling them terrorists or prosecuting them under anti-terrorism statutes.
He traveled from GA to Canada, so he was committed to something. And filming buildings with threatening comments included? This guy is not a posterboy for justice. The people charged who have been basically led on and entrapped are the ones with the best cases.
When the FBI and the courts end the “unconstitutional” CoinTelPro program and tactics, used against innocent Americans like Martin Luther King, Jr and his supporters, then they would have more legitimacy.
It appears the FBI has chosen the opposite path, lobbying Congress for more “unconstitutional” powers than were exploited that harmed MLK and his supporters. The ACLU has warned that the environment since 9/11 (in the computer age) is essentially “CoinTelPro on steroids”.
The FBI has made no serious effort to follow their oath of office to follow the U.S. Constitution.
‘Harbor’ by Lorraine Adams says it all:
http://lorraineadams.net/books/harbor
The problem is that when 911 hit, law enforcement did not connect the dots.
Of the terrorists who hijacked the planes it was reported that a few of the hijackers took lessons in flying a plane but did not want to learn how to land. Or they were not paying attention to the casing of sensitive areas the obvious ones like casing Logan Airport in boston.
The problem is just that, if you are watching and hearing these subjects of investigations, in this case a teenager talking language of terrorism for years, then seeing that same person visiting those very same people, then how do u know that they are planning to attack or not?
So if law enforcement did not take action, then if a terrorist activity.did occur, fingers will point directly at the government. Why did they not take action fast enough to prevent tragedies as soon as they knew about it?
The shoe bomber. The pakistani guy who put a fake bomb in a car in nyc then was boarding an international flight.
When 911 occured, questions of the various agencies were, why did the government not know?
Im sorry for the kid, but this is what the government nervous as they are, are thinking. The prevention of another 911.
If successive US regimes had not sown and did not continue to sow terror, murder, exploitation, and terrorism throughout the mideast and elsewhere, for nearly a century, in support of murderous torturing dictators, and a demented anti-Soviet policy, none of this would be occurring. Stop sowing terror and stop reaping terrorism. Nothing else will ever work.
The key word in your comment is “if.” If G. Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq, etc, etc. The problem is that these things have happened and we now have to deal with the results. My problem with this kid is he actually went places in pursuit of his hobby. That crosses a line for me on the path to potential action. Like Rick says, how else to deal with this? He wasn’t one of those who was not saying or doing anything until a government informant showed up. He was walking the walk and talking the talk on his own.
God forbid they do the right thing in the face of criticism
What law enforcement did to Sadequee made a lot of sense all the way up to 3 years of solitary in pre trial confinement.
This kind of treatment of someone who hasn’t even been found guilty is beyond immoral. Whether it is legal or not, it is wrong. This is the kind of crap that we fought the Revolution over in 1776.
How is 3 years not pre convition punishment?
If the government detained you and said we think you might be guilty of a crime and after 3 years they said, oops, my bad, you’re free to go, wouldn’t you feel as though your rights had been violated?
What if this young man had been found innocent of any crime. There are so many things wrong with this situation.
To sum it all up the US has a 3 tiered justice system, Rich people are on top, then poor white people, then poor non white people. This is a fact and its a violation of our human rights.
Murtaza, I appreciate the article. Please consider using “terrorism” in place of the GW Bushism, “terror”. Thanks.
When GG wrote that Je suis Charlie article, it made sense: we have freedom of speech so long as you say the right thing. He gave examples of really stupid arrests.
This article makes zero sense. This arrest made lots of sense. Rather than be in some gang-like program for rehab this kid should remain locked up…. huge difference between actually helping terrorists and just yammering on about it in your mother’s basement.
Pathetic. Welcome to Minority Report’s Future Crimes. Or is it just a controlling method to keep taxpayers in their places? How’s life in that cage, America, now that the gilding has been stripped and spent?
