« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

How A Government Mole Won The Loyalty Of The Newburgh Four
Reports last week suggested that the Newburgh four -- the men arrested Wednesday for plotting to bomb two New York synagogues -- perhaps weren't the swiftest ships in her majesty's fleet. But over the weekend, people close to the four came forward to describe how the government informant at the center of the case against them -- the man known to the suspects as Maqsood -- aggressively courted the men before luring them into an imagined jihad.
Here's what the New York Daily News, Post, and Times reported about how "Maqsood" (identified as a Pakistani immigrant named Shahed Hussain) won the men's loyalty:
Kathleen Baynes, the girlfriend of James Cromitie, described as the plot's ringleader, said Maqsood had given Cromitie cash, food, cameras, rent money, and marijuana. "Maqsood gave him a lot of marijuana," she said, adding: "Whenever we needed anything, Maqsood would help -- like financially -- he gave us money to pay rent." She also said Maqsood offered Cromitie $25,000 to join him, and promised a black Mercedes. And she said a friend told her Cromitie had said he was going to be getting $50,000.
Baynes also said that Maqsood aggressively kept after Cromitie. "Maqsood would keep ringing our doorbell, and James would hide behind the sofa." She continued: "He was very persistent, and every time he came for James, he took him away. They said they were going out to eat dinner." And: "He was just constantly around. It was like he was stalking him."
Elizabeth McWilliams, the mother of another of the accused plotters, David Wiliams, said that Maqsood had promised to help pay medical bills for Williams' sick brother, whom he had returned to Newburgh to help care for. "Maqsood said, 'Don't worry, brother, I am going to help with your brother's hospital bills.' This man did nothing but set these guys up."
Maqsood also preyed on some of the other young men at the mosque. He asked one out for lunch, offered another a job, and offered a third cellphones and computers. Many members of the mosque correctly suspected that Maqsood was a government informant.
Nor was the Newburgh mosque the location of his first attempt to find some would-be Jihadis. He had first appeared, in 2007, at a mosque in nearby Wappingers Falls, bragging about his real estate business and properties, and driving a black Mercedes. The former treasurer of that mosque said Maqsood asked him three times for the mosque's list of members, saying he wanted to approach potential customers, but was rebuffed.
And of course, this wasn't the first sting that Maqsood has engineered. A few years ago, he posed as an arms dealer who had sold a shoulder-launched missile to be used to kill a Pakistani envoy. Two Albany men, Mohammed Hossain and Yassin Aref, helped him launder money from the supposed sale, and were convicted and sentenced to fifteen years in prison.
Let's be clear about what all this might and might not add up to. If these men were willing to go through with planting what they believed to be deadly bombs -- as they appear to have been -- then they should be charged, and, if convicted, sentenced to jail-time. (Their lawyers, of course, will likely claim entrapment, and it'll be up to a judge and jury to weigh that claim after hearing all the evidence.)
But the emerging evidence that "Maqsood" aggressively targeted these men, and may have convinced them to participate in the plot only by offering them money and gifts, raises a different question: is pursuing "plots" that may well never have existed in the first place were it not for the work of a government informant, really the most effective way for the federal government to spend its finite terror-fighting resources?
We plan to have more on that question later today.

















This says more about the FBI than it does the Newburgh 4.
I thought the FBI was supposed to be non-partisan. Not a tool for the Right Wingnutz. I mean really - what really was the point here?
May 25, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wikipedia says:
It is illegal to commit a crime. In many cases it is illegal to plan to commit a crime. It is not illegal to be willing to commit a crime. This appears to be a pretty clear cut case of some FBI agents more interested in scoring a high profile arrest than performing real police work teaming up with a confidential informant whose only value seems to be in manipulating and deceiving those of limited intelligence.
There is no way that these men should be tried let alone convicted. Never mind what has every appearance of being cut and dry entrapment, how about providing them with their constitutionally guaranteed competent representation? I haven't been following this carefully enough to know whether or not they waived their right to counsel (and if so, under what circumstances). But how on Earth are they making statements to a judge like "before I planted what I thought were explosive devices with the intent of blowing up a building I smoked a crap ton of marijuana"?
May 25, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a matter of degree. A judge or jury will decide whether it is "entrapment". If the crime was pushed on the suspects, rather than merely enticed, it is entrapment. But it's not always clear cut.
