This is well documented for those who eschew the spoon feeding media like this article.

The writer seems to think that the FBI is wasting resources by conducting long, drawn-out facades of pretending to give our home-grown terrorists help in their plots. Really Keating? You think that these terrorists would just be model citizens if not for the FBI's interference? WHat would have actually happened is they would have made REAL al-qaeda contacts, and been able to conduct REAL terrorist attacks. If you want to talk about a waste of time, start with the judicial process that requires the FBI to create the entire setup, instead of just allowing them to arrest the guy on probable causes once he begins plotting.

Not sure I'd put this on the FBI, but the terrorists have also screwed up attempts without law enforcement involvement (see: Times Square, Edinburgh airport). Unfortunately only a matter of time until someone competent attempts an attack.

A common man can become terrorist on the drop of hat. An undercover FBI agent can trick the guy into believing that he is an Al Qaeda member and the guy is ready to blow himself up. What is exactly happening.

May be the terrorist is stupid as all the terrorists are. Today I think Hitler was stupid as well. But he made sense to many people in his days,

It took the FBI a whole twelve months to bring this guy along to the stage where had had a suicide vest complete with fake FBI-supplied explosives. Twelve months! Clearly, something's not right there.

Most of the intelligent trainers and leaders of Jihadis have been killed by the US. As a result we get more and more jihadi "punks" who don't know which way is up, but seem to still want to "blow up the great satan". This article seems like a knee jerk reaction to another failed plot. As in: this article has no real "meat" on it proverbial "bones". The FBI isn't entrapping anyone here, these men were actively seeking to harm innocent Americans. Therefore, what do we care how the FBI does it's job? These home growns are idiots, and the FBI is rounding them up...GREAT! The FBI is doing the exact job that it was found NOT to be doing before 9/11. Remember? We complained to the media and congress that we wanted our government to protect us. Now that they are, we seem not to like it. How quick we are to complain about something, when it was our complaints that drove that very something into existence in the first place.

Here's another clue to everyone here: The perpetrators of the first world trade center attack, and a number of others, (with the exceptions of the puppet masters like Youseff, OBL and the blind sheik) were idiots. Any man who decides to blow himself up in a crowded area doesn't have to be a genius to pull it off. The only things he needs are motive, means and opportunity. The FBI is currently denying these morons the means and opportunity, and I for one applaud them and their service to our nation.

Have you interviewed ONE single FBI agent involved with this operation? If not...how do you really know ANYTHING about what you are currently writing about? It's a legit question. Come back when you have a complete thesis, and not just baseless insinuations.

you forgot the man who was going to use grenades in the Rockford, IL mall...

When it comes to being detained indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, it's not so much what you know as whom you know. Or whom you are alleged to know. Or whom you may know. Someday.

That was the case back in 2002—when the government's own best evidence showed that most of the detainees had been picked up for "associating" with the Taliban or al-Qaida (and that most were turned in for bounties rather than captured by U.S. forces). And it's still the case this week, as the Obama administration announces that about 30 Yemeni prisoners—already cleared for release from the camp—will not be freed after all, merely because they're from Yemen. The clearance they've received is now meaningless: Men poised to begin their ninth year of incarceration at the camp will remain there, not because of anything they have done, but in fear of whom they may meet on the streets back home in Yemen. The new twist, then, is that prisoners can now be held indefinitely not just because they once knew a terrorist, but because they may meet one someday in the future.
Advertisement

In light of America's spontaneous discovery of the existence of Yemen on Christmas Day, it may make political sense to argue that Guantanamo detainees repatriated there will turn to terrorism. But it makes no more legal sense than their original incarceration did. The idea that we would hold onto these men based solely on a foiled terror plot connected to their country of origin shows how little factual accuracy matters when it comes to Guantanamo.

A reminder: Despite Donald Rumsfeld's famous assertion that the folks at Guantanamo represented the "worst of the worst," we know that the majority of the prisoners at the camp were largely just unlucky. As Lt. Col. Thomas S. Berg, who served on the original legal team for military prosecutions, once put it: "It became obvious to us as we reviewed the evidence that, in many cases, we had simply gotten the slowest guys on the battlefield. We literally found guys who had been shot in the butt." Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA's bin Laden unit until 2004, similarly admitted: "We absolutely got the wrong people."

Yet all these years later, we're struggling with what to do with these people because some of them may have morphed into potential hardened criminals—perhaps because we have radicalized them by holding them for years without trials. And it's a problem that's only compounded when we connect them to random terror incidents to which they have no discernible connection.