Lol 17 years plus 30 years of supervision? isnt the cost of supervision about 80 dollars a month , maybe more..paid by the defendant? Reminds me of when released felons would go out and commit a petty crime just to meet supv. costs..This kid is doomed…unless of course his living will be working as an informant.
Who was the un-named co-conspirator that supplied all that hardware….that situation sounds very fishy to me.
At these ages we see why young people are drafted or encouraged to join military because their minds are very malleable and can be programmed to do anything. Just sayin..entrapment much easier than someone much older.
Excellent point.
Why aren’t cases like these (lets be honest there are plenty cases like this one) known to the public? Would we as a society benefit from learning how easy it is to take away someone’s freedom? How has this so called “war on terror” made me feel safer? Anyone can be a target. Needs to be a greater discussion as to how we can stop these invasive tactics from law enforcement etc.
Why would they want their shady behavior to be well known to the public? They’ve overstepped their bounds plenty of times, and they know people don’t trust them anymore. Talking about it now is a huge step in the right direction though.
Minority Report anyone?! I can’t believe this is the future of policing!
This feels like a plot straight out of Steven Spielberg ‘s Minority Report. Who knew the concept of precrime was already in place……….
Philip K Dick wrote The Minority Report. He was quite prescient. Several of his writings further enriched my understanding of the present state of our society of… feudalism, monopoly capitalism, obscene under-handed bellicosity. Oh, sorry, just a talking point oasis.
The novella, Ubik, is an interesting read anent the ‘nickel and diming’ of wage slaves aka modern workers.
Notice also that none of these tactics would have helped catch the 9/11 hijackers as they had been trained to “hide in plain sight” by the Al Qaeda network, and had been given large sums of money to do so – apartments, food, clothes, flight school enrollment money, first-class airline tickets – all apparently via Saudi-based Islamic ‘charities’ with ties to the Saudi government, information that remains hidden in the 28 pages that were redacted from the 2002 US Senate report into the 9/11 attacks.
The fact remains, however, that without significant funding and external support, large-scale terrorist attacks within the United States remain extremely implausible – but this is not a subject the FBI is going to take on, because of the “sensitive nature of our relationships with our allies in the Middle East.”
That, for a specific example, is why we have heard nothing at all about FBI investigations into the San Bernardino shooters ties to Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that they were married there – whereas, if the wedding had taken place in a mosque somewhere in the United States, the FBI would probably be doing an extensive investigation into the background of everyone who attended the wedding, including invasive surveillance and the use of undercover informants.
Obviously, it’s high time those 28 redacted pages were declassified, isn’t it?
Torturers have blocked me from posting here. For now, that is.
Laws are put in place to control some while giving others freedom to say and do as please. So who makes these law and who are they protecting. Surely not all america, because americas homegrown terrorists are protected always have and all ways will.
Yes, they could intervene to stop something like this, but that’s not what they’re paid to do. Police forces have to justify their increased budgets and show results so they can get further increases.
While precrime policing is not compatible with a free society, it does have many advantages. People not only crave security, but the also the feeling of security. The prospect of seeing a lot of innocent people being sent to prison is reassuring to many people. It enhances their feeling of security, since it indicates the government is protecting them.
Unless, of course, they’re one of those innocents from whom people are being protected…
In that case, they merely require sufficient re-education to enlighten them as to how their own incarceration, torture, and possible execution is really for their own benefit.
quote”While precrime policing is not compatible with a free society, it does have many advantages.”
So says the premier fascist in Europe until people woke up and hung one BENITO MUSSOLINI…upside down after being beat to death.
Now, now. If it’s your train that is late…
Can anyone tell me where I can buy the bestseller Fart of the Deal by Professor Donald Drumpf?
Please excuse auto-incorrects above due to malfunctioning and hacked iPhone.
The DOJ is telling it a bit differently: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/terrorism-defendants-sentenced-atlanta
Now I’m all for people having the free speech to translate jihadist literature, watch snuff ISIS videos, and even to rant about various favorite politicians they’d like to watch getting a base jumping lesson in Raqqa. However, when you’re actually in direct communication with the guy with the 20 pounds of plastic explosive about the explosive and you’re trying to help him however you can, that may be a bit much.