May 25, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The CI provided the money, the explosives and the drugs. I would be very surprised if he didn't provide the plan as well. Cromitie is ringleader in name only.
The FBI's CI was going around to mosques (profiling, anyone?) asking for lists of members (how many ways is that improper?) providing food, money, drugs and promises of more to the disaffected among these communities, seeking out those who could be enticed into committing a heinous crime. This is not how legitimate police investigations are conducted. This is how suicide bombers and jihadist foot soldiers are recruited.
The best case scenario is that the FBI's CI is a cowboy, running around trying to beat some potential terrorists out of the brush because he craves the money/excitement/attention. Another highly likely possibility is the FBI agents are lazy/incompetent and used threat of prosecution to induce the CI into framing some shmucks into playing a small yet indictable role in a fabricated "terror plot".
Without the CI coaxing these jokers along, would they have had the motivation, connections, resources or ability to pull off this attack? I think not. They would have been too busy scraping together money to pay for rent and weed.
No terrorist plot was foiled. All the FBI has done is demonstrate the ease with which motivated individuals can induce hapless Americans to execute terrorist attacks.
May 25, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
After reading this... and having read numerous similar setups during the past few years, I have come to a realization.
Our law enforcement agencies are getting so much taxpayer funding that they are now able to utilize it to both STOP crime and PROMOTE crime!
I can see the funding cycle now:
The local sheriff stands up in front of the Board of Supervisors during the funding hearings telling them how crime is up 10% and more funding is needed for extra officers. Meanwhile, 10% of the last budget was spent promoting sting operations to get crime and prosecutions up in order to justify more funding...
The federal scenario was just given by Zachary above...
Of course the criminal leaders are never brought to justice because THEY are our own government officials... and above the law. IMHO
May 25, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I the only one who is reminded of a third rate imitation Cheech and Chong movie?
May 25, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
HSA has a billions-of-dollar budget.
Every administrator knows you always need more.
HSA absolutely HAS to "show results." That means arrests, conspiracies, kangaroo courts, etc...
Eventually they're gonna bring death penalty charges against some poor group of mopes.
Think "show trials..."
May 25, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if you give me: weed, whites, and wine
and you show me a sign
I'll be willin', to be movin'
"Willin' (Little Feat)
May 25, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
sort of like the fireman who starts fires so he can put them out?
May 25, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Entrapment for political gain. Every bit as incompetently played out as the fake war that was ginned up from the beginning.
Enjoy.
May 25, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Manufactured Crime, again.
The "informant" as the ring-leader, financier, and illegal drug supplier needs to face charges. Where did the money come from to support this?
It's one thing to go along with a plot and feed info to the FBI. It's another thing to instigate and drive the plot.
But it is interesting that the FBI let it go all the way to its fake conclusion. They must be desperate.
May 25, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
How does an FBI agent get the weed to give away? That would be FBI Illicit Substance Requisition Form 420.
May 26, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
This kind of thing went on all the time in under the Soviet system. Show trials, with the defendants supplied by state-paid informants. Look into the Stasi files - the same deal applies.
In other words, the FBI (Federal Bureau of Informants, or is it Incompetence, or is it Intimidation?) is primarily driven by political agendas, with the main issue appearing to be the public image of the FBI, which plays a role in determining the prestige and funding levels of the FBI.
As a politically motivated force, they know how to curry favor - and that means covering up some crimes (i.e. the anthrax attacks), hiding their incompetence (i.e. the pre-9/11 'communication problems'), and using informants to entrap people for the purpose of conducting show trials to legitimatize their budget and behavior.
Recall the 'eco-terrorists', for example? Same deal. That one was just an effort to paint anyone who disagreed with the right of international corporations to pollute one's backyard as a wild-eyed maniac.
That's who the FBI works for - Wall Street, big corporations, and the entrenched politicians who control their budget. The FBI head honchos wouldn't even OK a FISA warrant for a search of Z.M.'s laptop in summer 2001, recall? Plus, there is no way Bruce Ivins carried out the anthrax attacks.
The FBI has about as much credibility as the East German Stasi, in other words. They need to fire Robert Muller and get some new faces in there who aren't tainted by the decisions of the past decade.
May 28, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is much better to have a plant Automobile set out to attract Car Thieves than to have either your car or my car stolen.
Attracting is not forcing. I you're weak you're
weak.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
June 2, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink