Feds maintain perfect record of stopping every terrorist attack that they initiated

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.

**d-usa**

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/13/justice/wichita-terrorism-arrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

(CNN) -- An airport worker was arrested Friday trying to detonate a vehicle packed with explosives he thought were real in a suicide attack at a Wichita Mid-Continent Airport terminal in Kansas, federal officials said.

Authorities are calling him a lone wolf.

Terry Loewen, 58, who was an avionics technician at the airport, was taken into custody without incident about 6:40 a.m. ET "when he attempted to open a security gate with his pass" and drive a vehicle he believed to be packed with explosives onto the airport tarmac, said U.S. Attorney Barry Grissom.

"He planned to pull the trigger on the explosives himself and die in the explosion," a Justice Department news release said.
"In fact, these explosives were inert, and it was not a bomb that would ever explode," Grissom said, adding that the airport perimeter was never breached and "no one was placed in any jeopardy."

The arrest came as part of an undercover FBI probe, according to the Justice Department statement, which didn't provide further details.

Loewen, who became the subject of a federal investigation early this summer, hoped to commit an "act of violent jihad against the United States" and spent months studying the airport's layout, photographing airport access points, researching flight schedules and assisting in the acquisition of car bomb components, Grissom said.

Loewen hoped to detonate his bomb during peak traffic time for the airport, exacting maximum destruction, Grissom said.

Loewen is charged with one count of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction, one count of attempting to damage property by means of an explosive and one count of attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.

Officials did not answer questions or elaborate on the third charge during a Friday news conference.

FBI Evidence Response Teams are executing search warrants related to the case, and the investigation is ongoing, the Justice Department said.

No additional arrests are expected, Grissom said, and Loewen was not working with any "religious community" in Wichita.

If convicted, Loewen would face a maximum penalty of life in prison.

"Lone wolves, homegrown violent extremists, remain a very serious threat to our nation's security," FBI Special Agent in Charge Michael Kaste said in a news release. "Today's arrest emphasizes the continual need for the public to remain vigilant as law enforcement relies on the public's assistance."

The Wichita Mid-Continent Airport is west of the city and is the busiest airport in Kansas.

**Frazzled**

Well it would suck if they failed to wouldn't it...

**DarkTraveler777**

And another school shooting in Colorado. Friday the 13th isn't disappointing!

**daedalus**

The terminal is actually the best place to inflict maximum casualties. This effect is worsened by the TSA.

Way to go FBI, for actually stopping something.

I note that no credit is given to any other particular three letter organizations that might be reading this comment this very moment.

**Medium of Death**

I'd love to see the communications between the FBI and this man. Entrapment much?

**Peregrine**

Medium of Death wrote:
Entrapment much?

Nonsense, entrapment doesn't apply to terrorism. If you're a terrorist the police are justified in doing anything they want to stop you. If you want to have rights then don't be a terrorist.

**dogma**

Peregrine wrote:

Nonsense, entrapment doesn't apply to terrorism. If you're a terrorist the police are justified in doing anything they want to stop you. If you want to have rights then don't be a terrorist.

What is your legal justification for refusing those accused of attempting to commit a terrorist act the right to mount an entrapment defense*?

*Which, in most cases, wouldn't apply anyway.

Medium of Death wrote:
I'd love to see the communications between the FBI and this man. Entrapment much?

It would be very difficult to argue entrapment in this case, as most law-abiding citizens would not attempt to suicide bomb a runway even after incitement. At least assuming its not something ridiculous like "We'll kill your loved one if you don't do X."

**Medium of Death**

Would it not be entrapment if they indoctrinated him or incited him? I guess it depends on how the contact is made. Details that we won't know for at least 50+ years, if ever.

**dogma**

Medium of Death wrote:
Would it not be entrapment if they indoctrinated him or incited him? I guess it depends on how the contact is made. Details that we won't know for at least 50+ years, if ever.

Simply inciting a person to commit a crime is not entrapment. The authorities must have acted to alter the defendants state of mind such that he became willing to commit the crime, or created a situation in which an average, law-abiding citizen would be likely to commit a crime.

