Entrapment or saving us from terrorism?

[snowy]

This is a question I've had for a couple weeks now, ever since the FBI arrested Mohamed Mohamud for an attempted bombing at Pioneer Courthouse Square in Portland (read more here: FBI thwarts terrorist bombing attempt at Portland holiday tree lighting, authorities say | OregonLive.com). For those who don't know, Mohamed Mohamud was a sometimes student at the university I graduated from, so this story is very close to home, and it has been kind of surreal to have this all going on in my own backyard. It's also strange to have people overreact and declare that everyone at the treelighting could have died--um, no, they couldn't have, the bomb was a fake. I've had a lot of problems with the language used in the media to describe this case; take the article I posted above. The headline is "FBI thwarts terrorist bombing attempt at Portland holiday tree lighting, authorities say"--in my mind, the FBI didn't thwart anything; they gave a guy a fake bomb, after all.

There was a piece in the NYTimes wherein AG Holder says that these kinds of stings are necessary to protect the American people from terrorism.

Holder Tells Muslim Group Stings Are ‘Essential’
By MALIA WOLLAN and CHARLIE SAVAGE

MILLBRAE, Calif. — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. defended the use of sting operations orchestrated by government informants, telling advocates for Muslim-American civil rights in remarks on Friday night that the tactic is an “essential law enforcement tool in uncovering and preventing terror attacks.”

In a 20-minute speech delivered in this suburb of San Francisco at the annual dinner of Muslim Advocates, a national legal advocacy and civil-rights organization, Mr. Holder rejected criticism by such groups that sting operations amount to improper “entrapment.”   click to show 

About 300 Muslim community leaders from around the United States attended the dinner. Having a United States attorney general speak at such an event was unprecedented, the group’s president, Farhana Khera, said in an interview earlier on Friday.

Mr. Holder was given a standing ovation as he took the stage, and many applauded during his speech. But the room fell silent for several minutes while Mr. Holder defended the sting operation in an Oregon bombing attempt last month, calling it a “successful undercover operation” and not a case of entrapment. Those who think otherwise, he said, “simply do not have their facts straight.”

Ms. Khera said the group had invited the attorney general several months ago. She portrayed the Muslim-American community as torn by a mistrust of law enforcement because of what it sees as intrusive surveillance and harassment — like sending informants into mosques — and by its concerns about anti-Muslim hate crimes.

Mr. Holder said the cooperation of Muslim-Americans had been essential in preventing terrorist attacks. He said that the Justice Department was focusing on “violence, threats, vandalism and arson against Muslims and Arab-Americans,” and that in the last fiscal year federal prosecutors won convictions of more hate-crime defendants than any year but 2000.

“I believe that law enforcement has an obligation to ensure that members of every religious community enjoy the ability to worship and to practice their faith in peace, free from intimidation, violence or suspicion,” Mr. Holder said.

But he also rejected criticism of some counterterrorism techniques used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including sending informants into mosques in search of would-be terrorists and creating elaborate sting operations enabling them to carry out fake attacks using dummy bombs.

Ms. Khera emphasized that Muslim Advocates recognized that “there are actual threats that do exist and as Americans who care about the country, we want law enforcement to be effective.”

But the complex “entrapment operations,” she contended, may be getting people involved in terrorism who otherwise would not have done anything. She also argued that the operations divert investigators from “actual threats” and stoke “anti-Muslim sentiment.”

At a reception after the speech, many in the audience voiced their gratitude for Mr. Holder’s presence, saying it would help rebuild trust between U.S. law enforcement and Muslims. “This is a positive step toward engaging a vital community and perhaps one of the most important partners in combating extremism and terrorism in America,” said Wajahat Ali, 30, a lawyer and playwright from Fremont, Calif. “He said exactly what needed to be said. Now those words need to be translated into action.”