Now is 17 years of prison cruel? Of course it is! All our prison sentences are far too high, far too harsh, with neither intent to rehabilitate nor any touch of sympathy for the person who already has lost freedom and now is just being bullied while in confinement because that’s what you do to people when they’re down. But it’s not like he wasn’t actually involved in a real plan to do harm. (Honestly, I can’t think of any fairer or crueler thing to do than to give him his one-way ticket to Jihadistan and let him fight it out with the other terrorists for one of the handful of jobs in their field, but I digress)
There is enough real, genuine injustice out there that I resent when I feel like someone is pulling a fast one and trying to get me to rally behind a terrorist who would cheerfully kill me, rather than one of so many innocent schmucks in the jaws of the system.
Yes there are always at least three sides to politically charged stories of this type… that of law enforcement, the defense and the defendant himself – all of whom have a vested interest in tailoring a narrative in service to their respective ends. Take this article for example, not one “statement or translation” made by Sadequee was included in this article. Rather much was made out of the fact that Sadequee was merely a socially awkward teenage boy when he was deliberately aiding the effort to disseminate Jihadi literature online and engaging in hypothetical scenarios in which North America institutions could be violently attacked in the name of Islam. To put Sadequee’s presumed innocence and/or naivete-of-age argument into perspective, Alexander the great was only sixteen years of age when he succeeded his father to the throne. Within a year, Alexander had already invaded the Achaemenid Empire as the first in a series of conquests that lasted ten years. He, too, was a gifted student.
Are pre-crime prosecutions a potential problem? Yes, they are matter of grave concern. No fly lists, stop and frisk, roadside checkpoints, and Information-led policing all advance a theory of preemptive law enforcement that knowingly skirts the need to show reasonable suspicion before detaining a suspect or showing probable cause before subjecting detainees to searches and seizures. Law enforcement agencies routinely employ controversial pre-crime policing tactics in communities where the target population are economically disadvantaged to mounting an effective legal challenge to such methods. For instance, between the years 2004-2012, the monthly average of individuals who were stopped and frisked in NY City rose form a low of 20,000 to a high of 70,000 with no end in sight. It wasn’t until Shira Scheindlin, a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of New York, ruled that New York City’s “stop and frisk” policy violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of equal protection, that that rate began to drop (although that decision is still being challenged in the courts). Those who were most victimized by stop and frisk policies in NY City were poor Latinos and African Americans. Some critics of NY City’s stop and frisk policies have shown a striking correlation between a disproportionately high number of incidents and the gentrification of target neighborhoods in which they occurred.
> although that decision is still being challenged in the courts
Nope. De Blasio asked the city to drop the appeals. I’m surprised it took as long as it did for the judge to rule against it – it’s basically a textbook violation of the fourth amendment – it should’ve been an open & shut case. Continually appealing the decision would only cost the city millions in legal expenses.
Yes, apparently I didn’t get the memo. However, Stop and frisk abuses by NTPD are still making the news in spite of court mandated reforms:
http://amsterdamnews.com/news/2016/mar/03/court-nypd-figure-these-stop-and-frisk-reports-out/
The answer is to tighten the muzzle on the news. We shouldn’t have to hear about this. There must be an appropriate gag order lying around here somewhere.
I’m thinking and might have even texted some guy about possibly buying drugs. Better lock me up because thinking or discussing things is the same as doing.
I used my gardening skills to help a friend in IRC with his grow op. Better lock me up for intent to cultivate and distribute.
My friends and I planned how to rob a bank and procured all the necessary materials but didn’t rob one. Better lock us up for this horrible crime we’ve committed against society.
Information is not harmful, direct action is. Open your eyes.
If he was in contact with that guy, then it was warranted in this case. I just wonder if anything could have been done to intervene in the situation (despite blowing their cover). It’s almost like they want terrorists to exist and go as far as out there as possible, to justify what they’re doing.
