« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Counter-Terror Expert: You Wouldn't Catch al Qaeda With Newburgh Tactics
We wondered earlier, in reference to the Newburgh Four: is sending a government mole out to scrounge up a few dim-witted ex-cons who can be talked -- and perhaps bribed -- into getting involved in a fictitious bomb plot really the best way to use our limited terror-fighting resources?
The picture is still a long way from being clear, but a prominent counter-terrorism expert we spoke to confirms there are legitimate questions about the wisdom of the approach.
Vince Cannistraro, who served as the first operations chief of the CIA's counter-terrorism center, told TPMmuckraker it's doubtful that any of home-grown terror cases built through the extensive use of a government informant amounted to serious threats.
"There are some questions about whether or not these are serious attempts -- or are they organized by the FBI?" said Cannistraro, who now works as a private intelligence and security consultant. He cited the case earlier this decade in which the same government informant as in the Newburgh case helped convict two Albany, NY men for involvement in a scheme to launder money for a fictitious terror plot. "I don't think it was a serious threat," said Cannistraro, referring to the Albany case.
Cannistraro added: "If you had a real al Qaeda operation, you would never pick them up this way," but said that "the jury is out" on whether, on balance, the Feds' reliance on such tactics is a good thing or a bad thing.
Cannistraro also said that the tactic of using government informants to infiltrate mosques was losing whatever value it may ever have had, as worshipers become aware of the tactic. Indeed, many senior members of the Newburgh mosque appear to have correctly spotted the informant in this case as a government mole. "There certainly has become a widespread belief that Federal law enforcement uses the informant approach to instigate criminal activity" at mosques, said Cannistraro.
Not everyone agrees. James Carafano, a homeland security expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, called these methods "the single most effective way to break up domestic terrorists."
Carafano, who served as an Army lieutenant colonel, and has written widely on military and homeland security topics, described the tactics used in the Newburgh case as standard. "Normally an informant is integral to the plot," said Carafano. "They offer something that the group really wants and can't get on their own. That is just very very common." He added: "We've been doing investigations of the kind of decades."
Still, as TPM's own David Kurtz points out, the evidence suggests that the FBI would have been most likely to sniff out 9/11 by putting more resources into running down the tips they were getting about suspicious behavior at flight schools, not by doing more to use informants to infiltrate mosques.

















It may be that the FBI manufactured a crime out of nothing, and that, but for that FBI mischief, these fools would be out smoking pot and trying to make heads or tales out of the Koran.
But let's not acquit them without letting the process work.
Being stupid alone doesn't make you not a terrorist. Lots of the kids driving suicide cars around Iraq are *really* stupid. But terrorists they are as well.
May 26, 2009 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, let's hold on a moment and view from another angle. An 'epiphany' angle for me as I've hated these kinds of 'sting' operations for years, but now I just might have to reconsider. Well, only this one as the dudes actually did it - instead of just taking pictures or buying maps, etc.
New angle to consider: Take the situation and exchange 'al Qaeda' for 'FBI' and 'operative' for 'informant'.
Imagine it was an al Qaeda operative who seduced these guys with money, food, drugs etc. in exchange for them parking a car bomb.
So, what the FBI has done is uncover a domestic terrorism vulnerability. They are finding and neutralizing our weakest links before al Qaeda does.
But how to proceed? Intensely interesting to me is that these weak links are organically derived. They're the result of societal inequities that are both self-inflicted and externally derived.
Policymakers need to recognize and explore what the root causes of these chaps' susceptibility and try to address them. Like "winning hearts and minds" stuff.
Every case is different, but - given human nature - they should give a pretty clear idea of the root causes.
Bottomline: FBI stings can't neutralize every willing participant before al Qaeda hooks them. We have to do it ourselves and use each case to drive policies to address the root socioeconomic causes.
May 26, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink