|
It *was* a setup, and it *was* a sting operation. That is legal in the US, but it would not be in, say, the Netherlands. If a US court convicts this guy, then that is their right; tough luck for the arms dealer...
However, I doubt this was "just a desperate man". He knowingly supplied (what he believed was) an AA missile to (what he thought were) terrorists willing to blow up an airplane full of innocent people. And yes, he (thought he) knew they would be doing that with his missile. Now, no matter how "desperate" *I* am, I'm still aware of the difference between right and wrong, and would never (ever) do what he did. I'm sure the majority of humans would agree with me on this.
Note: sting operations and setups are also used to catch would-be child rapists. FBI agents pose as young kids, people chat with them, and when they finally meet, they get arrested. This was in fact used to catch a Dutch citizen when he went to the US to meet the "kid" he met online. Again, in the Netherlands, this would be illegal, and it has caused quite a stir here. However, in the US it is legal, and the guy should have known better. Would the use of a sting in this "child-rape" case be any better/worse than the use of a sting in the case of this arms dealer?
As for the US government exploiting this as a sign of continued terrorist threats, I really don't know what to think.
On the one hand, it doesn't really prove that there *are* terrorists who would blow up a plane in the US. It merely shows that the FBI was able to get someone to sell them a missile.
On the other hand, terrorists (and rebel groups all over the world) have tried to blow up civilian planes before, and have sometimes succeeded. There is no reason to believe they would *not* try it in the US. In fact, it is reasonable to assume they *would* try it if they could. The fact that this guy was willing and "able" to supply the weapon would indicate there are other (more professional) people willing and able to do that.
|