Thread: Suicide Attack on Capitol Foiled

Washington (CNN) -- U.S. Capitol Police and the FBI on Friday arrested a Moroccan man who was planning a suicide attack on the Capitol, authorities said.
The suspect, identified as Amine Khalifi, arrived at a federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, where he was expected to make an appearance in the afternoon, court officials said.
In announcing Khalifi's arrest, Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said the man had received what he thought was a vest with explosives, but the materials in the vest had been rendered inoperable by law enforcement.

Khalifi was arrested as soon as he accepted the vest from undercover officers, according to a federal law enforcement source. He was also given a gun, which was similarly rendered inoperable, officials said.


The 29-year-old suspect was living in Alexandria and was in the United States illegally, the source said.

A second source, a government official, said the planned attack was meant to be carried out Friday. Khalifi has lived in the United States for 12 years, the government official said. The investigation began when the suspect began talking with an undercover agent.

"The suspect was talking about blowing up military installations, and synagogues and said he wanted to blow up a restaurant," the government official said.

The man had been closely monitored as part of a lengthy and extensive undercover operation, police said, adding that U.S. Capitol Police had been "intimately" involved in the investigation.
The public was never in danger, police said.

Snip...


Suicide attack on U.S. Capitol foiled - CNN.com


Just curious. Does anyone else feel this may be a case of clear entrapment? This is not the first case like this were I suspect entrapment.

Originally Posted by EnigmaO01

Washington (CNN) -- U.S. Capitol Police and the FBI on Friday arrested a Moroccan man who was planning a suicide attack on the Capitol, authorities said.

The suspect, identified as Amine Khalifi, arrived at a federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, where he was expected to make an appearance in the afternoon, court officials said.

In announcing Khalifi's arrest, Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said the man had received what he thought was a vest with explosives, but the materials in the vest had been rendered inoperable by law enforcement.

Khalifi was arrested as soon as he accepted the vest from undercover officers, according to a federal law enforcement source. He was also given a gun, which was similarly rendered inoperable, officials said.

The 29-year-old suspect was living in Alexandria and was in the United States illegally, the source said.

A second source, a government official, said the planned attack was meant to be carried out Friday. Khalifi has lived in the United States for 12 years, the government official said. The investigation began when the suspect began talking with an undercover agent.

"The suspect was talking about blowing up military installations, and synagogues and said he wanted to blow up a restaurant," the government official said.

The man had been closely monitored as part of a lengthy and extensive undercover operation, police said, adding that U.S. Capitol Police had been "intimately" involved in the investigation.

The public was never in danger, police said.

Just curious. Does anyone else feel this may be a case of clear entrapment? This is not the first case like this were I suspect entrapment.

What is "clear" entrapment? The OP says,

A third source briefed on the matter said the suspect was identified through an existing criminal, not terrorism investigation. When asked about possible entrapment, the U.S. government source said the suspect went out on his own to buy component pieces for an improvised explosive device.

At some point it can become a fine line whether a suspect was improperly encouraged, but nothing suggests it in the OP.

I've seen this scenario 4 times before since 9/11, and it's always the FBI encouraging and enabling some mentally deficient outcast, then busting them before they can even begin to take any action, after having conveniently provided them with what they need, when they would never have been able to obtain it under any other condition.
IMO, just the FBI using dimwits to polish their resume. Sorta like a fireman starting fires so he can be a hero and put them out.

Was that entrapment which I think may havae a legal definition or is it enticement ? hmmm have to think about that since one would probably need to entice a potential bad actor into a trap which may or may not be entrapment....

Originally Posted by EnigmaO01

Washington (CNN) -- U.S. Capitol Police and the FBI on Friday arrested a Moroccan man who was planning a suicide attack on the Capitol, authorities said.
The suspect, identified as Amine Khalifi, arrived at a federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, where he was expected to make an appearance in the afternoon, court officials said.
In announcing Khalifi's arrest, Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said the man had received what he thought was a vest with explosives, but the materials in the vest had been rendered inoperable by law enforcement.

Khalifi was arrested as soon as he accepted the vest from undercover officers, according to a federal law enforcement source. He was also given a gun, which was similarly rendered inoperable, officials said.


The 29-year-old suspect was living in Alexandria and was in the United States illegally, the source said.

A second source, a government official, said the planned attack was meant to be carried out Friday. Khalifi has lived in the United States for 12 years, the government official said. The investigation began when the suspect began talking with an undercover agent.

"The suspect was talking about blowing up military installations, and synagogues and said he wanted to blow up a restaurant," the government official said.

The man had been closely monitored as part of a lengthy and extensive undercover operation, police said, adding that U.S. Capitol Police had been "intimately" involved in the investigation.
The public was never in danger, police said.


Suicide attack on U.S. Capitol foiled - CNN.com


Just curious. Does anyone else feel this may be a case of clear entrapment? This is not the first case like this were I suspect entrapment.

Hell it is a great thing the FBI provided everything else this would not have happened.

Thank you FBI.

Oh can we say distraction?