The same “Department of Justice” is also ever so enthusiastic to inform us how incredibly dangerous Julian Assange’s continued existence is, to you, you, you, you and you…
“Police work is only easy in a police state.” This situation is a perfect example.
This is basically imprisoning people for what they think (“intent”), which is supposed to be unconstitutional (not that any constitutional protections apply after 911).
Outstanding article Mutaza, even if the subject is nightmarish.
It occurs to me that in the government’s vilifying of persons more innocent than the government itself, it seems to be lionizing opposition to itself. Shifa’s family, along with Matt DeHart’s parents and so many others, would probably have never entered the realm of activism if not for the personal effects of the government’s focused insanity.
If Trump were President, he would have this young man picked up by the CIA and sent to Guantanamo and tortured.
say that louder and his percentages will rise.
Wnt and Karl are on it.
Practicing a little of that questionable, lazy-a**ed preemptive judgment then, are we, general?
As would Hillary, the entire Republican candidate pool, and for that matter, perhaps even Sanders. Proximity to one’s own potential power breeds contempt for constitutionality and the rights of others.
‘”We are a family who learned firsthand how the counterterrorism industry actively seeks to destroy innocent people with manufactured terrorism cases,” Sharmin Sadequee told The Intercept.’ -from the article
It’s tragic. And the active destruction of innocent people — of innocent lives — is much more common than many people realize.
fightgangstalking.com
It needs to be stopped.
>When is it acceptable to arrest someone for a crime they haven’t actually committed, but you think they might commit in the future?<
As with every other serious crime, the simple answer is when it is too dangerous to continue surveilling them. If someone posted online threats to kill Glenn Greenwald, repeatedly, then met with groups that advocated his killing, discussed specific technical details of how to kill him, searched for methods and materials to kill him, and the FBI knew all of this, what would you have them do? Wait until the bomb went off? No, of course not.
When someone is found to be in a conspiracy, and that conspiracy has ripened to the point that it is an active threat, law enforcement has an affirmative duty to prevent the act. This happens in cases where a spouse wants his wife killed, or a crew plan a bank robbery; why should different rules apply to terrorism cases?
The main complaints seem to be that he was a teenager, as if teenagers never commit acts of terrorism, and that he was treated badly after his arrest, which doesn't bear at all on the legitimacy of that arrest. Clearly, this young man wanted to commit acts of terrorism, took action in furtherance of that desire, and acted in the knowledge that his actions were wrong. At what point should he have been arrested?
“If someone posted online threats to kill Glenn Greenwald, repeatedly, then met with groups that advocated his killing, discussed specific technical details of how to kill him, searched for methods and materials to kill him, and the FBI knew all of this, what would you have them do? Wait until the bomb went off?”
There’s a lot of words there designed to hide what you’re really saying:
What would you have them do? Wait until an actual crime was committed before acting?
And of course you conveniently leave out the option of stopping them during the commission of the crime, when it is quite clear that they are not simply sharing information and thoughts but directly acting.
That’s ridiculous. Should the police wait until the gun is aimed at Greenwald’s head? Until the shooter’s finger is on the trigger? Until he starts to press the trigger?
This is not ‘pre-crime’ policing, a made-up term for ‘arresting people we like. This person has committed, at the least, the crime of conspiracy to murder. He has agreed with others to commit a crime; he has made an overt act in furtherance of that crime. By your reasoning, the 9/11 hijackers should not have been arrested until they actually hijacked the planes, because they hadn’t committed any crime before that.
This man was not just talking online, translating propaganda, or expressing his political views. He was arrested for planning to commit acts of mass murder. He surveilled targets for attacks; he took training in bomb-making; he was working with people who had cases of explosives, several kinds of detonators and hundreds of feet of primer cord. On the undisputed evidence, he’s guilty of conspiracy to murder, aiding and abetting the making of an infernal device, possession of explosives, possession of bomb-making apparatus. Maybe the police should wait until he actually plants a bomb, or until it goes off? Jack Bauer could run in and pull out the red wire as the clock ticked down to 1 second. Oh, wait — that’s fantasy. And the police operate in the real world.
