This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at realfreemarket.org.



Your Ad Here

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Mohamed Osman Mohamud

This story is interesting. The FBI arrested Mohamed Osman Mohamud in Oregon for a bombing plot.

His defense is "The FBI tricked me!" Undercover agents prodded him and provided him with a fake bomb.

This is an important issue. When do the police cross the line from preventing crime to encouraging crime and entrapment? Would he have tried a bomb plot, if he were not encouraged by the FBI?

By "catching" a terrorist, the State police justify their own huge budgets.

Did the FBI trap the defendant? On the other hand, he was dumb enough to fall for it. For example, an undercover policeman probably could not convince me to try something violent.

The police have a monopoly. It doesn't make much difference if they do a great job or have a lot of waste. Even if this investigation/entrapment/arrest was wrong, it doesn't make much difference. The police point this out as evidence "We're doing a great job! Be grateful the State is there to protect you!"

Was Mohamed Osman Mohamud a prospective terrorist that the FBI caught? Was he a fool trapped by the police? On the one hand, the police were too aggressive. On the other hand, he was dumb enough to fall for it.

This is one defect in the current criminal justice system. The FBI has no options to "help" Mohamed Osman Mohamud other than throwing him in jail. It would be nice if there were a way to prevent crime without jailing him. That would be the advantage of compensation-based justice instead of punishment-based justice.

Technically, he didn't injure anyone. It would be nice if there was a less severe way to prevent crime, other than jailing him for the rest of his life.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

The UK government jailed Julian Assange pending an extradition hearing to Sweden. The idiot court thought he was a flight risk despite the fact he voluntarily turned up to the court!!!! Do these idiots have one ounce of brains?

His lawyer commented after the hearing that NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED!

The judge jailed Julian because he had weak community ties to the UK.

What about the principle that someone should only go to jail with CROSS-EXAMINABLE EVIDENCE!!

There was NONE.

When the two woman visited the Swedish police station, they asked for advice on possibly making a complaint, rather than an actual complaint.

WHY?

The Swedish prosecutors put out a bulletin without first GETTING STATEMENTS FROM THE WOMEN!!!!

The Swedes are F*** IDIOTS.

THE TWO WOMAN SHOULD HAVE MADE WRITTEN AND SIGNED STATEMENTS STRAIGHT AWAY.

BUT THEY DID NOT.

THIS TAINTS EVERYTHING.

WITHOUT IMMEDIATE SIGNED AND WRITTEN STATEMENTS THESE PEOPLE CAN EMBELLISH THEIR STORIES ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY THINK WILL BEST SERVE THEIR CAUSES.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE.

Anonymous said...

I forget to mention one of Julian Assange's accusers deleted her twitter account tweets after seeing the Swedish goons.

Is this destroying evidence?

One investigator found the deleted tweets in Google's cache and one another blog.

FREE JULIAN.

Anonymous said...

I heard on United Kingdom television, one lawyer say that it is usual in cases like Julian's that there is no evidence at this stage.

What???

Is this man a fool?

Julian stayed in Sweden 30 - 40 days after the accusation.

Surely taking a couple of written statements and signing them will only take an hour at the most!!!!

But this can't be done in a timescale measured in MONTHS.

Are these people so stupid they can't write something down on a bit of paper, sign it and send it to the UK?

Yet this fool lawyer says it is usual for there to be no evidence at this stage.

HOW HARD CAN IT BE TO WRITE A STATEMENT DOWN ON PAPER AND SIGN IT?

THESE PEOPLE ARE EITHER VERY STUPID AND INCAPABLE OR DISHONEST.

TAKE YOUR PICK.

ARE THEY ILLITERATE?

Anonymous said...

This matter is better described in other places, but I forgot to mention Julian Assange HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING IN SWEDEN.

So he is jailed in London pending possible extradition, without ever being charged with any crimes.

This is surely kafkaesque.

Nice legal loophole for thugs.

Julian waits in Sweden and is given permission to leave. In the UK he is jailed pending extradition, but the Swedish goons refused to speak to him when he was in Sweden.

Of course these nasty goons didn't want to speak with him, because their stupid case might fold under questioning.

What a stitch up!!!

So the thugs just spin things out and wait for the right circumstances to jail him WITHOUT EVIDENCE AND WITHOUT CHARGE.

Anonymous said...

NO RULE OF LAW IN UK AND SWEDEN

I've been doing a little more research into this matter and it seems the scumbag Swedish lawyers refuse to give any written statements to Julian's lawyers about details of the accusations.

THIS IS NOT THE RULE OF LAW.

THIS IS THE RULE OF THE THUG.

Anonymous said...

YouTube paraody video of Julian Assange case - no same person would believe the made-up accusations against him that the stupid prosecution lawyers are too lazy, corrupt and/or stupid to commit to proper signed statement.

This is a typical scum lawyer trick. If the accusations have no detail and are only released via the media, it is difficult to defend against them.

See

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFTe3I3jH8E

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at realfreemarket.org.