Here's the legal definition of entrapment:

The act of government agents or officials that induces a person to commit a crime he or she is not previously disposed to commit. (my emphasis)

Entrapment is a defense to criminal charges when it is established that the agent or official originated the idea of the crime and induced the accused to engage in it. If the crime was promoted by a private person who has no connection to the government, it is not entrapment. A person induced by a friend to sell drugs has no legal excuse when police are informed that the person has agreed to make the sale.

The rationale underlying the defense is to deter law enforcement officers from engaging in reprehensible conduct by inducing persons not disposed to commit crimes to engage in criminal activity. In their efforts to obtain evidence and combat crime, however, officers are permitted to use some deception. For example, an officer may pretend to be a drug addict in order to apprehend a person suspected of selling drugs. On the other hand, an officer cannot use chicanery or Fraud to lure a person to commit a crime the person is not previously willing to commit. Generally, the defense is not available if the officer merely created an opportunity for the commission of the crime by a person already planning or willing to commit it.

The defense of entrapment frequently arises when crimes are committed against willing victims. It is likely to be asserted to counter such charges as illegal sales of liquor or narcotics, Bribery, Sex Offenses, and gambling. Persons who commit these types of crimes are most easily apprehended when officers disguise themselves as willing victims.

Most states require a defendant who raises the defense of entrapment to prove he or she did not have a previous intent to commit the crime. Courts determine whether a defendant had a predisposition to commit a crime by examining the person's behavior prior to the commission of the crime and by inquiring into the person's past criminal record if one exists. Usually, a predisposition is found if a defendant was previously involved in criminal conduct similar to the crime with which he or she is charged.

When an officer supplies an accused with a tool or a means necessary to commit the crime, the defense is not automatically established. Although this factor may be considered as evidence of entrapment, it is not conclusive. The more important determination is whether the official planted the criminal idea in the mind of the accused or whether the idea was already there.

Entrapment is not a constitutionally required defense, and, consequently, not all states are bound to provide it as a defense in their criminal codes. Some states have excluded it as a defense, reasoning that anyone who can be talked into a criminal act cannot be free from guilt.
entrapment legal definition of entrapment. entrapment synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.





It's always available to the defense to try to use at trial & the final decision is obviously the jury's.

Side Note:
We in DEA had to always know the current street prices of illegal drugs because if we offered to much money to a dealer we left ourselves open to a possible defense of entrapment at trial.
While a tough sell to a jury, a shifty defense atty could claim that ....."The agents offered so much money to my client.... who has a sick mother & 3 blind orphans he must take care of.....that he was basically induced into committing a crime."

"When an officer supplies an accused with a tool or a means necessary to commit the crime, the defense is not automatically established. Although this factor may be considered as evidence of entrapment, it is not conclusive."

In other words, it can be a defense and a consideration to establish entrapment. If you can further show that the defendant had neither the means nor the wherewithall to commit the crime, then that's further strength for entrapment, and in this case, the guy was never allowed to even carry out the act. Stupid. They gave him a fake3 bomb and a fake gun. They could've let him go to the site & trigger the "bomb" and they'd have a stronger case.
But the FBI is a corrupt org., and they apparently nurtured and encouraged this fool. They gave him the drugs, pointed him at the buyer, and pushed.

And BTW, the FBI has nothing to do with Obama, they are independant of the whitre house and do not answer to them.

Originally Posted by zitiboy

"When an officer supplies an accused with a tool or a means necessary to commit the crime, the defense is not automatically established. Although this factor may be considered as evidence of entrapment, it is not conclusive."

In other words, it can be a defense and a consideration to establish entrapment. If you can further show that the defendant had neither the means nor the wherewithall to commit the crime, then that's further strength for entrapment, and in this case, the guy was never allowed to even carry out the act. Stupid. They gave him a fake3 bomb and a fake gun. They could've let him go to the site & trigger the "bomb" and they'd have a stronger case.
But the FBI is a corrupt org., and they apparently nurtured and encouraged this fool. They gave him the drugs, pointed him at the buyer, and pushed.

And BTW, the FBI has nothing to do with Obama, they are independant of the whitre house and do not answer to them.

I believe that suggesting the defendant doesn't have the wherewithall to commit a crime, that's a different defense from entrapment. The key to entrapment, as I understand it, is that a police or government representative has to suggest the commission of a crime to someone else. To avoid the entrapment defense, the idea to commit the crime has to be the defendant's.

Originally Posted by zitiboy

And BTW, the FBI has nothing to do with Obama, they are independant of the whitre house and do not answer to them.

Sorry Ziti but that is flat wrong.
The FBI is part of the Dept. of Justice which is part of the Executive Branch & therefore answers to & works for the President.

My understanding of the entrapment defense is that for it to be valid, the suspect must prove that the police created conditions where it was impossible or extremely difficult for him or her to not commit the crime and that they were not otherwise inclined to commit it in any way. It's rarely used because it admits full culpability in the crime, leading to certain conviction if it fails, and shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.