Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/20/federal-authorities-arrest-chicago-man-alleged-bomb-plot/?test=latestnews



Sept. 20: The Chicago sports bar where a man was arrested for allegedly placing a backback he thought contained a bomb.
CHICAGO -- A man arrested for allegedly placing a backpack he thought contained a bomb near Chicago's Wrigley Field got the fake explosive from an FBI undercover agent, authorities say -- a tactic that has been used in other U.S. terrorism cases in recent years.

Sami Samir Hassoun, 22, a Lebanese citizen living in Chicago for about three years, was charged Monday with one count each of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and attempted use of an explosive device.

Hassoun was arrested early Sunday after planting the fake explosive device in a trash receptacle near Sluggers World Class Sports Bar, a popular bar steps from Wrigley Field, FBI Special Agent in Charge Robert Grant said. The Cubs were not playing at their home field; the stadium hosted Dave Matthews Band concerts Friday and Saturday nights.

It wouldn't be the first time FBI agents have posed as terror operatives and supplied suspects with bogus explosives. Last year, authorities arrested a Jordanian national after he allegedly attempted to detonate what he thought was a bomb outside a Dallas skyscraper. In an unrelated case, authorities in Springfield, Ill., arrested another man after he allegedly tried he tried to set off what he thought was explosives in a van outside a federal courthouse.

In a similar case in May 2009, four men were arrested after they allegedly tried to detonate fake explosives -- also provided by the FBI -- outside two synagogues in New York City.
In the Chicago case, the FBI said an informant tipped investigators about Hassoun nearly a year ago. Grant said Hassoun acted alone and that the undercover agents told him they were from California and unaffiliated with any group. He declined to offer specific details about Hassoun's motivations, but said he believed the agents were ready to give him money if he carried out the attack.

"He wanted to transform the city of Chicago, he wanted to make a statement and he wanted to replace the mayor of Chicago," Grant said. "He was unhappy with the way the city was running. He was also unhappy with things that were happening in other parts of world."

At a brief hearing Monday, Hassoun quietly told U.S. Judge Susan Cox that he understood the charges. Hassoun's federally appointed public defender Dan McLaughlin declined to comment on the case, as did several family members who attended the hearing. A message left on an answering machine at Hassoun's home telephone number wasn't returned.

Authorities say the informant befriended Hassoun over the course of a year, conducting conversations in Arabic, which were taped and shared with the FBI. Hassoun waffled greatly on his plans, authorities said.

Initially, he didn't want to cause violence, suggesting setting off smoking devices in downtown locations near City Hall, authorities said.

"No killing. There is no killing," he told the informant, according to the complaint.

But his plans became more grand, as he believed bigger acts would command public attention and embarrass the mayor, according to the complaint.

"Little by little, I'm building it up," he said, according to the complaint. "I will shake Chicago."

Hassoun's alleged plots ranged during the investigation. They included talk of plans to unleash a biological virus on Chicago and bombing the Willis Tower, formerly known as the Sears Tower, the complaint said.

Hassoun on one occasion told the informant he wanted to paralyze commerce in the city, according to the complaint. Asked how he intended to carry out various suggested attacks, Hassoun responded, "You park the car, and let it go 'boom,"' the complaint says.

Grant said Hassoun wanted to start his own organization and planned to flee to California after the device went off in Wrigleyville.

"He was not highly skilled, but I think he was definitely desirous of obtaining the material needed to carry out his attack," Grant said.

Shortly before the plot near Wrigley Field, the informant introduced Hassoun to the undercover agents who Hassoun believed were friends and would pay for the attack to be carried out.

Chicago authorities said Daley never was in any danger. Police said Daley -- who has been in China for a business trip -- was informed of the plot over the weekend.

"We were always in control of this investigation," said Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis.

Score for the FBI.

In this article, that's 5 potential bombings that were thwarted.

i think there is something wrong with me when i am distraught about the bomber no being able to even make a home made bomb and having to order out.

eg0u80bf wrote:i think there is something wrong with me when i am distraught about the bomber no being able to even make a home made bomb and having to order out.

It is rather odd that he didn't actually.

