Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.
--Daniel Patrick Moynihan

April 30, 2012

Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the F.B.I.

By David K. Shipler
(as published in The New York Times Sunday Review Apr. 29, 2012)

THE United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years — or so it has seemed. A would-be suicide bomber was intercepted on his way to the Capitol; a scheme to bomb synagogues and shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft was developed by men in Newburgh, N.Y.; and a fanciful idea to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol was hatched in Massachusetts.

But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects naïvely played their parts until they were arrested.

When an Oregon college student, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, thought of using a car bomb to attack a festive Christmas-tree lighting ceremony in Portland, the F.B.I. provided a van loaded with six 55-gallon drums of “inert material,” harmless blasting caps, a detonator cord and a gallon of diesel fuel to make the van smell flammable. An undercover F.B.I. agent even did the driving, with Mr. Mohamud in the passenger seat. To trigger the bomb the student punched a number into a cellphone and got no boom, only a bust.

This is legal, but is it legitimate? Without the F.B.I., would the culprits commit violence on their own? Is cultivating potential terrorists the best use of the manpower designed to find the real ones? Judging by their official answers, the F.B.I. and the Justice Department are sure of themselves — too sure, perhaps.

Carefully orchestrated sting operations usually hold up in court. Defendants invariably claim entrapment and almost always lose, because the law requires that they show no predisposition to commit the crime, even when induced by government agents. To underscore their predisposition, many suspects are “warned about the seriousness of their plots and given opportunities to back out,” said Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman. But not always, recorded conversations show. Sometimes they are coaxed to continue.

Undercover operations, long practiced by the F.B.I., have become a mainstay of counterterrorism, and they have changed in response to the post-9/11 focus on prevention. “Prior to 9/11 it would be very unusual for the F.B.I. to present a crime opportunity that wasn’t in the scope of the activities that a person was already involved in,” said Mike German of the American Civil Liberties Union, a lawyer and former F.B.I. agent who infiltrated white supremacist groups. An alleged drug dealer would be set up to sell drugs to an undercover agent, an arms trafficker to sell weapons. That still happens routinely, but less so in counterterrorism, and for good reason.

“There isn’t a business of terrorism in the United States, thank God,” a former federal prosecutor, David Raskin, explained.

“You’re not going to be able to go to a street corner and find somebody who’s already blown something up,” he said. Therefore, the usual goal is not “to find somebody who’s already engaged in terrorism but find somebody who would jump at the opportunity if a real terrorist showed up in town.”

And that’s the gray area. Who is susceptible? Anyone who plays along with the agents, apparently. Once the snare is set, law enforcement sees no choice. “Ignoring such threats is not an option,” Mr. Boyd argued, “given the possibility that the suspect could act alone at any time or find someone else willing to help him.”

Typically, the stings initially target suspects for pure speech — comments to an informer outside a mosque, angry postings on Web sites, e-mails with radicals overseas — then woo them into relationships with informers, who are often convicted felons working in exchange for leniency, or with F.B.I. agents posing as members of Al Qaeda or other groups.

Some targets have previous involvement in more than idle talk: for example, Waad Ramadan Alwan, an Iraqi in Kentucky, whose fingerprints were found on an unexploded roadside bomb near Bayji, Iraq, and Raja Khan of Chicago, who had sent funds to an Al Qaeda leader in Pakistan.

But others seem ambivalent, incompetent and adrift, like hapless wannabes looking for a cause that the informer or undercover agent skillfully helps them find. Take the Stinger missile defendant James Cromitie, a low-level drug dealer with a criminal record that included no violence or hate crime, despite his rants against Jews. “He was searching for answers within his Islamic faith,” said his lawyer, Clinton W. Calhoun III, who has appealed his conviction. “And this informant, I think, twisted that search in a really pretty awful way, sort of misdirected Cromitie in his search and turned him towards violence.”

THE informer, Shahed Hussain, had been charged with fraud, but avoided prison and deportation by working undercover in another investigation. He was being paid by the F.B.I. to pose as a wealthy Pakistani with ties to Jaish-e-Mohammed, a terrorist group that Mr. Cromitie apparently had never heard of before they met by chance in the parking lot of a mosque.

“Brother, did you ever try to do anything for the cause of Islam?” Mr. Hussain asked at one point.

“O.K., brother,” Mr. Cromitie replied warily, “where you going with this, brother?”

Two days later, the informer told him, “Allah has more work for you to do,” and added, “Revelation is going to come in your dreams that you have to do this thing, O.K.?” About 15 minutes later, Mr. Hussain proposed the idea of using missiles, saying he could get them in a container from China. Mr. Cromitie laughed.

Reading hundreds of pages of transcripts of the recorded conversations is like looking at the inkblots of a Rorschach test. Patterns of willingness and hesitation overlap and merge. “I don’t want anyone to get hurt,” Mr. Cromitie said, and then explained that he meant women and children. “I don’t care if it’s a whole synagogue of men.” It took 11 months of meandering discussion and a promise of $250,000 to lead him, with three co-conspirators he recruited, to plant fake bombs at two Riverdale synagogues.

“Only the government could have made a ‘terrorist’ out of Mr. Cromitie, whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in its scope,” said Judge Colleen McMahon, sentencing him to 25 years. She branded it a “fantasy terror operation” but called his attempt “beyond despicable” and rejected his claim of entrapment.

