RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Intro: "If federal authorities thought Amine El Khalifi was a clear and present danger to America, they could have easily solved the problem by deporting the 29-year-old Moroccan, who had been living as an illegal immigrant in northern Virginia for years, having overstayed his visitor's visa by a decade. Instead, he was arrested Friday in a garage outside the U.S. Capitol for allegedly planning to set off a fake suicide vest and shoot people with an inoperable automatic weapon - both provided to him by his government handlers."

The feds create 'terrorists' so they can arrest them. (photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)
The feds create 'terrorists' so they can arrest them. (photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)

How the FBI Invents Terrorists

By Mansfield Frazier, The Daily Beast

20 February 12


f federal authorities thought Amine El Khalifi was a clear and present danger to America, they could have easily solved the problem by deporting the 29-year-old Moroccan, who had been living as an illegal immigrant in northern Virginia for years, having overstayed his visitor's visa by a decade. Instead, he was arrested Friday in a garage outside the U.S. Capitol for allegedly planning to set off a fake suicide vest and shoot people with an inoperable automatic weapon - both provided to him by his government handlers.

As federal authorities so accurately stated after Khalifi's "capture," he never posed a danger to the public. In other words, at no time were any Americans in any danger whatsoever from this suspect.

Yet, if convicted, Khalifi will most likely spend the majority of the rest of his life in prison, courtesy of the American taxpayer. The only question is, will we be safer? Or, more pointedly, were we ever in danger to begin with?

In early February of this year journalist Trevor Aaronson won an award from New York City's John Jay College of Criminal Justice for "The Informants," an article he wrote in the September-October 2011 issue of Mother Jones. The juried contest, in which Aaronson received first prize, was held as part of the seventh annual Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation symposium on crime in America. (Full disclosure: I was a judge in that contest.)

In retrospect, Aaronson's article was prescient. Down to the minutest of details, he described just how alleged "plots" like the one Khalifi is accused of launching unfold. He was able to do so because these cases by now usually follow a similar pattern: an FBI-paid Muslim informant goes to his handlers and alerts them to threats being made against America by a fellow worshiper at the mosque they attend; the feds then continue (or in some instances upgrade) the pay of the informant so they can develop a relationship with the supposed terrorist, thereby encouraging the sometimes unstable individual to think of himself as a potential martyr and avenger of all of the Western insults against Islam; then, when the "terrorist" is wound up tighter than a cheap wristwatch, he is given "weapons of mass destruction" and sent off to avenge his faith.

Of course the feds, who have orchestrated, choreographed, and paid for the entire charade, are waiting for the bomber with open arms. Afterward, some informants move on to another city where they eventually "discover" yet another plot - or, as critics say, create one if none is to be found. Hey, informants gotta eat too, you know.

Some legal scholars, like Karen Greenberg, who studies terrorism sting operations as the director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School, caution against entrapment in such cases. "You want to be very sure that the narrative is not substantially provided by the government. There's a lot of gray area in these cases." Other legal experts agree with Aaronson and say that the FBI sometimes crosses the fine line between "discovering" a plot and creating one by suborning and provoking individuals who, while perhaps willing to commit an act of violence after many months of coaching, cajoling, and encouraging by paid informants, really don't have the means to carry out their wild jihadist fantasies absent U.S. government assistance.

Washington, D.C., lawyer and practicing Muslim Ashraf Nubani, who has defended terrorism suspects in similar cases in the past, is growing increasingly alarmed. He states that cases like the one against Khalifi are "controlled from beginning to end by FBI. But you can't create a terrorism case and then say you stopped it. Had the FBI not been involved, through their manipulation or informants, would the same thing have happened? Would there be attempted violence? They have their sights on certain people, the ones who talk big talk."

In "The Informants" Aaronson wrote: "Ever since 9/11, counterterrorism has been the FBI's No. 1 priority, consuming the lion's share of its budget - $3.3 billion, compared to $2.6 billion for organized crime - and much of the attention of field agents and a massive, nationwide network of informants. After years of emphasizing informant recruiting as a key task for its agents, the bureau now maintains a roster of 15,000 spies [some paid as much as $100,000 per case] - many of them tasked … with infiltrating Muslim communities in the United States. In addition, for every informant officially listed in the bureau's records, there are as many as three unofficial ones ... the informants could be doctors, clerks, imams. Some might not even consider themselves informants."

The problem, according to Aaronson, is that the FBI strategy (variously described as "preemption," "prevention," and "disruption"), while supposedly designed to identify and neutralize potential lone-wolf threats before they can engage in action, is far too broad. It targets "not just active jihadists, but tens of thousands of law-abiding people, seeking to identify those disgruntled few who might participate in a plot given the means and the opportunity. And then, in case after case, the government provides the plot, the means, and the opportunity."

But Muslims and foreigners are not the only focuses of FBI interest. Last week nine members of the Hutaree, a Michigan-based militia made up of white native-born Americans, went on trial in U.S. district court in Detroit. Again, an informant led the government's effort by infiltrating and wiretapping the group, whose members are charged with five counts, including seditious conspiracy, attempts to use weapons of mass destruction, teaching or demonstrating the use of explosive materials, and carrying, using, and possessing a firearm with the intention to use for violence. The indictment states the group was planning to "levy war against the United States."

‘In case after case, the government provides the plot, the means, and the opportunity.'

But defense attorneys for the group say the militia's antigovernment talk is protected under the First Amendment and amounts to little more than bragging and boasting and that their actions were not illegal. They described the group as a bunch of gun and hunting enthusiasts. "Calling this group a militia is pushing it," attorney Todd Shanker said. Another attorney, William Swor, said his client "was exercising his God-given right to blow off steam and open his mouth."

Dan Murray, the paid informant the FBI used to infiltrate the Hutaree, was paid $30,000 for his services. Some critics claim that in tough economic times this amount is more than enough to entice informants to add a little yeast to their stories to make them rise and stick better. Murray, who was convicted in state court last year of firing shots at his wife during a domestic disturbance, received probation in that case, with all charges dropped after he pleaded guilty. The favorable treatment for a paid snitch is due to the intervention of federal authorities, defense lawyers claim.

Part of the lore and legend of many inner-city communities is the belief that select snitches receive what amounts to a "license" from authorities to sell drugs and commit other crimes - as long as they continue to provide information on other criminals, who often turn out to be rivals. Critics say much of the gun violence in big-city neighborhoods stem from beefs between such rival gang factions, spurred in large part by informants dropping dimes on one another.

Longtime Cleveland defense lawyer Ken Lumpkin says that police often tend to tolerate and downplay such killings as a means of "thinning the herd" and maintaining control in minority communities. He concluded by saying, "Everyone wants to be safe and free from harm, but sometimes law enforcement seem bent on burning down the village to save it. In these terrorist cases there's a sneaking suspicion the feds are using informants that are unreliable at best or highly manipulative liars at worse. Often they only introduce tapes that support their version of the facts. If a target of an investigation tries to back out of a plot and has to be convinced over and over again to stay in … that tape will never be played for the jury. We have to be careful we don't create a country - a society - where everyone is afraid that everyone else may be, in some way, working for the government. That can destroy trust and destabilize communities, something some folks, based on history, think the FBI is not above doing. That's one of the hallmarks of totalitarianism ... when Big Brother gets too all-powerful and uses informants to set us against each other." your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

-24 # jack406 2012-02-20 10:19
The writer asks, "Were we ever in danger to begin with?"

This man could have gone to any gun show in Virginia and purchased assault rifles and other firearms with no background check! The NRA likes it that way
If he wanted to hurt Americans, he could have. So yes someone probably was in danger.
+10 # E-Mon 2012-02-20 14:04
Seems to me this guy had 10 years where "could have" gone on his own to any gun show and bought assault rifles, but didn't.... Not until the FBI pushed him into it and provided him with everything he needed to do it. I agree with WFO (see below). The whole terrorist theme has been fabricated to scare people into accepting more and more control..... Not that there aren't some real terrorists out there, but the whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. If you think about it, it's like this ONE guy is holding the entire USA hostage in this land of the free and the BRAVE! How convenient that 911 gave the PNAC the "New Pearl Harbor" they were looking for! Just one of a long list of problems with the official 911 story is the fact that the entire Bin Laden clan, living in the USA at the time, was loaded on to a plane and were given a carte blanche, red carpet, no questions asked flight back to Saudi Arabia when when every other plane in the entire country was grounded. What's wrong with that picture? You'd think if Osama was the #1 suspect the entire Bin Laden clan would have been rounded up for questioning.... No? And who the hell authorized this flight? I heard the FBI showed up and did a token walk through probably just to see if they needed anything like blankets or pillows. Odds are you're way more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than by the hand of a "terrorist".
+6 # RMDC 2012-02-20 19:12
Why neg Jack. He's right. If this guy wanted to hurt someone, he could have. He did not want to hurt anyone. The FBI is totally to blame in this and 1000s of other cases.
+28 # GeeRob 2012-02-20 12:09
This falls under the topic of made-up problems, much like voter fraud. If there isn't panic in the "Homeland" then the FBI will create some. Their budget is another black hole. How many hungry children could have been fed instead?
+20 # WFO 2012-02-20 12:31
The War on Terror is Psych-op, and it works like a charm. Every "terror operation" is a sting, for the purpose of tightening the control grid. The "Underwear Bomber" was a sting operation used to justify putting x-ray scanners (Skeletor's co. just happened to have them ready to go, AKA, Michael Chertoff - "Homeland" dude)in airports across the country - everywhere soon (courthouses, football stadiums, bus stations, immigration checkpoints, highway checkpoints, etc). Along with 33,000 drones being introduced into US sky's to complement the nationwide video camera surveillance network already installed in every town and city in America, at every intersection of note, along with networked militarized local police departments. Not to mention "fusion centers". Land of the free, home of the brave.
+16 # seeuingoa 2012-02-20 12:54
Yeah! Keep people nervous
so you can control them.
+13 # cokacoa2 2012-02-20 14:42
There have been various programs to set Americans to inform on each other. Remember "DARE". This FBI program is the beginning of something utterly scary because most Americans believe they are free. As it turns out, we appear to be heading down the road the Germans took in the 1930's. Hopefully a majority of us wake up in time to change course.
+6 # Emil Sinclair 2012-02-20 15:57
Yes; great article! The U.S. government creates the "terrorism" in order to "justify" and "legitimize" the endless "global war (OF!) terrorism", the extremely bloated "national security" police state budget(s), the "need" for more and more "security" and monitoring of virtually everything U.S. citizens do, say and write, to acclimate us to accept all of this control, management, elimination of True Human Rights and Civil Liberties in the U.S., and to accept being slaves (etc.), the opposite of Truly Free, which is what we are when we have no True Civil Liberties and Human Rights more and more, "slash" anymore.

Most of "We the (so-called 'free') People" tolerate all of this evisceration of our freedoms and liberties, and allow and even "love" it increasingly, so we must want to be slaves, and for the government to abuse us and treat us like animals with no rights more and more. God help us, our country and our world if we continue to increasingly accept and bow down to this madness, and don't put a total stop to it!

The government criminals are now in the majority, and they are not ashamed of any of this monstrous anti-freedom, unconstitutiona l, anti-rule-of-la w, hateful, anti-liberty, terrorizing, anti-true-ratio nality, criminal insanity, and what it is leading to, like they should be; they are being given a license to perpetrate more and more of it against us; and, if we don't take our True Liberties and Freedoms back, it will only worsen.
0 # barbaratodish 2012-02-20 18:11
Where did the original provocation begin? Was it discover (terrorist, etc.,) plots or create them? Was it the chicken or the egg? What is the root cause of all provocation? Is it perhaps the matrix of obnoxiousness within THE SOCIAL CONTRACT? Is it the arrogance of humanity itself that we believe we are separate from each other, that there can even be ownership of ourselves, let alone ownership, possession and power over others and things? What poetic justice if it turns out that we are all just viruses in one obnoxious human organism!
+4 # L mac 2012-02-20 18:26
I think it's all about the $. No terrorists, no $.
+7 # RMDC 2012-02-20 19:15
The FBI has engaged in these public relations frames up since it was created in the 1910s. Back then it was to make union organizers look violent or after 1920 to create the appearance of a connection between US labor unions and the international communist party. The FBI has always broken the law to create political conditions that push the nation toward fascism.

I think all of the so-called terrorists who have been arrested in the US and are serving life in prison or awaiting trial were framed up by the FBI. The FBI is a GESTAPO in the full sense of the word -- a political police.
+9 # reiverpacific 2012-02-20 19:43
The FBI ARE terrorists, front back and center.
Ask any member of the American Indian Movement, especially Leonard Peltier.
+5 # Activista 2012-02-20 23:19
"roster of 15,000 spies [some paid as much as $100,000 per case]"
sick police state Gestapo. KGB looks better and better as USA deteriorates. We need regime change.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.