Thursday, 18 October 2012 10:26

FBI Celebrates Foiling Its Own Terror Plot, Again

Written by 

Federal agents convinced a naïve, violence-inclined 21-year-old Bangladeshi that he was a member of “al-Qaeda,” giving the dupe fake bombs to blow up the Federal Reserve Bank of New York before swarming in and arresting him on October 17. As has become typical, government officials scrambled to put out press releases patting themselves on the back for their work protecting the “Homeland.”

In reality, however, there was no al-Qaeda, there was no threat, there were no bombs, and the only alleged “plot” the FBI “foiled” was the one it helped hatch with its dupe, Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis. Like the vast majority of recent domestic “terror” schemes against the United States, the latest supposed “operation” was essentially run by authorities from start to finish.

“It is important to emphasize that the public was never at risk in this case, because two of the defendant’s ‘accomplices’ were actually an FBI source and an FBI undercover agent,” Acting Assistant FBI Director Mary Galligan admitted in a press release celebrating the arrest. “The FBI continues to place the highest priority on preventing acts of terrorism.”

The criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court also confirmed that authorities gave their dupe bogus explosives to carry out the bogus attack. "The material that purported to be the explosive material was actually inert and posed no threat to the safety of the public," the document confirmed, fueling more criticism of the government’s terror-war tactics that include cultivating terrorists and supplying all their terror needs.

The apparently dim-witted young man from Bangladesh was in the United States on a student visa when he allegedly tried to find others to join him in carrying out an attack. According to the criminal complaint, he miraculously managed to find an FBI source to help on his mission. The confidential informant promptly introduced him to government agents who promised to assist. 

“I don’t want something that’s like, small,” Nafis allegedly told an undercover agent who was posing as an al-Qaeda member and wearing a recording device. “I just want something big. Something very big. Very, very, very, very big, that will shake the whole country.” He was apparently hoping to “destroy America” with an attack that would bring Muslims closer to running “the whole world.”

Despite claiming to have “connections,” authorities had to convince Nafis that he really was part of al-Qaeda. "The thing that I want to ask you about is that, the thing I'm doing, is it under al-Qaeda?" the confused would-be “terrorist” asked one of his government handlers. The unidentified undercover law-enforcement officer assured the bewildered dupe that the attack would indeed be for “al-Qaeda.”

In numerous similar setups where the FBI has persuaded dupes to help plot “terror” attacks, the government offered big money in an effort to get the schemes off the ground. It remains unclear whether Nafis was given any cash reward for his “services.” However, most everything else was supplied by law enforcement — including the bogus bombs.

The undercover agent, for example, asked Nafis what he would need to carry out his “attack.” The dupe responded that he would need “a big car with lots of fruits and vegetables in there which can blow up the whole New York Stock Exchange building.” Nafis later proudly told a separate government informant, after being convinced by his handler, of course, that he was now officially a member of “al-Qaeda.”

At one point, Nafis told his handlers that he wanted to go home to see his family before the attack. However, the agents told him not to do that because law enforcement might “detect” its own plot. More than likely, Nafis was urged not to go home to ensure that the FBI would have somebody to arrest after hatching its complex bogus terror plot over a period of several months. His handlers told him “al-Qaeda” would stop helping him if he went home, court documents show.

As soon as news of the arrest was publicly announced, commentators across the Internet slammed and ridiculed the FBI and the federal government for continuing to prod dupes into carrying out bogus attacks. Perhaps anticipating that critics would cry foul at yet another “foiled” government-orchestrated “terror” plot, federal officials said they had to proceed with the setup to ensure that Nafis would not go plot an attack on his own.

“We have an obligation to take action to protect the public when an individual expresses a desire to commit violence and recruits others for an attack,” Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd was quoted as saying. “Allowing such individuals to proceed without a government response is not an option, given that they may take action on their own or find others willing to assist them.”

Indeed, if the criminal complaint is to be believed, it is true that Nafis was anything but an upstanding citizen. After the FBI convinced him that he was a member of “al-Qaeda” and that his government handler was working with “al-Qaeda leadership,” for example, the would-be terrorist said he knew there would be innocent casualties, including women and children. Still, he told his handlers he was ready to proceed.

