Entrapment

No, I’m not referring to the film with Catherine Zeta-Jones and Sean Connery. Rather I’m referring to what the Oxford English Dictionary defines as:

“The action of entrapping; the condition of being entrapped or caught by artifice.”

Something I suspect that august body the Federal Bureau of Investigation of being guilty of.

Those of you  who keep an eye on the international press may have noticed yesterday that the Americans were taking a break from rehearsing Carry On Mr President – sorry, the Republican primaries – and were instead jumping up and down and praising the FBI for stopping a potential terrorist attack on Washington DC. A Moroccan immigrant named Amine El Khalifi was caught heading towards the Capitol Building with a load of explosives. He was duly arrested and hustled away to be charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction against US property. Well done the FBI, you’ve caught another terrorist.

Or have they?

‘No’ is the answer. For one thing Mr Khalifi didn’t have any explosives. At least not any that worked. His big old suicide vest contained explosives already rendered harmless. The gun he had also didn’t work. Was this because Al-Qaeda is getting sloppy now that they are comparatively leaderless? No. It was because Mr Khalifi was not connected with Al-Qaeda at all. What had actually happened was that a group of FBI agents pretending to be Al-Qaeda operatives had approached him and asked him nicely if he would be interesting in engaging some acts of terrorism. All so they could arrest him. Now apparently he had already been under investigation for over a year. But…

Does that stink to anyone else?

 I know I’m running the risk of sounding like a supporter of terrorism and Islamic extremism but once again here is an example of a country – that purports to value freedom above all else – bending the law in order to suit its own ends. Yes he was under investigation, but to my knowledge Mr Khalifi had neither broken any laws – other they overstaying his visa by something like twelve years – nor was actually connected with any genuine agents of Al-Qaeda. I can just imagine the conversation at FBI headquarters.

“We have to do something about this guy.

“Why?”

“Why? He’s a terrorist.”

“But he hasn’t done anything that suggests that. We’ve been watching him for over a year.”

“What if we set him up? Provided him the means and then arrested him?”

 “Wouldn’t that be illegal?”

“Hmm. Nah don’t think so.”

Civilised societies cannot act like this. Not if they want other nations to take them seriously. If the FBI could provide some evidence that Khalifi had actually been in contact with Al-Qaeda at some point and thus argued that its actions were preventative, or even waited until he had actually been contacted by Al-Qaeda that would have been fine and within the bounds of the law. But they didn't. And apparently this isn't the first time. Stings like this are apparently the standard strategy for dealing with "potential" terrorists.

So now Mr Khalifi is facing life imprisonment for something he wouldn't have done had the US Government not provided him with the opportuinity. I can only hope he has a good defence lawyer.

That won't matter in the end of course. A dangerous terrorist is off the streets and I'm sure the FBI and the US Government will argue that the ends justify the means. That's what they said about Guantanamo Bay and the water boarding.

Unfortunatly none of that will be any comfort to the flasely imprisoned Amine El Khalifi.