In his remarks, Mr. Holder said that stings had been used for decades against many types of crimes. And he defended the investigation last month in Portland, Ore., in which a young Somali-American man, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, was arrested after law enforcement agents said he tried to trigger what he thought was a car bomb at a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony.

“I make no apologies for the how the F.B.I. agents handled their work in executing the operation that led to Mr. Mohamud’s arrest,” Mr. Holder said. “Their efforts helped to identify a person who repeatedly expressed his desire and intention to kill innocent Americans.”

He added: “But you also have my word that the Justice Department will — just as vigorously — continue to pursue anyone who would target Muslims, or their houses of worship.”

Despite the attorney general’s reassurances, some in attendance were deeply concerned by the federal government’s ongoing undercover sting operations.

“I grew up during the civil rights era and I’m aware how the civil rights community was infiltrated by provocateurs and agents who sought to undermine the legitimate struggles of the movement,” said Abu Qadir Al-Amin, 60, an African-American imam from Vallejo, Calif. “So my antennae are up and I try to educate the Muslim community so that they don’t put themselves in a vulnerable position if someone comes along suggesting they do something illegal.”

What do you think? I'm posting this here in GD because I really don't see this as a political issue. I am bothered by it because I am asking myself: if he hadn't had help and encouragement from the FBI, would Mohamed Mohamud have tried to carry out these actions on his own? I have my doubts about that. I don't think these kinds of stings are necessary to protect American citizens. I think it's a waste of law enforcement resources, and as I've seen in my own community, actions like this create animosity towards Muslims. They do nothing to build understanding across faiths, which I think is something that could benefit everyone and do more to stop terrorism than "stings" that stink of entrapment.

Share your thoughts, but please remember, this is not in Politics for a reason.

[Fotzlid]

If the FBI was actively pushing/encouraging this person to do this, then thats wrong.
If the FBI merely gave him the opportunity and he ran with it, then the FBI did a good job.

[dlish]

from what i read a few weeks ago, the FBI put a mole into the mosque. He then went about his work encouraging this guy (and others?) to violent jihad and egged this guy on by providing him with the resources to potentially carryout an attack. i dont know how long this went on for.

if the FBI put the thought in his head, then i think its entrapment. If they are creating dramas to keep themselves in a job and to look like they're doing a good job by protecting the citizens of oregon, then i think the FBI has a case to answer for. I just ownder how many seeds they planed before they got a bite. i wonder what those guys that didnt get arrested are thinking.

On the other hand if the FBI had previous information and then set up the sting, i see no issues with the arrest and deserves the full force of the law.

---------- Post added at 03:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 AM ----------

snowy, did you go the the cross culture vigil held at the mosque after the fire by any chance?

[snowy]

Originally Posted by dlish

snowy, did you go the the cross culture vigil held at the mosque after the fire by any chance?

Yes, I did. My community is very upset by the fire at the mosque. There was quite a turnout for it. Originally, the plan had been to make a circle of light around the mosque, but so many people showed up that they had to make a circle around the entire block, which was still several people deep in some spots.

[roachboy]

there are a bunch of questions at the least about this.

first, it's inevitably a political matter because what you make of the fbi actions has everything to do with what you make of this "war on terror" charade. kinda on the same order as what you make of the bombings in yemen. if you're inclined to see the "war on terror" as a legitimate rationale for action, then if you problems with holder's statement of this morning (and what they're about), they're likely to be more narrow than they would be if you don't see the "war on terror" as legitimate.

i'm inclined toward the second position.

from the narrower perspective, the obvious question is whether this is or is not entrapment.
which would make of it the kind of thing that happens all the time in, say, cocaine interdiction efforts where small-time dealers (typically) are set up in "sting" operations that walk the same kind of line---because once you're stung, questions of whether you were a legit target (following on some profile or another presumably) drop away behind the fact of being-stung, and the argument shifts away from whether the operation as a whole is a Problem and onto whether in particular situation x the cops went too far in setting up the conditions that enabled the outcome.
i think this kind of proactive operation from the cops or fbi are bound to be problems for that reason, even if you accept arguments about their utility (i don't in the main) and legality (which seems to me questionable, but i'm not an expert).