On the other hand, doesn't this make the FBI a terrorist organization

Frazzled wrote:Hassoun was arrested early Sunday after planting the fake explosive device in a trash receptacle near Sluggers World Class Sports Bar, a popular bar steps from Wrigley Field, FBI Special Agent in Charge Robert Grant said. The Cubs were not playing at their home field; the stadium hosted Dave Matthews Band concerts Friday and Saturday nights.

Attempting blow up sports fans? Crime.

Attempting to blow up Dave Matthews Band fans? Well...




In other news, mad props to the FBI, and yay that another loon has been stopped, and will now be spending a long time in prison.

LordofHats wrote:

eg0u80bf wrote:i think there is something wrong with me when i am distraught about the bomber no being able to even make a home made bomb and having to order out.

It is rather odd that he didn't actually.

On the other hand, doesn't this make the FBI a terrorist organization

no thats just a sting operation perfectly legal and by the books, altough it might of scared a few people at the site, on the otherhand the government was gonna do a false flags with operation northwoods (1962), thank god it was squatted, commiting terrorism against yourself, oh the humanity!!

I think we need to hear more about this sort of thing in the media. We hear all too much about the ones that were 'barely' caught (whatever that means. Nicked is Nicked after all, and so much the better before the attack!).

We know that nearly all Terror Plots are foiled, and I think it's high time the powers that be let their populace know just what a bunch of no-hope chancers the would be Terrorists (well, I suppose they are Terrorists) are.

Take the 7th of July Bombings in London. Considering one went off in the Underground, casualties were very, very light, again highlighting the general incomptence of the Bombers. Of course it's an absolute tragedy they weren't stopped, but London being London, all was pretty much back to normal the day after, making a mockery of the supposed 'Terror' attack, mainly because few were terrorised by it.

kronk wrote:Score for the FBI.

In this article, that's 5 potential bombings that were thwarted.

Isn't it entrapment? You can't claim to have thwarted 5 potential bombings when it was the government that gave them the bombs and encouraged them to have a go.

The case quoted took the FBI a year of talking to the guy to get to the point where they could supply a fake bomb and he'd have a go at using it. He spend most of that year trash talking, oh he wanted a bang and some smoke but didn't want to hurt anyone, then worked up various crazy ideas about paralysing the whole city or "embarrassing the mayor". Who the feth is this guy? He sounds like a typical internet tough guy. After a year this lone guy was introduced to a few mates of the FBI agent who were prepared to pay for an attack and off he toddled with his fake bomb to have a go.

Seems to me that if he hadn't been encouraged over a year and supplied with materials to make a bomb this lone guy would have continued tough talking and not actually trying to bomb anything.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

kronk wrote:Score for the FBI.

In this article, that's 5 potential bombings that were thwarted.

Isn't it entrapment? You can't claim to have thwarted 5 potential bombings when it was the government that gave them the bombs and encouraged them to have a go.

The case quoted took the FBI a year of talking to the guy to get to the point where they could supply a fake bomb and he'd have a go at using it. He spend most of that year trash talking, oh he wanted a bang and some smoke but didn't want to hurt anyone, then worked up various crazy ideas about paralysing the whole city or "embarrassing the mayor". Who the feth is this guy? He sounds like a typical internet tough guy. After a year this lone guy was introduced to a few mates of the FBI agent who were prepared to pay for an attack and off he toddled with his fake bomb to have a go.

Seems to me that if he hadn't been encouraged over a year and supplied with materials to make a bomb this lone guy would have continued tough talking and not actually trying to bomb anything.

He had intent. He believed he had the means. He carried out the act that he reasonably believed would cause the harm. He's jailbait.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Isn't it entrapment?

He can certainly argue that at trial. This seems like one of those boarder line cases where it could go either way.

LordofHats wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Isn't it entrapment?

He can certainly argue that at trial. This seems like one of those boarder line cases where it could go either way.

Nah, entrapment almost never works. Entrapment of a terrorist - no ing way.

How dare they attempt to destroy the Cubs. Heritic! HERITIC!

LordofHats wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Isn't it entrapment?

He can certainly argue that at trial. This seems like one of those boarder line cases where it could go either way.

They can give you the opportunity, but they can't give you intent. Also, they've got him dead-to-rights on conspiracy charges no matter what happens.

If you're looking around on the internet and other shady places to look for people to help you commit terrorist acts and you happen to draw the attention of the FBI, it's not their fault that you're in trouble.

Frazzled wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Isn't it entrapment?