Another reminder: The whole concept of "future dangerousness" is a slippery one in criminal law. Most studies have shown that when juries attempt to guess at future dangerousness in sentencing capital defendants, they get it wrong. Predictions by psychiatrists about a specific prisoner's future likelihood of dangerousness are often rooted in pure speculation. The whole notion of guessing at someone's likelihood to return to crime (or in the case of the Yemenis at Gitmo, predictions that they may turn to it in the first place) is so speculative and fraught that some scholars have rejected as unconstitutional. As professor Joseph Kennedy of UNC recently put it: "Future dangerousness is too dangerous as a sole basis for incarceration because it appeals too directly to our deepest, strongest, and potentially most violent instinct—self preservation."

The argument that there may be some people at Guantanamo who may, if released, take up arms against the United States is rooted in precisely the type of fear and paranoia Kennedy warns about. It disregards the fact that—as the Center for Constitutional Rights said in a statement yesterday—"the vast majority of the men at Guantánamo should never have been detained in the first place, and that over 550 have been released and are peacefully rebuilding their lives." We don't as a rule punish dozens of innocent men because of fears about one or two. And how far can we take arguments about future dangerousness? As Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch has argued, under a broad "future dangerousness" theory, "the United States military could march through the streets of Kandahar, Riyadh, or Islamabad, arrest and detain any dangerous looking male between the ages of 20 and 35.
When it comes to being detained indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, it's not so much what you know as whom you know. Or whom you are alleged to know. Or whom you may know. Someday.

That was the case back in 2002—when the government's own best evidence showed that most of the detainees had been picked up for "associating" with the Taliban or al-Qaida (and that most were turned in for bounties rather than captured by U.S. forces). And it's still the case this week, as the Obama administration announces that about 30 Yemeni prisoners—already cleared for release from the camp—will not be freed after all, merely because they're from Yemen. The clearance they've received is now meaningless: Men poised to begin their ninth year of incarceration at the camp will remain there, not because of anything they have done, but in fear of whom they may meet on the streets back home in Yemen. The new twist, then, is that prisoners can now be held indefinitely not just because they once knew a terrorist, but because they may meet one someday in the future.
Advertisement

In light of America's spontaneous discovery of the existence of Yemen on Christmas Day, it may make political sense to argue that Guantanamo detainees repatriated there will turn to terrorism. But it makes no more legal sense than their original incarceration did. The idea that we would hold onto these men based solely on a foiled terror plot connected to their country of origin shows how little factual accuracy matters when it comes to Guantanamo.

A reminder: Despite Donald Rumsfeld's famous assertion that the folks at Guantanamo represented the "worst of the worst," we know that the majority of the prisoners at the camp were largely just unlucky. As Lt. Col. Thomas S. Berg, who served on the original legal team for military prosecutions, once put it: "It became obvious to us as we reviewed the evidence that, in many cases, we had simply gotten the slowest guys on the battlefield. We literally found guys who had been shot in the butt." Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA's bin Laden unit until 2004, similarly admitted: "We absolutely got the wrong people."

Yet all these years later, we're struggling with what to do with these people because some of them may have morphed into potential hardened criminals—perhaps because we have radicalized them by holding them for years without trials. And it's a problem that's only compounded when we connect them to random terror incidents to which they have no discernible connection.

Another reminder: The whole concept of "future dangerousness" is a slippery one in criminal law. Most studies have shown that when juries attempt to guess at future dangerousness in sentencing capital defendants, they get it wrong. Predictions by psychiatrists about a specific prisoner's future likelihood of dangerousness are often rooted in pure speculation. The whole notion of guessing at someone's likelihood to return to crime (or in the case of the Yemenis at Gitmo, predictions that they may turn to it in the first place) is so speculative and fraught that some scholars have rejected as unconstitutional. As professor Joseph Kennedy of UNC recently put it: "Future dangerousness is too dangerous as a sole basis for incarceration because it appeals too directly to our deepest, strongest, and potentially most violent instinct—self preservation."

The argument that there may be some people at Guantanamo who may, if released, take up arms against the United States is rooted in precisely the type of fear and paranoia Kennedy warns about. It disregards the fact that—as the Center for Constitutional Rights said in a statement yesterday—"the vast majority of the men at Guantánamo should never have been detained in the first place, and that over 550 have been released and are peacefully rebuilding their lives." We don't as a rule punish dozens of innocent men because of fears about one or two. And how far can we take arguments about future dangerousness? As Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch has argued, under a broad "future dangerousness" theory, "the United States military could march through the streets of Kandahar, Riyadh, or Islamabad, arrest and detain any dangerous looking male between the ages of 20 and 35.
great blog post. i like it a lot.
propaclean is the best cleaning services in london and we have been providing our services
from many years.we are providing our service in residential and commercial properties
of London and other places of London. If you need any cleaning services work then feel
free to contact us at Tel: 0845 634 1101 or AFTER office HOURS: 07950 743 855

Thank you

cleaning services london

We are talking about the one and the same Al Qaeda responsible for 9 / 11 that is now an ally of the US against the Syrian government right? We are actually talking about those same people right? As in the US government is happy houserenovations to ally to the same people that are responsible for murdering thousands of US citizens.