but this is the narrower set of problems.
there's a bigger one with the de facto criminalization---or at least bringing-under-suspicion---of folk who fit a particular racial profile and happen to be muslim in the states. and the statement holder made is pretty bush-worthy in it's vagueness.

but that'd be political.

i seem to have restated the op. ah well.

i read this article in the washington post about the same thing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2010121007763

which highlights several other...um...ambiguities about holder's line. like whether this "reaching out to the muslim community" business actually exists. commentary in the article from folk who are closer than i to the matter.

[Nepenthes]

When someone reports to the police that they know someone is looking for a hitman, the police setup a sting. People are convicted by making the deal with the undercover cop "hitman."


This is an example that I would use to explain the FBI's actions based on what I have read about this story. The guy was willing to commit an act of terror or horrific crime (depending on your political view) and was caught before it could take place.

I hope that the FBI/law enforcement continues to protect us in this way.

I'll vote "save us from terrorism."

[dlish]

from another angle...

you're standing at the box office waiting to purchase your tickets for the knicks game.

psssst! comes the call......some guy calls you over

..hey whats up you reply


you want to buy some tickets to the game?

no thanks...im taking my son to the game and we're still in line

yoo bad dude, you could have saved yourself 50% on costs

no thanks

well think about it..if you want them you can have them right now and you can get out of the cold

yeah..sure..ok how much...as you pull out your wallet

YOUR UNDER ARREST ASSHOLE!

entrapment? is it fair? i dunno.. you decide

[Fotzlid]

Not really another angle. The person in line had the intent of buying the tickets.

It would be another matter if the seller harassed/harangued/peer pressure the first guy into buying the tickets.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Nepenthes

When someone reports to the police that they know someone is looking for a hitman, the police setup a sting. People are convicted by making the deal with the undercover cop "hitman."


This is an example that I would use to explain the FBI's actions based on what I have read about this story. The guy was willing to commit an act of terror or horrific crime (depending on your political view) and was caught before it could take place.

I hope that the FBI/law enforcement continues to protect us in this way.

I'll vote "save us from terrorism."

this is a craptastic cowardly way of thinking. What the FBI did was find someone who THOUGHT an attack would be a good thing, but had no intention of finding a device to utilize until the FBI facilitated it.

If 'thought crimes' are your thing, then you're in the majority of the sheeple of this country.

[KirStang]

Depends. You really have to read the trial transcript to see whether the individual in question was predisposed towards blowing Americans up, or, if it was planted there by the FBI.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by KirStang

Depends. You really have to read the trial transcript to see whether the individual in question was predisposed towards blowing Americans up, or, if it was planted there by the FBI.

oh bullshit. in case you haven't been paying attention the last decade, the government fucking lies. LIES!!!!!!!. It does whatever it needs to in order to bolster it's argument to the general public. So if you choose to believe the crap that they spew, more power to your sheeple mindset, but all you're doing is furthering the cause of totalitarianism.

[KirStang]

Yea...the government lies...doesn't mean I need a tinfoil hat, either.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by KirStang

Yea...the government lies...doesn't mean I need a tinfoil hat, either.

please. are you trying to say that 'yes, the government lies, but they lie less than the people so i'll believe them more?

come on.

[KirStang]

No, I'm trying to say that 'truth' and 'justice' are not black and white, and while I despise government overreaching and government misconduct, neither you nor I are in the position to say that the government entrapped this kid in this case.

In addition, invocations of 'The Government Lies!' doesn't automatically make this a case of entrapment.

Do you know how much 'egging on' really happened in this case? Was this a case of, 'here's a bomb, let's sit back and see what ya do with it kid?' or one where law enforcement kept on telling the kid to blow shit up even when the kid expressed reservation?

