• FBI Again Creates, then “Stops” a Terror Attack, Refutes Constitution

    July 9, 2013

    Tags: , , ,
    Posted in: Democracy

    Sleep safe Citizens, for the rough men of your national security state are guarding the walls.

    Wait. Those rough men are actually clowns. The truth is more that the FBI is creating its own terror plots using some of the dumbest, most gullible would-be internet jihadis on the planet, and then claiming it stopped another attack on Das Homeland. This is the equivalent of a firefighter committing arson so he could look like a hero for putting out the fire.

    We talked recently here about one plot involving a make-believe death ray. Today’s silliness involves a fake bomb attack in Chicago.

    So this guy, probably based out of his parents’ basement, posts some stuff on a jihadi web site. The NSA takes note. Then he emails himself a link to the al Qaeda online magazine Inspire. The NSA spends billions of dollars to snoop and take note. With the incriminating evidence of unallowed actions of free speech in hand, two FBI undercover employees posing as jihadists contacted the guy, met up with him in Chicago, gave him fake explosives and a bum detonator, and helped him plan an attack. The FBI then arrested him when he tried to blow up a Chicago bar with the non-working gear supplied to him by the FBI. Senator Diane Feinstein raised this very case last year as justification for extending the existing surveillance laws.

    But Wait, There’s More!

    You’d think that was enough heroism for one case. However, in a sleazy attempt to avoid creating the grounds for a Constitutional challenge to the surveillance laws, the government is refusing to acknowledge that those laws were employed in this case. See, if the government admits it used its super snooping powers in a particular case, the defendant gains standing to pursue the issue all the way to the Supreme Court. The government dearly wishes to avoid having its actions tested for Constitutional legitimacy. Yeah, democracy!

    Indeed, the most serious attempt, by the ACLU and others, to challenge the Constitutionality of the surveillance laws was denied by the courts because the ACLU lacked standing. The ACLU could not prove it had been surveilled and thus could not sue. Neat.

    Remember, if you see something (you children especially, keep an eye on your parents’ internet use!), say something. Seriously, just say it out loud, because the NSA is listening.

    Related Articles:

    Copyright © 2020. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.

  • Recent Comments

    • Steve said...


      We were at the trial of the “Newburgh Four” in Manhattan for one day. It was SO obviously a case of entrapment (they could barely tied their shoes and did not seem to know how to operate a cell phone) yet were still found guilty. Here is an article about this signal case of injustice.

      ​October 18, 2010
      4 Convicted of Attempting to Blow Up 2 Synagogues
      Four men were convicted on Monday on charges of planting what they believed were bombs outside synagogues in the Bronx and plotting to fire missiles at military planes.

      The case was widely seen as an important test of the entrapment defense. It turned on the role of a government informer who spent several months secretly recording conversations with the men that included plans for mass violence and anti-Semitic comments, along with their moments of hesitation and concerns about hurting women or children.

      Prosecutors said that the plot revealed the dangers of homegrown terrorism, and that the informer, posing as a Pakistani terrorist, had presented the defendants with an opportunity to commit violence to which they were predisposed.

      But defense lawyers said the case crossed the line into entrapment. They said the informer, on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, dangled offers of money and lured impoverished men with no ties to international terrorism into a plot they could never have dreamed up on their own.

      In the end, the entrapment defense failed, as it has in every other terrorism trial since Sept. 11, 2001. About 2:30 p.m. on Monday, the jury forewoman stood and began reading the verdicts with a wavering voice. “Guilty,” she said, 30 times, as the girlfriend of one of the defendants sobbed in the gallery.

      The four men — Onta Williams, Laguerre Payen, James Cromitie and David Williams IV — will be sentenced on March 24. Each could face life in prison. Mr. Cromitie and David Williams were convicted on all eight counts of the indictment. Onta Williams and Mr. Payen, who met the informer late in the investigation, were found not guilty on one of the counts: attempting to kill officers and employees of the United States.

      All the men were quiet as the verdicts were read. Mr. Cromitie’s lawyer, Vincent L. Briccetti, patted his client on the shoulder, while a few seats away, David Williams wore a grim smile. After the jury left the room, Mr. Williams’s aunt, Alicia McWilliams-McCollum, stood and yelled obscenities, saying there was no justice. Court officers told her to leave.