Nafis also purportedly hoped the plot he hatched with the FBI would disrupt the upcoming presidential election. According to the criminal complaint, he was apparently an admirer of former CIA asset Osama bin Laden, too. 

The dupe was arrested after using a cellphone to try to detonate the fake bomb the FBI gave him. He was charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) and attempting to provide material support to al-Qaeda. If convicted, he could face life in prison.

Last year, federal authorities hatched a similar half-baked plot, using a convicted felon to deceive a group of young self-styled left-wing anarchists into trying to blow up a bridge near Cleveland. A separate case in 2009 in which a government informer convinced dupes to plant fake bombs in New York even drew criticism from the judge who oversaw the case, who said: “The government made them terrorists.” 

Government-hatched terror attacks, despite generating a lot of headlines, paranoia, and budget increases for the terror war, have still come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. “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?” wondered author David Shipler in a piece for the New York Times earlier this year about the absurdity of manufacturing terror plots to stop terror.

Analysts speculated that the most recent bogus “terror” scheme would be seized upon by the privately owned Federal Reserve banking cartel to portray itself as a potential target. The fake attack might also pave the way to helping paint the Fed’s growing number of vocal critics as potentially dangerous — at least if the FBI can find them, radicalize them, and give them money and fake explosives. 

While the FBI was busy convincing Nafis that he was a member of “al-Qaeda,” a terror group largely created and funded by the U.S. government decades ago, the Obama administration and Western powers were providing arms and money to real self-styled al-Qaeda fighters waging “jihad” in Syria. Before that, known al-Qaeda leaders were benefiting from overwhelming support from the Obama administration in the fight to oust Libya’s former despot, Moammar Gadhafi.

Whether Nafis would have been able or even willing to carry out any real attack without months of prodding by authorities will remain a mystery — he can be convicted based on current U.S. law regardless. What has become clear, though, is that the vast majority of “attacks” supposedly “foiled” over the last decade would never have made it into even the planning stages without government assistance. 

Related articles:

FBI Dupes May Day Anarchists into Bogus Terror Plot

The FBI Imagines Crimes and Then Arrests the Criminals

Manufacturing Monsters to Mash

“Drug Lords” Targeted in Fast & Furious Worked for FBI

Obama's Terrorist Ties and Radical Roots

Justice Department Trained Police to Link Political Activism With Terror

Terror War Expanding, Shifting to the Right

UN, Obama Fighting Alongside Al-Qaeda in Libya

Al-Qaeda & the West Back Syrian Rebels Against Assad

Bin Laden & Al-Qaeda: U.S. Govt. Creations

Photo of Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis, held by his father: AP Images

3 comments

  • Comment Link Bill Anderson Saturday, 20 October 2012 12:54 posted by Bill Anderson

    To read about more illegal covert FBI activity including their ability to take someone with a Masters degree (Harding University 1993) and make them homeless, search for "New police weapon against homeless" and "Historic coverup of FBI and police crimes currently taking place". Bill Anderson soxin8@hotmail.com

  • Comment Link Ross Wolf Friday, 19 October 2012 23:39 posted by Ross Wolf

    In 1993 terrorists bombed the NYC Trade Center—killing six people and injuring 1,000.

    Prior to the bombing, an FBI Informant secretly recorded his FBI handler when he discussed the plans of terrorists to bomb the Trade Center. After the bombing, excerpts from the FBI informant’s tapes were published by the New York and LA Times that showed the FBI had early knowledge of the plot to bomb the Trade Center. It was alleged the FBI was instrumental, allowed terrorists to make a “real bomb” that blew up part of the Trade Center.