There's a reason why depositions and interviews and discoveries take not hours, not days, but months--it's to bring forth relevant factors like the above to light. Again, as shitty as the government and populace may be, no one can definitively say it was entrapment until they actually see all the evidence.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by KirStang

No, I'm trying to say that 'truth' and 'justice' are not black and white, and while I despise government overreaching and government misconduct, neither you nor I are in the position to say that the government entrapped this kid in this case.

In addition, invocations of 'The Government Lies!' doesn't automatically make this a case of entrapment.

you and I are EXACTLY in the position to say whether they entrapped this kid or not. YOU AND I are the sovereign rulers of this country, that is if some of us would actually have the balls to step up and be there.

Originally Posted by KirStang

Do you know how much 'egging on' really happened in this case? Was this a case of, 'here's a bomb, let's sit back and see what ya do with it kid?' or one where law enforcement kept on telling the kid to blow shit up even when the kid expressed reservation?

There's a reason why depositions and interviews and discoveries take not hours, not days, but months--it's to bring forth relevant factors like the above to light. Again, as shitty as the government and populace may be, no one can definitively say it was entrapment until they actually see all the evidence.

if all this kid has is THOUGHTS of wanting to blow up alot of people, he committed no crime at all. by all accounts, it wasn't until an FBI agent offered him the opportunity, that he crossed the line, so where does that place the FBI???????

[Nepenthes]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

if all this kid has is THOUGHTS of wanting to blow up alot of people, he committed no crime at all.

I agree, but that is not where it stopped. He took action to follow through on those thoughts. Do you disagree?

[Manic_Skafe]

[mixedmedia]

I can't help but wonder how efficient a use of time it is to write the stories of potential terrorist attacks, make them happen and then swoop in to make arrests when it's probably not a stretch to imagine that there are plenty of folks planning terrorist attacks without the FBI's help.

[Xerxys]

I'm pretty sure the delinquent would have gone through with it with or without the FBI's help ala VA Tech style or something similar.

All this disdain towards the feds is misdirected. People constantly complain. Why weren't the terrorist plans foiled?? They then complain when they were. I don't understand you people.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Nepenthes

I agree, but that is not where it stopped. He took action to follow through on those thoughts. Do you disagree?

he was able to take actions because of??????????

[Nepenthes]

You agree that that he took action to detonate a bomb that he thought would have killed people. If the guys who sold him the bomb were not the FBI and actual terrorists, what do you think would have happend?

This a technique used by law enforcement officials to catch people before real action kills people.

It is my understanding that we disagree on whether this strategy should be used or not by law enforcement. Do you have another practical solution that could be used instead of this technique that would be equally effective?

[flat5]

Hey kid! You want to kill a lot of people? Yeah, ok.

He then follows through. Put him away until he is safe to play with others.

[ASU2003]

Is this just like the police playing undercover prostitutes, drug dealers, and underage kids on-line? The cops play a role, the criminal comes to them to make it happen.

I would say it is entrapment if the FBI said, "do this or someone else will", or "do this or I'll kill your family".

[Ourcrazymodern?]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

he was able to take actions because of??????????

Yeah, it seems not having something to arrest him for before providing him the means to be arrested is questionable. If he would have acted on his thoughts without their input, they should have only watched until he did. If they had, there'd have been no question of entrapment to sully their quest to save us from terrorism. I think they crossed a clear line by getting involved before anything actionable happened.

[roachboy]

the more i think about it the more difficulty i have not seeing this as entrapment.

i am on my way out, but would be curious if someone could explain exactly what the legal definition of entrapment is....i have a dilletante's idea of it.

[Nepenthes]

In criminal law, entrapment is constituted by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informant or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person (see sting operation). So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

[Cynthetiq]

NYC does not have anti-entrapment laws.

If a person driving stops to ask someone directions and that person is an undercover hooker, they can and have arrested people for solicitation. As they defend the position that it is about opportunity and it was given and the person took the opportunity.