      In an interview a few hours after the verdict, one juror indicated that the deliberations, which lasted eight days, had been taxing. “We considered that what they did was a serious crime. We also considered that they didn’t have that kind of background,” said the juror, who insisted that his name not be published. “We took our time. We dug deep.”

      The events that led to the convictions started in June 2008, with a meeting outside a mosque in Newburgh, N.Y., between the informer, Shahed Hussain, and Mr. Cromitie. That day, prosecutors said, Mr. Cromitie sparked the interest of the authorities by saying he wanted to “do something” to America.

      Over the next 11 months the three other defendants joined a plot that included leaving bombs outside two synagogues in the Riverdale section of the Bronx and firing Stinger missiles at military transport planes at Stewart International Airport.

      In a statement, Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, said Monday: “Homegrown terrorism is a serious threat, and today’s convictions affirm our commitment to do everything we can to protect against it. The defendants in this case agreed to plant bombs and use missiles they thought were very real weapons of terrorism. We are safer today as a result of these convictions.”

      Mark B. Gombiner, who represented Onta Williams, called the notion that citizens were safer “pure nonsense,” adding, “It does not reflect anything that happened during the investigation and prosecution.”

      Mr. Gombiner and the other defense lawyers had tried to make their cross-examination of the informer, Mr. Hussain, the centerpiece of their case. For days in court, they questioned him about his criminal history, his financial dealings and his life in Pakistan, saying inconsistencies in his testimony showed he was a liar. They said he felt compelled to deliver a conviction to satisfy his government handlers and expected to be rewarded with citizenship.

      Throughout the investigation, the defense lawyers said, it was Mr. Hussain, not the defendants, who steered the conversation toward religious justifications for violence.

      Karen J. Greenberg, executive director of the Center on Law and Security at New York University, who sat through much of the trial, said: “If this wasn’t an entrapment case, then we’re not going to see an entrapment case in a terrorism trial. We really need to think about ideology as part of entrapment. In this case, they took people who might or might not commit hate crimes, and led them along the path to jihad.”

      But the prosecutors said most of the recordings showed the men were ready to act.

      In one of the recordings, Mr. Cromitie, who was especially voluble, said he wanted to make a “big noise.” Jurors saw recordings of the men inspecting inert bombs and Stinger missile launchers, and scouting Stewart Airport, where they planned to fire missiles at C-5 Galaxy military transport planes.

      Perhaps most powerfully, the prosecutors showed the court the fake bombs, built by the F.B.I., that Mr. Cromitie left in cars outside the synagogues. They were bundled into bags with 500 ball bearings, which, prosecutors said, were intended to kill.

      07/9/13 1:44 PM | Comment Link

    • meloveconsullongtime said...


      They’re doing this to set the stage to justify “preemptive” assassinations of those who are said to fit the profile of “domestic terrorists”, an expansion of their overseas assassination program. In other words this first stage of creating and then “stopping” their own “domestic terrorist” plots is to create a profile of domestic terrorists who pose an “imminent threat”, and then to assassinate anyone who is said to fit that profile – in other words anyone who pisses them off.

      07/9/13 2:57 PM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      As PVB and Aurelia Fedenisn can attest, State has a similar motto: See something, write something, you’re fired.

      Update: After assessing the surveillance footage of the break-in of his office, Schulman, State OIG investigator Aurelia Fedenisn’s lawyer, said he believed the motivations were likely political, but did not suspect State Department involvement. “It wasn’t professional enough,” he said.”

      Of really? State contracts out most of its work and the low bidder gets the contract.


      07/9/13 5:24 PM | Comment Link

    • pitchfork said...


      quote:”That day, prosecutors said, Mr. Cromitie sparked the interest of the authorities by saying he wanted to “do something” to America.”unquote

      well of all the nerve..wanting to “do something to amerika”..whudda thunk ..I mean..really..who would want to “do something to America”? I mean, we’re only vaporizing innocent people around the world..and waging war on Mexicans by letting thousands of guns walk across the border..and spying on 99% of the worlds inhabitants..and committing War crimes of torture and invading sovereign nations and murdering thousands of their citizens on the whim of a lying president and staff…I mean..geeezus .. not the kind of things that would piss any one off..right? right. Like I said..of all the nerve.

      bartender, heres a toast to nerve. Especially the FBI’s. youbetcha..nerves of steel.. a brain of cast iron .hubris made of cobalt…and ethics made of jello. yesireebob..jello.