The wrongs committed by the U.S. government in the past 15 years (and before) in the name of self-defense are too many to count. That said, it’s notable that the film “Homegrown” takes a more nuanced, insightful view of its subject than Murtaza Hussain does. It is very difficult to watch this film (as I have — three times) and _not_ conclude that Shifa Sadequee was on a path that demanded intervention.
What the film does not address (and perhaps should have) was the sentencing phase. The amount of time Shifa Sadequee got, and the treatment after arrest and in prion (especially that), is troubling.
The notion that the government has no privilege or obligation to intervene until after a crime is committed is absurd — even violent. No country’s law embraces that position. Indeed, moral and legal codes around the world take exactly the opposite view. Given sufficient reason to believe that a crime is in the planning, governments are required to intervene (in part so that citizens don’t feel pressed to do so, and so that citizens don’t mistakenly react out of bad motives [like racism] or sheer incompetence).
The problem is not intervention by government agencies, but the gross excesses of agencies in recent years. What is a regulation if not an intervention to prevent wrongdoing before the act? Those who complain about ‘pre-crime’ are actually taking a _conservative_ view. It is the Milton Friedmans and the night watchman state advocates like Robert Nozick who have argued that the courts can handle disputes after wrongs have already been committed.
I’m surprised that’s what you took away from the review. I think it’s clear, and even Shaikh, technically agreed, that what is ideally needed is some form of intervention between sending people to lengthy jail terms and doing nothing at all about threatening online behaviors. No one is saying that law enforcement should do nothing, that would be an abdication of their job. The question is why we string young people along for big arrests instead of dealing with such cases as we do with others, such as gangs, where there are mechanisms for intervention.
“No one is saying that law enforcement should do nothing, that would be an abdication of their job. ”
How and why. If there has been no harmful action, then there is nothing but speech, information, thoughts and ideas, and tools, which may or may not translate into direct action in the future. Anything less is simply oppressive and unjust.
A greater risk of physical harm is much better than allowing the government, the supreme power for most individuals, to deprive individuals of rights and justice before any harm has been caused.
We don’t devote huge amounts of resources to surveilling and tracking corporate executives and their planning around how to possible skirt some regulation or law to make more money, maybe polluting and sicking some people in the process. This ideology has harmed far more individuals directly than radical islam yet here we are hunting down these teens for their thoughts and discussions and collection of tools without any actual harm to show for it.
They HAD been watching him for 5 years while he talked and wrote without committing any actions. They waited until he was an adult 19 years old so he could be charged as an adult. He very well may have been a threat to commit an act of violence, but it would have made sense to intervene with him and his family. They might have helped turn the kid around. We’ll never know, but in today’s hysteria, we didn’t even try because punishment and vengeance is the modus operendi in most societies.
Here are two alternative scenarios for a criminal defense lawyer to think about:
1) A man approaches an acquaintance with a proposal to kill his wife. The FBI becomes aware of this, and sends an undercover agent to pose as a killer-for-hire. He accepts $5,000, and the man is arrested and given a long prison sentence.
2) A man threatens to kill his wife online, while in a drunken rage. The FBI sends an undercover agent who spends a lot of time and effort convincing the man to hire him to kill his wife, and charging very little money. Again, the man is arrested and faces a long prison sentence.
Are both of these actions justifiable? There are many such cases in the U.S., with convictions ranging from 5 to 50 years (the latter being a man how wanted to use explosives to kill his wife and mother-in-law). Does either case amount to persecution or entrapment? (Bar exam material?)
Obviously, it’d be better to intervene in people’s lives before they reached the point of violence, but it’s a pretty tricky issue – a judgement on a case-by-case basis, and knowing how law enforcement thinks, they’ll always say “better safe than sorry.”