[KirStang]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

NYC does not have anti-entrapment laws.

If a person driving stops to ask someone directions and that person is an undercover hooker, they can and have arrested people for solicitation. As they defend the position that it is about opportunity and it was given and the person took the opportunity.

Does it not? Usually, even if entrapment is not a law on the statute books, it's available through the common law. I would be surprised if the NY Courts completely abolished the defense of entrapment.

Oh and...I thought you guys all knew the legal defense of entrapment. Here I was making my case wondering why people didn't understand what I was saying.

---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

Yep:

Oregon Statute Regarding Entrapment

(1) The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because the actor was induced to do so by a law enforcement official, or by a person acting in cooperation with a law enforcement official, for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used against the actor in a criminal prosecution.

(2) As used in this section, “induced” means that the actor did not contemplate and would not otherwise have engaged in the proscribed conduct. Merely affording the actor an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment. [1971 c.743 §35]

Other interpretations:

(a) Subjective Theory: That if the individual can show some form of 'inducement' by the government, then the government must show predisposition towards committing the crime (i.e. previous criminal record, initiating contact, etc.) to overcome the entrapment defense.

(b) Objective Theory: That entrapment is a deterrence to law enforcement wrongdoing (much like 4th Amendment remedies) and thus, if there is any evidence of LEO inducement, entrapment operates as a complete defense.

Etc. etc.

Like I said, I want to see all statements made by all parties involved. I would not rush to conclusions.

[Cynthetiq]

They try to use it as a defense and it usually fails. It is up to the judge to determine if there was entrapment. Usually the judge tends to side with the police in NY.

In CA the standards are different where there are laws on the books that prohibit or define certain kinds of situations that constitute entrapment.

Official conduct that constitutes entrapment under California law-


* pressure (examples include appealing to your sense of friendship/compassion or offering an enormous amount of compensation for committing the crime)


* harassment or threats (repeated and unwavering solicitation of the activity)


* fraud (promises that the suggested conduct is legal)


Example:

Your younger brother, a high school student, begins asking you for marijuana so that he can sell it to a new friend (who, unbeknownst to either of you is a "narc"). You are not a marijuana user or dealer, nor do you use or sell any other drugs. You tell him no.

Your brother persists in asking you for marijuana, as the undercover officer continues pressuring him to get some. Finally, out of sympathy for your brother (who is having difficulty making friends at school), you agree to try to get some and are ultimately able to do so.

When charged with California Health and Safety Code 11359 possessing marijuana for sale, you are justified in raising California entrapment as a defense.13 Even though your brother was unaware that he was working as an agent for the police, the conduct of both the officer and your troubled brother were such that you committed a crime you had no intention of otherwise committing, motivated solely by sympathy.

California criminal defense lawyers explain "entrapment" laws

[debaser]

I do not have the facts to judge whether this is entrapment, but I do know that this kid pushed a button on a cell phone thinking that it would kill or maim hundreds of people. That rises above the level of a thought crime IMHO.

[Fire]

If he hit the button, thinking he was going to kill people through this action, then he is guilty and its not entrapment by any means.... If he never got to that point, then its questionable, based IMHO, which is certainly not a legal opinion mind you, on how far he went.....

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Nepenthes

You agree that that he took action to detonate a bomb that he thought would have killed people. If the guys who sold him the bomb were not the FBI and actual terrorists, what do you think would have happend?

This a technique used by law enforcement officials to catch people before real action kills people.

It is my understanding that we disagree on whether this strategy should be used or not by law enforcement. Do you have another practical solution that could be used instead of this technique that would be equally effective?

all you are doing is advocating law enforcement to entrap and entice people in to committing a crime, someone who might NOT have done otherwise had they not been afforded the means to do so.

---------- Post added at 07:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 AM ----------

Originally Posted by ASU2003

Is this just like the police playing undercover prostitutes, drug dealers, and underage kids on-line? The cops play a role, the criminal comes to them to make it happen.

