Academic

L.A. Times op-ed on the Mohamud case

By Tung Yin

The Los Angeles Times has a pretty sensible op-ed in today's paper on the Mohamud case and entrapment claims.  Here's the key conclusion:

If the government's recitation of facts in the Mohamud case is to be believed, [Attorney General Eric] Holder is on solid ground.  Although the word "entrapment" is often used synonymously with "sting operation," entrapment in the legal sense occurs when police induce someone to engage in a crime he otherwise would not have committed.  According to the FBI, Mohamud indicated his intention to kill Americans, identified the target and refused to change his mind when he was reminded that children would be harmed in an explosion.

It would be appalling, and illegal, for the FBI to try to tempt Muslims who have shown no propensity to violence to engage in terrorist operations.  Besides being insensitive to constitutional rights, such a strategy would be a waste of law enforcement resources.  Holder insists that the FBI is engaged in something different: pretending to help suspects plot acts of terrorism only after they have indicated their desire to commit a violent crime. So long as the government abides by that distinction, sting operations are a legitimate tool in combating terrorism.

Full post as published by The Yin Blog on December 16, 2010 (boomark / email).