    After the 1993 Trade Center bombing, there was rampant speculation in political circles that certain factions in government wanted a bombing in order to speed passage of new “anti-crime legislation.” Months prior “The Crime Control Act of 1993” had been introduced, also known as S.8 that included huge appropriations for hiring and paying police and government agencies to pursue, prosecute and preempt domestic terrorist Acts. (At the time, terrorism was not a problem in the United States.) Under the broad provisions of S.8, protesters could be charged with terrorism if police alleged they blocked public access—appeared intended to intimidate to coerce a civilian population; or influence the policy of a government under 18USC 2331. Despite the 1993 Trade Center bombing S.8 failed to pass when both conservatives and liberals protested the legislation.

    S.8. would have allowed government to imprison and fine Citizens; forfeit their property for speeches, writings, and assemblies.

    Months prior to the April 19, 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma Alfred P. Murrah Federal building: (The Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act) was introduced: the act included provisions from failed S.8 “The Crime Control Act of 1993.” Soon after the Oklahoma federal building was bombed, Congress quickly passed the (1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act); this bill included several provisions from the failed to pass “Crime Control Act of 1993.” For example: under the passed 1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act—federal prosecutors could use Secret Hearings, Secret/Paid Informants, Secret Testimony, Secret Witnesses and other hidden evidence to convict U.S. Citizens for terrorist acts. Defending against federal government terrorist charges, even against the Death Penalty became difficult if not impossible; this passed legislation was particularly alarmingly because U.S. Government and Police routinely pay and make deals with informants to provide court testimony. Historically informants lie and are not reliable.

    (S.8 Horrors) Title VII: USC Section 2337 of The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have eliminated civil law suits against U.S. and Foreign Governments by innocent persons injured resulting from Government Agents in pursuit of terrorist acts. Also incorporated in S.8 were provisions taken from (Introduced S.45 titled (The Terrorism Death Penalty Act of 1991) that would allow government to use a low standard of evidence to charge “law abiding citizens” with being agents of or affording support to terrorist(s)—mirroring the future 2001 Patriot Act.
    The Crime Control Act of 1993 (S.8) would have granted U.S. Government the power to arrest, charge, fine incarcerate and or execute Americans that participated in 1st Amendment activities (that were intended or used to support or provoke an act of terrorism); under S.8 any bodily act could be construed by government as a terrorist act or supporting terrorism; no actual or intended violence was required.

    The Crime Control Act of 1993 Asset Forfeiture Provisions appeared aimed at public dissent and written like RICO laws taking on the prospect of Political Property Forfeitures. Broadly written—intent to commit terrorist acts was defined: “appear to be intended (1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (2) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Under S.8: Any picket line that was alleged to have blocked public access could have qualified as a terrorist act to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. Should violence resulted for any reason at a public assembly, the Property Forfeiture Provisions of The Crime Control Act of 1993 could be triggered causing forfeiture of attending demonstrators’ homes used for meetings and the vehicles they used for transportation to the event. Demonstrators who left messages on a member or organization computer BBS System could cause the forfeiture of the system and seizure of its records and forfeiture of the home where the system was located.

    Under The Crime Control Act of 1993, Property Forfeiture, Arrest, Huge Fines, and Prison Sentences could result from “activities that (appeared intended) toward violence.” For example distributing political action flyers. The Crime Control Act of 1993 (S.8) would have granted government the power to forfeit the assets of Citizens and organizations that made Speeches, distributed writings and/or attended assemblies in the United States if he or she (should have had knowledge) that an associate might commit a terrorist act. A citizen who allowed their home or other real property to be used for an assembly would (start out guilty) having to prove they did not have knowledge of the unlawful methods of the organization or individuals they allowed to use their property. See S.8 Definitions Title VII Section 2332.

    Politically active organizations and labor unions would have been especially vulnerable to the broad provisions of The Crime Control Act of 1993 that defined bodily acts as “terrorist acts.” A common fistfight at a demonstration or picket line could qualify as a terrorist act. The physical act need not cause bodily harm, as S.8 provisions referred to “involving any violent or bodily act” that may be a terrorist act.