I would say it is entrapment if the FBI said, "do this or someone else will", or "do this or I'll kill your family".

that is not entrapment, that is coercion or extortion.

---------- Post added at 07:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:10 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Nepenthes

In criminal law, entrapment is constituted by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informant or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person (see sting operation). So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

Source: Entrapment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

can i safely assume that these definitions come from actual court cases?

[Nepenthes]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

all you are doing is advocating law enforcement to entrap and entice people in to committing a crime, someone who might NOT have done otherwise had they not been afforded the means to do so.

I am advocating the use of legal sting operations. If you simply make a fake bomb available to someone that is searching for a bomb to use, do you consider it to be enticement into action? I do not, but this may be a point where we disagree.

For example, I hope terrorists do not get their hands on nuclear material. I want it to be especially difficult for terrorists to trust anyone with nuclear material for sale. This should make it more difficult to source (i.e. limit their means to action) and to identify those that wish to obtain nuclear material illegally. I see sting operations as a key strategy to use in this case. The goal is to deter terrorists from taking action.

I am using the definition for entrapment that I found online for the sake of this discussion. I have not gone any further than a quick google search.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Nepenthes

I am advocating the use of legal sting operations.

you are advocating for the ability of the government to create criminals because of their thoughts.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

you are advocating for the ability of the government to create criminals because of their thoughts.

thoughts? but there is ACTION after the thought.

I don't advocate thought crimes and I don't see that someone thinking of killing someone is an actionable offense. I do see that once they cross the boundary of thinking about it and into the realm of ACTING upon it. Acting upon it is seeking out resources and methods to execute the action. Reading materials about resources and methods still is in the realm of thinking about it. Actually securing the items you need to execute? That's beyond thought. You don't agree?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

thoughts? but there is ACTION after the thought.

I don't advocate thought crimes and I don't see that someone thinking of killing someone is an actionable offense. I do see that once they cross the boundary of thinking about it and into the realm of ACTING upon it. Acting upon it is seeking out resources and methods to execute the action. Reading materials about resources and methods still is in the realm of thinking about it. Actually securing the items you need to execute? That's beyond thought. You don't agree?

who is providing the tools for that person to act on their thoughts? If the government never 'assisted' or provided the items necessary, the individual might NEVER have acted on their thoughts of committing a crime.

I repeat, the GOVERNMENT provided the items for this individual to attempt his attack.

[mixedmedia]

The Associated Press: Teen arrested in Oregon car bomb plot led 2 lives

After reading this fairly dry AP recounting of the story, I am left (still) with the conclusion that 'fighting terrorism' in this way is just an exercise and that it doesn't make us safer. Not every person who becomes radicalized is going to be a threat. After all, we have plenty of radicalized white people in this country, too. What's more, they've known about the guy for years apparently and could have simply continued to monitor him. It seems to me that, rather than a legitimate effort to waylay danger, this operation has simply been an opportunity to make a showy arrest on terrorism charges near the holidays. Yay, I feel so much safer.

[Baraka_Guru]

I wonder how much of this stems from being guilty of "worshiping while brown."

I mean, you follow and prod young American Muslims and it's just a matter of time before you find a radical. It's more or less the practice of weeding out the alienated youth of American Muslim society.

But instead of finding solutions as to why they become alienated or how to reintegrate them into wider society, they find out ways to criminalize them to neutralize them as "potential threats."

[filtherton]

It should be obvious that preventing terrorism by arresting a person who only became a terrorist as a result of your terrorism prevention efforts does't by itself have the net effect of decreasing the number of terrorist attacks.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

who is providing the tools for that person to act on their thoughts? If the government never 'assisted' or provided the items necessary, the individual might NEVER have acted on their thoughts of committing a crime.

I repeat, the GOVERNMENT provided the items for this individual to attempt his attack.

So if the individual was provide the items for this individual to attempt his act it is no longer a crime of thought but one of intent and action?