**Peregrine**

dogma wrote:
What is your legal justification for refusing those accused of attempting to commit a terrorist act the right to mount an entrapment defense*?

*Which, in most cases, wouldn't apply anyway.

Because it's terrorism. All you have to do is say the magic 't' word and you can do whatever you want. Why do you love the terrorists so much?

It would be very difficult to argue entrapment in this case, as most law-abiding citizens would not attempt to suicide bomb a runway even after incitement. At least assuming its not something ridiculous like "We'll kill your loved one if you don't do X."

That depends on the incitement. If you have, say, a religious figure persuading them over a long period of time and constantly reinforcing their decision then yeah, you probably could go from law-abiding citizen to suicide bomber. And don't forget that it's possible to hate a country and want to bomb them, but refrain from doing it. Now you have the government coming in and encouraging those ideas and pushing people from sitting around talking about how cool terrorism is to taking real action.

**dogma**

Peregrine wrote:

That depends on the incitement. If you have, say, a religious figure persuading them over a long period of time and constantly reinforcing their decision then yeah, you probably could go from law-abiding citizen to suicide bomber.

In that instance, the entrapment defense would (probably) hold up as it closely mirrors the decision in Jacobson v. United States.

Peregrine wrote:

And don't forget that it's possible to hate a country and want to bomb them, but refrain from doing it. Now you have the government coming in and encouraging those ideas and pushing people from sitting around talking about how cool terrorism is to taking real action.

In that instance an entrapment defense wouldn't hold up as the state did not act to materially change the defendants disposition, or act in a way which would cause most law abiding citizens to commit a crime*.

*Presuming that most law abiding citizens don't both hate the United States, and desire to commit a terrorist act.

**Ouze**

Hey guys, do you remember that time the TSA never caught a terrorist ever?

**d-usa**

Maybe they should find somebody, train them, support them, sell them fake bomb parts, and then congratulate themselves when they catch them implementing the plans you gave them.

**Peregrine**

dogma wrote:
In that instance an entrapment defense wouldn't hold up as the state did not act to materially change the defendants disposition, or act in a way which would cause most law abiding citizens to commit a crime*.

*Presuming that most law abiding citizens don't both hate the United States, and desire to commit a terrorist act.

I'm talking about the difference between thinking "hey, that would be nice" in some abstract sense and actually making that decision to go out and do it. It's the difference between daydreaming about killing your horrible boss and carrying a gun to work in case this is the day. I think you could call it "changing disposition" if the FBI contacted the daydreamer and started encouraging them to stop dreaming and start shooting.

**daedalus**

d-usa wrote:
Maybe they should find somebody, train them, support them, sell them fake bomb parts, and then congratulate themselves when they catch them implementing the plans you gave them.

Don't be crazy. They're not the ATF.

**d-usa**

daedalus wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Maybe they should find somebody, train them, support them, sell them fake bomb parts, and then congratulate themselves when they catch them implementing the plans you gave them.

Don't be crazy. They're not the ATF.

Poor ATF...

At least the FBI locks up their friends after they arm them.

**dogma**

Peregrine wrote:

I'm talking about the difference between thinking "hey, that would be nice" in some abstract sense and actually making that decision to go out and do it. It's the difference between daydreaming about killing your horrible boss and carrying a gun to work in case this is the day. I think you could call it "changing disposition" if the FBI contacted the daydreamer and started encouraging them to stop dreaming and start shooting.

Oh, alright, in that instance an entrapment defense might hold up. At the point it would be up to the prosecution to demonstrate that authorities had probable cause to initiate the operation*.

*Basically, they would need to defend any warrant they obtained, or the procedure they otherwise followed.

**Seaward**

If only the same could be said for their gun-walking schemes.

**jamesk1973**

If the government really thought he was terrorist they would have renditioned him straight to GITMO.

You know the place that is still open five years after Obama became president?

Ahem, as I was saying, if you could just disappear him off of the street...why go to the trouble of setting him up?

**dogma**

jamesk1973 wrote:

Ahem, as I was saying, if you could just disappear him off of the street...why go to the trouble of setting him up?