In this particular case, the trip to Washington to take video of what were apparently potential targets does seem to go beyond merely posting rants online, although not to the point of constructing an explosive device, say – but again, it’s a judgement call. What if the guy kills his wife while you’re sitting around watching him?
False. Absolutely, orthogonal-to-reality, false.
Government agents (i.e., police, sheriffs, etc) have no affirmative duty of care to the public.
That has a jurisprudential provenance going all the way back to South v Maryland [1856] 59 US 396 – and not only has South not been overturned, it has been re-affirmed on about 15 occasions (some in the Supreme Court) and is such a precedent that it would be almost impossible to dislodge from the overall stare decisis framework. (Under stare decisis, only an equal or superior court can set aside a precedent: since South is a Supreme Court decision, all courts of lower jurisdiction are bound unless SCOTUS has a change of heart… which will never happen).
In the UK context, the key decision is much much more recent – Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] 2 WLR 1049: it has exactly the same ratio decidendi… viz. that if the pigs had an affirmative obligation to protect members of the public under pain of prosecution for negligence, they would quickly expend all their resources.
Hill was brought by Mrs Hill, the mother of the last victim of the ‘Yorkshire Ripper': Mrs Hill’s daughter had alerted the police to her suspicions that her neighbour was the Ripper – this turned out to be true, but the police ignored her and never investigated Sutcliffe until after her murder.
So please… banish from your worldview, any silly cartoonish notion that the pigs (and the alphabet-soup security-theatre agencies) exist to ‘protect the public’. They most certainly do not, because otherwise they would be able to be held accountable when they fail (and they fail far more often than they succeed – law enforcement generally turns up after an event and flails around in the aftermath).
State security apparatchiks exist to protect the State from its livestock, and to ensure that the livestock stay still while they are being fleeced or milked.
For completeness, I should have pointed out that recent UK jurisprudence has advanced the ball towards a pig duty of care by ignoring the ‘public policy’ rationale. Specifically, in the ‘Worboys’ case, DSD v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2014] EWHC 436 (QB), [2014] All ER (D) 76 (Mar).
However as you can see from the citation, it is a Queens Bench decision, and so can be appealed to the ‘Supreme Court’ (as the UK now calls the House of Lords).
If the Metropolitan Police do not appeal (or if the appeal fails), a number of conservative legal theorists have called for a legislative response (i.e., formalising the doctrine outlined in Hill).
Predicted policing by FBI / DHS and you can be targeted with a simple sneek a peek into your home, no forced entry. 6 years of this bs and all it’s doing is justifying their budget and making x agency contractors rich.
Add into the mix technology such as RF weapons which are over time lethal.
Pre-crime…Such an abhorrent concept. Is this sort of persecution directed at any other groupings of individuals in this country? Methinks not, certainly not to this extent.
Why would you think that, American?
Think a bit harder before you clutch your pearls: ‘pre-crime’ is a totally accepted concept, and one which you might even support when you see my example.
When someone is charged with ‘driving under the influence’, what harm has been done to any third party?
Usually, none – the charge is based on a non-individualised (i.e., arbitrary) blood-alcohol level that is supposed to indicate a high probability of impairment – and thereby an increased probability of involvement in an accident. But when the person is actually pulled over (particularly at random-test checkpoints and ‘booze bus’ stops), they have not harmed a single person – but they will get teh same fine and change to license conditions whether the trip from the random checkpoint is 100 miles, or five yards. That is to say, you would get the same fine even if the random checkpoint was literally next to your home driveway (and so the probability that anyone will be harmed during the rest of the trip is zero).
I can name ten or fifteen other ‘strict liability’ offences in which a penalty is applied to a citizen before they can ever be shown to have perpetrated any harm.
(For the record: I have never been charged with DUI/DWI, nor with speeding – another traffic-related ‘pre-crime’ approach. I don’t speed because for any trip of less than 100km, it doesn’t change travel times enough to make a difference).