He can certainly argue that at trial. This seems like one of those boarder line cases where it could go either way.

Nah, entrapment almost never works. Entrapment of a terrorist - no ing way.

I guess this comes from the same country that still has a load of people locked up without any sign of a trial or criminal proceedings so I suppose it's nice he's even going to be able to defend himself. You say he had the intent and the means, this guy started out only wanting smoke and no violence at the beginning of the year. Can't help thinking that this wasn't a terribly productive or even legal way of carrying out an investigation for a whole year. In the UK we tend to take a different approach, we either arrest straight away or we monitor and collect data at a distance and nail them at the last moment. Getting actively involved with them and working them up to it over a year and supplying all the equipment potentially creates a terrorist that wouldn't have done anything so serious if not interfered with.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Isn't it entrapment?

He can certainly argue that at trial. This seems like one of those boarder line cases where it could go either way.

Nah, entrapment almost never works. Entrapment of a terrorist - no ing way.

I guess this comes from the same country that still has a load of people locked up without any sign of a trial or criminal proceedings so I suppose it's nice he's even going to be able to defend himself. You say he had the intent and the means, this guy started out only wanting smoke and no violence at the beginning of the year. Can't help thinking that this wasn't a terribly productive or even legal way of carrying out an investigation for a whole year. In the UK we tend to take a different approach, monitor and collect data and nail them at the last moment, otherwise you potentially create terrorists.

Wait you're from Britain right? Do you even have habeas corpus laws there? You do know the first ten amendments were written while they were looking at you right?

He had the intent to cause harm. WHEN HE PLANTED A BOMB THAT HE THOUGHT WOULD KILL PEOPLE HAE HAD THE INTENT TO PLANT A BOMB THAT WOULD KILL PEOPLE.

In the words of the immortal bard: "nuts."

Howard A Treesong wrote:I guess this comes from the same country that still has a load of people locked up without any sign of a trial or criminal proceedings so I suppose it's nice he's even going to be able to defend himself. You say he had the intent and the means, this guy started out only wanting smoke and no violence at the beginning of the year. Can't help thinking that this wasn't a terribly productive or even legal way of carrying out an investigation for a whole year.

I highly doubt the FBI would waste its time making a domestic terrorist so they can arrest the guy. Rarely will the content of criminal proceedings be fully disclosed before trial. There are undoubtedly factors at play that no one except those involved in the case know about right now. There's no need to jump to conclusions and conspiracy to ruin some random guys life.

In the UK we tend to take a different approach, monitor and collect data and nail them at the last moment, otherwise you potentially create terrorists.

That's basic anti-terror. Everyone does it. The US helped pioneer the techniques involved.

Frazzled wrote:He had the intent to cause harm. WHEN HE PLANTED A BOMB THAT HE THOUGHT WOULD KILL PEOPLE HAE HAD THE INTENT TO PLANT A BOMB THAT WOULD KILL PEOPLE.

I don't think anyone disputes that, only in the UK we wouldn't have supplied the bomb. I say again, before the FBI got involved this guy apparently didn't want violence and only wanted to set off a smoke bomb, later on he had all kinds of wild ideas and only went ahead when government agents gave him the bomb. He wasn't even part of a network, the only people he conspired with were government agents. I'm not saying he's an innocent, only that the operation sounds counter-productive.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Isn't it entrapment?

No, it isn't.

He wanted a bomb and looked for someone to make it for him.

They supplied him one.

He set it up, thinking it would blow up and kill people.

kronk wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Isn't it entrapment?

No, it isn't.

He wanted a bomb and looked for someone to make it for him.

They supplied him one.

He set it up, thinking it would blow up and kill people.

If it was a matter of days or weeks I would agree, but the guy had no plan or even clear intent to wound before they got involved for a year. They even offered to pay him for carrying out the attack.

Irrelevant. When he planted the bomb he had the intent to plant the bomb. Period. End of Story. Why are you defending this guy?

I see what you are trying to say, Howard. I would imagine that if the FBI was trying to get him to plant a bomb within a week, that it would scare him off.

"Hey, I want to plant a bomb."
"OK, here you go!"
"Uh..."

It doesnt work that way. I am guessing that it takes a lot of time (1) to gain someone's confidence and (2) see if these guys are blow hards or really want to hurt people.

