Undercover Mounties pushed pressure-cooker bomb plan on accused terror couple, court hears

[shockedcanadian]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/undercover-mounties-pushed-pressure-cooker-bomb-plan-on-accused-terror-couple-court-hears


“The reason I like the pressure-cooker idea is because we know it works, and it’s doable,” said an undercover officer acting as an Islamic extremist in the sophisticated police sting.

Later during the meeting, the officer, who like his colleagues cannot be named or identified by court order, enthusiastically reiterated the message: “I like that idea (using pressure-cooker bombs) … if you had a bunch of those and you decided you actually wanted to use that … if you wanted to put C-4 in that, like holy shit, how much damage would that (cause)…”

If Nuttall didn’t get the message, it was repeated a third time by the cop: “I like the pressure cooker thing a lot. I think it is feasible. It’s exciting. You know you can do it.”

[raging moderate]

1. Well, it wouldn't have worked on me. I think this is a lame excuse.

Canadian Mounties could talk to me forever about bombs without getting me to agree to them. If you don't want to help throw bombs, then don't do it. Just say "No."

[GoneFishin]

2. If your job is to enforce the law then go find law breakers and stop them, don't cultivate them.

[shockedcanadian]

4. Well stated GoneFishin

I will take it a step further. When "creating" these criminals it is a National Security issue in and of itself. Resources (240 police in this case), costs, distraction from REAL threats that succeed or will succeed due to lack of enforcement (a la Ottawa a few months ago); and, harm to our reputation as a democratic country based on basic democratic principles and the rule of law.

[shockedcanadian]

3. Thats you, that isn't the legal definition or standard that is set

As an aside I would never engage in that sort of violence either but you and I aren't the ones charged here. The role of the police is to observe, collect evidence, not become facilitators of the crime. These people were apparently high on drugs most of the time, you, I or anyone could encourage them to say just about anything, look at this exchange from the same article:

“It’s going to take a lot of planning … a year to plan this and build this,” he said.

“A year, holy, that’s…” the corporal said, staggered.

“Starting today, oh yeah,” Nuttall continued. “By this time next year I want to be doing this … maybe sooner, the sooner the better.”

“I thought you wanted to make the pressure cookers?” the officer asked.

“I did, but as a distraction,” Nuttall replied.

You can only imagine what was said between these guys when the recorder were off. He even stated himself "as a distraction" showing that he was probably realizing that his undercover friends really were serious about this, he wanted to back out to some degree. A distraction is certainly not an intent to kill.

What is the basic standard regarding entrapment varies, I have read some very specific explanations in reading Canadian court documents. In a nutshell I look at it this way, if these officers had ZERO interaction with these suspects, would they have considered or went forward with a crime? That is the basic intention of the law. The FBI are particularly careful about this issue, it is why when I heard initially about this arrest and the FBI being involved it lead me to think that this was an absolute case; now I am not so sure. I have read of cases where the FBI themselves have dropped terrorism charges after hearing the audio of the investigation as they said their agent had crossed the line of entrapment.

[RedSock]

5. RCMP clearly taking lessons from the FBI

1. Entrap susceptible people; provide bomb instructions, bomb components, logistics, money, etc.
2. Make arrests
3. Boast about how you stopped an evil terrorist plot
4. Profit

[shockedcanadian]

6. The courts in the U.S are much clearer regarding entrapment

I think the FBI and CIA are more strict in their controls. There is far more scrutiny in the U.S regarding activities against Americans on American soil, and, the courts have shown a willingness to shoot down tactics as unconstitutional and/or inadmissible. I would like to see more scrutiny in Canada, especially in regards to how invasive CSIS and the RCMP become in the lives of their citizens. Consider if you will how major an issue Civil Liberties are in the elections and debates in the U.S compared to Canada. Have you seen the oversight of the RCMP and CSIS? Non-existent. We are far behind our allies in the West, including England and others. Do the work needed against legitimate threats and criminals of course, don't lower the threshold and jeopardize basic principles of democracy.

The "Mr. Big" tactic which the RCMP employed was shot down in U.S courts as I recall, though a more recent use of it was accepted. Many were upset at this as it has been considered entrapment, more accurately there is a risk of false confessions by those who may not have committed a crime.

In New York a year or two ago the FBI called NYPD methods "not helpful" when they were looking at the investigation of so-called radical Islamists, this after the CIA disregarded an entire investigation of Muslims in a joint operation with the NYPD for a full year, essentially telling the NYPD that there wasn't a case to investigate any suspects (and an undercover informant suggested the NYPD were paying him to generate threats within that community). The FBI threw out a case last year against a Canadian when they considered the tactics of the FBI agent entrapment (as I alluded to above).

If anything, in the history of playing fast and loose with the laws of the land, I think the RCMP (and it's offshoot CSIS) get away with a lot more with far less eyes watching (and reporting). I am fully supportive of good security work, especially against organized crime, state spying and corporate theft, foreign crime networks etc. Even more impressive would be Federal investigations and successes against other rogue security agencies. The charges against the OPP union is an example of the RCMP doing good work against very bad apples who are essentially on the same team. The FBI actively investigate and charge bad cops in municipalities. I applaud these activities and it protects regular citizens from major abuses that would otherwise go unenforced.

I don't know just how serious these two were in this case. From a lot of the reporting it can seem to be opportunists making business for themselves against some unbalanced people. Once the ball gets rolling and another country is involved, there is no way they are going to back down from making their case. 240 Officers working on this case and Bob Paulson is complaining about resources? Seems quite an excessive use of personnel don't you think?

[CanSocDem]

7. As far back as the 60's, the mounties were...

...suspect. When they declared the Quebec nationalist party a terrorist organization they got right to work, infiltrating, organizing and promoting acts of social unrest.

And I'm pretty sure they used explosives to discredit critics of the oil industry in Alberta.



http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4620

Take a relatively under-educated 'bully', give them a fancy uniform and a gun and they will do whatever you want. A couple of my childhood friends, 'enforcers' on our hockey team went on to become mounties. We're all retired now, but the chances of getting back together are quite slim.


.