The judge’s statement was unusual, but Mr. Cromitie’s characteristics were not. His incompetence and ambivalence could be found among other aspiring terrorists whose grandiose plans were nurtured by law enforcement. They included men who wanted to attack fuel lines at Kennedy International Airport; destroy the Sears Tower (now Willis Tower) in Chicago; carry out a suicide bombing near Tampa Bay, Fla., and bomb subways in New York and Washington. Of the 22 most frightening plans for attacks since 9/11 on American soil, 14 were developed in sting operations.

Another New York City subway plot, which recently went to trial, needed no help from government. Nor did a bombing attempt in Times Square, the abortive underwear bombing in a jetliner over Detroit, a planned attack on Fort Dix, N.J., and several smaller efforts. Some threats are real, others less so. In terrorism, it’s not easy to tell the difference.


  1. I must admit I was a bit surprised reading this for many reasons. First from reading the title was surprised to see it in the New York Times. After reading the white wash that followed that surprise subsided.

    The article is similar to the troops growing the opium. They couldn't hide the fact anymore so the solution was hide it in plain sight. You start the article as this is what is going on and then go into why it is justifiable and necessary. I assure you it isn't.

    But this isn't the main disgrace of this article. The last or two paragraphs says 14 out of 22 of the worst terrorist plots foiled were FBI set up. Then you continue to list 4 more that had no government involvement. Out of those 4, two of them I was aware of HAVING government involvement.
    1. The underwear bomber (the incident used to push through the naked body scanners) Kurt Haskell came out right after saying a sharp dressed man got him on the plane past security without a passport. Then a month later it came out from the under Secretary of State Mr. Kennedy on C span that an unnamed agency got him on the plane. Once again a (deliberately) defective bomb.
    2. The fort Dix incident had not 1 but 2 FBI informants involved and even provided maps of the place for them.

    If you are going to report an article I find it helps to at least research it first. I don't see any differences between these 2 and the others you enumerated.

    And another one you mentioned the Times Square bomber was so ridiculous it isn't even worth mentioning. First he bought the vehicle for the event, why buy a vehicle that is all glass in the back when you can buy a van even cheaper than the pathfinder he bought? His bomb included (in part) m-88 firecrackers and 2 or 3 travel alarm clocks. This was obviously done for show. If you want a bomb to go off you don't need to make it complicated. In fact in a car everything you need is already there. you have a battery you can run a wire right from that, or splice in to the memory wire on the radio or anything else that has power all the time then just have some form of switch in the middle of that wire and you can ground it to anywhere. These individuals according to their wiki page attended bomb making courses. I have never attended a bomb making course and thought of that while reading the wiki page. I believe this was for show and never intended for it to go off.

    1. None of these cases fits the category of government-inspired. The Fort Dix crew had already formulated their plan, and possessed some weapons, before the FBI informants were infiltrated. The passenger Kurt Haskell was the only person in the waiting area who saw the alleged incident, and Kennedy did not say that the underwear bomber was deliberately allowed into the U.S. He said that as a matter of course, the State Department checks with law enforcement and intelligence agencies before revoking a visa to make sure they're not following the person to see what others he contacts, as part of an investigation to round up a larger conspiracy. That may have been the case with the underwear bomber, but it's not known. As for the Times Square attempt, I'd need to see evidence of government involvement before subscribing to the theory. Just because a bomber is incompetent doesn't mean the government's involved.

  2. This is so well written, Dave. Makes such a good, important point - Really excellent report. Thank you!

  3. the commenter is right about Ft Dix; Mr. Shipler is wrong. the "plotters" at Ft. Dix were six pizza-delivery guys who videotaped themselves yelling Allahu Akbar! on vacation at a shooting range; they went to duplicate the image (for souvenirs) at a Best Buy and were turned in by the clerk who took their order. Nearly two years later the FBI, frustrated that their informers found no criminal activity, had the informers themselves offer the six a bargain deal on some weapons, which of course they leaped at (because at the time they only had 5 gus and there were six of them, so one always had to wait for his turn at the range), and then they were busted.
    In fact, months before, at least one of the six tried to report one informer to the local cops, because he was troubled by the wild "plots" the FBI was trying to get them involved with.
    It's all in the record...

    1. "Only" five guns? Well, that's comforting. The fact that they had real weapons differentiates them from the defendants who had none at all and depended utterly on the FBI to provide (inoperable) guns or (fake) explosives. James Cromitie, for example, couldn't figure out how to buy a gun in his hometown of Newburg, NY, where "you or I could get a gun in about 3 minutes," his lawyer told me. All cases involving FBI infiltration fall along a spectrum, and reasonable people can disagree about where to locate them, but while the Fort Dix case did turn on informants, I think the record puts it closer to the reality end than any of the 14 others--including a 15th: the recent Occupy Wall Street so-called bridge-bombing case, whose defendants were apparently led by the FBI to move from a relatively innocuous plan to knock down signs to blowing a bridge--which they had neither the explosives expertise nor the equipment to do. I wouldn't argue that the Fort Dix guys had the capacity to pull off their attack either (I write derisively about it in my book The Rights of the People) but to mix that case in with these others is to do a disservice to the argument about the questionable FBI sting operations. I'm sure if I'd done so I'd be getting a lot of comments from the other side accusing me of overreaching and, perhaps gleefully, using it to discredit my characterization of the problem, and thus the entire premise of the piece.