I'll have to agree to disagree with our definitions of entrapment.

Frazzled wrote:Why are you defending this guy?

Strawman. I knew it would boil down to this, unless I fully approve of this somewhat dubious sting operation I'm somehow on his side. I'm not defending him, I don't dispute that he wanted to carry out a terrorist action and do harm or that he needs to be locked up. But it also cannot be disputed that a year before hand when he first met FBI operatives he claimed he didn't want violence and then over the year came around to carrying out a terrorist act upon which they supplied a bomb and offered to pay him to carry out an attack. Can you rule out that FBI interference didn't actually play a significant part in this guys resolve to carry out the act or would he have continued tough talking and not done anything, he wasn't part of any kind of organisation after all. Perhaps it's just a difference in cultures, but under UK law if the police appeared to encourage someone to carry out a criminal act and then supplied him with the equipment and offered him payment to do it then it would undermine the prosecution not that I'm saying they'd get off free but you'd likely have a lower sentence than if you dived in and caught someone acting totally of their own volition.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why are you defending this guy?

Strawman. I knew it would boil down to this, unless I fully approve of this somewhat dubious sting operation I'm somehow on his side. I'm not defending him, I don't dispute that he wanted to carry out a terrorist action and do harm. But it also cannot be disputed that a year before hand when he first met FBI operatives he claimed he didn't want violence and then over the year came around to carrying out a terrorist act upon which they supplied a bomb and offered to pay him to carry out an attack. Can you rule out that FBI interference didn't actually play a significant part in this guys resolve to carry out the act or would he have continued tough talking and not done anything, he wasn't part of any kind of organisation after all. Perhaps it's just a difference in cultures, but under UK law if the police appeared to encourage someone to carry out a criminal act and then supplied him with the equipment and offered him payment to do it then it would undermine the prosecution.

Its all irrelevant to me. He had intent when he planted the bomb. You don't need anything else.

Frazzled wrote:Its all irrelevant to me. He had intent when he planted the bomb. You don't need anything else.

I take it motive and background play no part in prosecution and sentencing in your book then. I must say this is a most reasoned debate what with the shouting and telling me the background to the case leading up to the moment of the crime is all irrelevant.

Frazzled wrote: He had intent when he planted the bomb. You don't need anything else.

well actually they should of aressted him after they gave the "bomb" like they do with drugies, you just don't give them something then wait for them to do something with it to pounch, the intent is there from the point he buys it.

actually now i think about why did the fbi let him plant a "bomb" in the first place?

eg0u80bf wrote:

Frazzled wrote: He had intent when he planted the bomb. You don't need anything else.

well actually they should of aressted him after they gave the "bomb" like they do with drugies, you just don't give them something then wait for them to do something with it to pounch, the intent is there from the point he buys it.

actually now i think about why did the fbi let him plant a "bomb" in the first place?

Because they knew it was fake.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its all irrelevant to me. He had intent when he planted the bomb. You don't need anything else.

I take it motive and background play no part in prosecution and sentencing in your book then. I must say this is a most reasoned debate what with the shouting and telling me the background to the case leading up to the moment of the crime is all irrelevant.

Background doesn't play a part. They had motive but again the had clear intent when he put the bomb down. I don't need the life story of a mugger to convict him, only that he tried to steal grandma's purse. Maybe he didn't start off on his morning jog planning to steal her purse, but he ended up doing it. Thats all you need.

Because it means they get to charge him with multiple counts of attempted murder too, and whether or not he actually tried to carry out his plan would have additional ramifications as well.

eg0u80bf wrote:

Frazzled wrote: He had intent when he planted the bomb. You don't need anything else.

well actually they should of aressted him after they gave the "bomb" like they do with drugies, you just don't give them something then wait for them to do something with it to pounch, the intent is there from the point he buys it.

actually now i think about why did the fbi let him plant a "bomb" in the first place?

If they just give him the bomb then it is/could well be entrapment. If he then goes off to do X/Y/Z then that action is not entrapment and therefore etc etc etc

reds8n wrote:
If they just give him the bomb then it is/could well be entrapment. If he then goes off to do X/Y/Z then that action is not entrapment and therefore etc etc etc

right gotcha i think, but don't you need a special licence to buy, sell and own explosives or is that different to the uk? since then it wouldn't be entrapment