    The Crime Control Act of 1993 Terrorist Provisions when first examined were misleading for they gave the reader the impression government was after agents of a foreign power wishing to do Americans harm. That was a Trojan horse. The Crime Control Act of 1993 could be used against most anyone in the United States committing an undefined bodily act or attending an assembly. The bill’s undefined bodily act provision (was vague what constituted a terrorist act); and the Asset Forfeiture provisions were almost identical with those passed in the 2001 Patriot Act that now allows Government to arrest U.S. Citizens and seize their property under Section 806 (even retroactively) going back many years based on a mere Preponderance of civil evidence.

    The Crime Control Act of 1993: would have blocked discovery of Government Witnesses and Evidence being used against a defendant under Section 2333 of Title VII. Government could object to discovery on grounds discovery would interfere with a criminal investigation or prosecution of the incident, or national security operation related to the incident, which is the subject of Civil Litigation. For Example: Trying to Defend against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture would have been about impossible when citizens were denied access to learning the secret evidence government was using to forfeit their property. Citizens’ would have had no right to cross-examine government secret witnesses. Unfortunately the 2001 Patriot Act allows government to use secret witness testimony to seize and forfeit property. Secret witnesses now under the Patriot Act can be paid by government part of the property their testimony causes to be forfeited.

    The Crime Control Act of 1993 Terrorist Provisions:
    Secret Witnesses – Secret Trials: Protection of jurors and witnesses in Capital Cases: Chapter 113B Section 138 stated that the list of jurors and witnesses need not be furnished to Capital Offense Defendants should the court find by a “preponderance of the evidence” that providing the list may jeopardize the life or safety of any person. Note: Only a preponderance of evidence. (Now included in the Patriot Act)
    S.8 Title VII Section 711: Sentencing Guidelines Increased for Terrorist Crimes: The United States Sentencing Commission would have had the power to increase the” base offense level” for any felony committed in the United States that involved or was intended to promote international terrorism.
    Participation by activists in Lawful Speeches, Writings and Public Assemblies could have been used as evidence by Government to show that a participant was aware of the unlawful methods of the individual or organization that they were alleged to have afforded support. One person’s violent unlawful act at an assembly would allow Government to charge that an entire assembly “Appeared To Be Intended Toward Violence or Activities that Could Intimidate or Coerce a Civilian Population; or to influence a government.”
    Under current drug forfeiture laws innocent citizens are implicated by informants that may lie, testify to anything to mitigate their own arrest and/or receive money from the government. That has resulted in innocent citizens being arrested and killed by drug agents, caused forfeiture of Americans’ property and financial ruination. Under the proposed provisions of S8 The Crime Control Act of 1993, special breaks would have been given to informants, even against the death penalty. Obviously Government would have had no difficulty creating informants to cause the arrest, incarceration and execution of U.S. Citizens believed by government to be e.g. a political threat. (Now Included in Patriot Act.)

    The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have amended the “Exclusionary Rule” to add Section 3509 Admissibility of Evidence Obtained By Search or Seizure (a) Evidence Obtained By Objectively Reasonable Search or Seizure (b) Evidence Not Excludable By Statute or Rule:
    The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have allowed “illegal searches.” Wiretaps and Seizures” that resulted in obtaining evidence from an (invalid warrant) issued by a detached and neutral magistrate and found invalid (based on misleading information or reckless disregard of the truth—could “override Constitutional 4th Amendment protections and be introduced as evidence (if police and government acted in good faith.)
    Section 3509 would also have set the groundwork for Government Forfeiture Squads to randomly invade innocent owners’ homes and businesses with a minimum of probable cause. Government would only have to (assert) “a search and seizure was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that it was in conformity with the Fourth Amendment.” Currently under the USA Patriot Act, U.S. Government in violation of the Fourth Amendment illegally wiretap Citizens’ phones; search Citizens’ homes and businesses and spy on every aspect of their lives.

  • Comment Link Jake Martinez Friday, 19 October 2012 09:14 posted by Jake Martinez

    Still Don’t Know Who to Vote For? Then Read This!
    http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profiles/blogs/still-don-t-know-who-to-vote-for-then-read-this?xg_source=activity
    “Food For Thought”
    Semper Fi!
    Jake

Please Log In To Comment
Log in