      07/9/13 5:32 PM | Comment Link

    • meloveconsullongtime said...


      “State contracts out most of its work and the low bidder gets the contract.”

      Yes that often applies to hiring thugs to do their dirty work, but they pay top dollar for sex workers including amateurs.

      07/9/13 9:42 PM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...



      I assume the “451” photo was a reference to the total fiction written by another Bradbury:

      Steven Bradbury, former head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under Bush, told the panel Tuesday that the dialing records were stored but not searched unless investigators were tracking the phone calls of suspected terrorists.

      “In order to connect the dots, we need the broadest segment of metadata. There is no data mining,” Bradbury said. He said the actions were not properly described as “surveillance.”

      The Patriot Act authorized the FBI and NSA to obtain records from banks, airlines or phone companies if they were “relevant to an authorized investigation” involving foreign terrorists. To the surprise of many, including lawmakers who wrote that provision, the NSA and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have taken the view since 2006 that the government can collect all the dialing records of calls made in the United States.

      But Jameel Jaffer, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, denounced the effort as a “massive dragnet” that was both “unwise and unconstitutional.” He accused the Bush and Obama administrations of having “repeatedly misled the public about the scope of the surveillance” under the anti-terrorist programs.

      Burn them all.

      07/10/13 11:35 AM | Comment Link

    • wemeantwell said...


      All true Rich. The NSA, et al, have created a situation where they enact a blanket seizure first (all data) saying they won’t conduct any blanket searches and then later conduct searches as needed.

      07/10/13 1:07 PM | Comment Link

    • Stephen said...


      There is not much else to say about the alphabet soup traitors except for this last fervent sentiment:


      07/10/13 1:09 PM | Comment Link

    • meloveconsullongtime said...


      @ Stephen: Heh!

      But now slightly off topic, perhaps some of you DOS veterans who have dealt with passports, can give me some practical advice on how to do the following:

      I see Edward Snowden still needs some kind of travel document before he can exit Moscow. Well, since I have the only passport I really need – a passport of my adopted country, my permanent home where my wife and dog and all my stuff is – I no longer have any need for my US passport. So I was thinking, maybe I can give my US passport to Snowden?

      Are there any State Department regulations permitting me to give my US passport to Snowden? I infer there must be, since the State Department has already used my US citizenship to enable a Russian woman to commit several felonies with no accountability. It seems to come down to Consular “discretion” – and so, in the same transaction, can a US Consular officer in Russia use his discretion to give my passport to Snowden in exchange for giving me ten minutes with Anna Chapman?

      07/10/13 3:36 PM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      We don’t need no stinkin’ passports when we got waivers! Snowden’s “Terminal Man” will be similar to the Tom Hanks character in “Terminal” – the Russian Immigration director will open the door (to the jet) and bid him fond farewell. (just leave the laptops as a deposit)

      07/10/13 7:43 PM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      Hey, this entrapment shit could be useful to set-up federal workers who look suspicious too. Obomba thinks they are the real enemy.


      07/10/13 7:57 PM | Comment Link

    • meloveconsullongtime said...


      Rich Bauer wrote, sarcastically: “We don’t need no stinkin’ passports when we got waivers!”

      But in turn, I can write LITERALLY, that the US State Department told me – through an angry and personally menacing phone call from a US Consular officer to me at my own house in my own (non-American) country of citizenship and residence – that “A Consular Officer has the DISCRETION” to kidnap my daughter when she’s in Russia and to conceal her name and her whereabouts from me, her American father.

      Discretion. See? The US State Department is all about discretion, including kidnapping and murder.

      07/11/13 1:48 AM | Comment Link

    • meloveconsullongtime said...


      And by the same logic, it would seem that I can claim the “discretion” to deal with Scott Rauland in extra-legal ways.

      Shit on the rule of law, reap the consequences outside the law.

      07/11/13 3:18 AM | Comment Link

    • Eric Hodgdon said...


      Death to the federal government of the USA.

      07/11/13 4:53 AM | Comment Link

    Leave A Comment

    Mail (will not be published) (required)