Perhaps because they can't "disappear him off the street"?

**Ouze**

jamesk1973 wrote:
Ahem, as I was saying, if you could just disappear him off of the street...why go to the trouble of setting him up?

You appear to have remarkable flexibility when it comes to your love of the constitution; comparing this thread with that shooting one. You know, there's more stuff in it than the second amendment.

**Peregrine**

jamesk1973 wrote:
Ahem, as I was saying, if you could just disappear him off of the street...why go to the trouble of setting him up?

Because that's not the point of this. The government isn't really all that concerned about some random guy who needs the FBI's help to make a suicide attack, the point is to get as much attention as possible. It reassures people that Something Is Being Done about terrorism, and simultaneously reminds them that terrorism is scary and the government needs to Do What Is Necessary to stop it even if it means taking pesky things like constitutional rights as more of a polite suggestion.

**d-usa**

Peregrine wrote:
jamesk1973 wrote:
Ahem, as I was saying, if you could just disappear him off of the street...why go to the trouble of setting him up?

Because that's not the point of this. The government isn't really all that concerned about some random guy who needs the FBI's help to make a suicide attack, the point is to get as much attention as possible. It reassures people that Something Is Being Done about terrorism, and simultaneously reminds them that terrorism is scary and the government needs to Do What Is Necessary to stop it even if it means taking pesky things like constitutional rights as more of a polite suggestion.

It's called "Security Theater".

**Seaward**

Out of curiosity, how many of you guys could be talked into trying to blow up an airport terminal by the FBI?

**djones520**

Seaward wrote:
Out of curiosity, how many of you guys could be talked into trying to blow up an airport terminal by the FBI?

I'm pretty sure I'd call the FBI. Then we'd all have a nice long laugh about it.

**Seaward**

djones520 wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'd call the FBI. Then we'd all have a nice long laugh about it.

You sure? Because the narrative that seems to be being pushed here is that the FBI goes around picking random dudes with no interest in violent extremism and brainwashing them into becoming terrorist poster boys.

It could happen to you, man. They have the power.

**djones520**

Seaward wrote:
djones520 wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'd call the FBI. Then we'd all have a nice long laugh about it.

You sure? Because the narrative that seems to be being pushed here is that the FBI goes around picking random dudes with no interest in violent extremism and brainwashing them into becoming terrorist poster boys.

It could happen to you, man. They have the power.

Well I doubt it. My military ID lets me get through the TSA lines real damn quick, so I don't have a built in rage factor for airport terminals that most people do. Now the regular folks.... I could buy it. One would just have to try to get to a flight at Chicago-O'hare on time, and it could probably drive anyone to acts of terrorism.

**d-usa**

The narative is that the FBI is great at stopping terrorists that they groom, and that non-FBI trained terrorists pulling into airports with "bombs" are quite rare. The few non-FBI sponsored terrorists that actually manage to do something (like Boston) don't seem to get caught until after the fact.

**djones520**

d-usa wrote:
The narative is that the FBI is great at stopping terrorists that they groom, and that non-FBI trained terrorists pulling into airports with "bombs" are quite rare.

It could just be that the FBI is great at id'ing the potential terrorists, and helps guide them to the result that we can put them away for, while keeping others safe.

I'm not a federal law enforcement agent though, so I couldn't really say.

**Peregrine**

Seaward wrote:
Because the narrative that seems to be being pushed here is that the FBI goes around picking random dudes with no interest in violent extremism and brainwashing them into becoming terrorist poster boys.

Not random people, but hating the US and dreaming about terrorism isn't a crime, just like hating your boss and dreaming of murdering them isn't a crime. The concern here is that the FBI is pushing people over the line from thought to action, just so they can make a big show of "stopping the terrorist plot". Remember, this idiot couldn't figure out how to execute a simple suicide car bomb attack without the FBI's help. Odds are that if the FBI hadn't started helping him he would have just spent the rest of his life sitting around fantasizing about being an awesome terrorist and feeling ashamed of how much of a failure he was, just like the gun nuts who sit around fantasizing about stopping a terrorist attack with their $999999999 AR-15 full of "tactical" attachments.