Iran plots to kill Saudi Ambassador on U.S soil

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:54 am

Just saw this on the news

Iranians Charged Over Terror Plot In U.S. | Fox News

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:25 pm

okay lets see here....."The two are charged with conspiracy to kill a foreign official,"

yeah okay they were alledgedly going to kill someone ...full stop ...........okay we get that .

"conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction and conspiracy to commit an act of international terrorism and other charges."

WTF????? where the hell does terrorism come into it??? what effing 'weapon of mass destruction'?????

Read more: U.S. Ties Iran To Assassination Plot Against Saudi Diplomat On U.S. Soil | Fox News

Post by **spot** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:58 pm

In no other country but the US would this sort of twaddle get to a courtroom. It's a pro-active sting.

You start with mass surveillance of the country, requests to all honest citizens to phone in their concerns about swarthy foreigners mouthing off and the like.

When convenient, scan your report database ticking "Iran", "diplomat", "kill", and quite likely "bloody Israel" and "about time someone went and".

Then you send in your sting team. They befriend and drop sentences like "you're goldarn tooting" (a phrase which appears to carry none of the lavatorial humor the Brits would extract from it). Three nods of the head and you're booked for a court appearance. If you mention it on the phone to your Uncle Sayeed next time you ring home, that makes it an official Tehran-inspired assassination plot on US territory.

No doubt the FBI will keep doing this until Armageddon eventuates - one of their Faith-based policy goals, so it's said. Justice? I think not. The Theatre of the Absurd would be a closer description.

The lie is turning "it'd be good if" into "your honor, the defendants were planning to", by waving a magic wand of "I can supply you with" and getting a bemused agreement to go ahead. None of these pro-active sting plots would exist at all without the FBI fairy godmother offering to overcome the impossibilities which prevent the marks from ever going past their genuine mouthing off stage.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:00 am

Yeah, I am puzzled a bit by this, too.

This guy with Dual citizenship goes to Mexico to look for a hit man to off a saudi official, and of course he meets up with the FBI pretending to be Mexican, and comes up with a plan to whack the Saudi.

Then, when he gets caught, he points the finger at some other guy who is in Iran, who supposedly is a member of the Iranian super military OPs, (sorta like US seals, or the A-Team, or whatever)

This guy is obviously NOT supebad military guy, or he wouldn't have flipped so fast.

So, what's the deal? An excuse to have the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan make a detour on their way home?

Pretty lame, if you ask me.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:21 am

Last night I heard on TV the taped recording of the conversation between the FBI undercover agent and the alleged assassin.

The hit was apparently planned at a resturant and the FBI agent said words to the effect of... 'Hang on but there will be 100 or so people In there, possibly US politicians also.'

The reply was ' No problem... blow It up'.

Had It have gone ahead, who knows how many lives would have been lost ?

http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releas ... ted-states

Post by **spot** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:43 am

Fortunately it could never have gone ahead, the FBI being the only competent party.

In America, any Walter Mitty now faces life imprisonment if the authorities take note of his fantasies. Leaving him to dream endangers nobody but they'd rather stoke fear among the population at large.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:09 pm

Git-R-Done!

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:01 pm

Anyone who didn't recognize this as a setup upon reading the first headline should be reassessing their ability to think for themselves.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:29 am

I think we all know the term ...fit up ....by any language. ****!!!

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:29 am

The first thought that popped into my head when this came over the wire was 'the hikers'. Would this have been news if they were still being held?

theia · Post by **theia** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:39 am

koan;1372439 wrote: Anyone who didn't recognize this as a setup upon reading the first headline should be reassessing their ability to think for themselves.

Oh dear

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:40 am

spot;1372343 wrote: Fortunately it could never have gone ahead, the FBI being the only competent party.

In America, any Walter Mitty now faces life imprisonment if the authorities take note of his fantasies. Leaving him to dream endangers nobody but they'd rather stoke fear among the population at large.

That Is absolutely ridiculous.

I agree that the statement of 'An act of war' Is over the top but what do you seriously suggest? That the FBI or any police force should dismiss any possible act of terrorism and murder as a Walter Mitty candidate?

How ever far fetched the notion of fruition being achieved Is, they have a duty to act and protect.

Post by **spot** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:51 pm

I disagree, actually. In my book a crime's a crime when someone at least intends to attempt it. These pro-active stings aren't like that. It starts with a disgruntled bunch with no intention at all of ever doing anything.

The Fairy Godmother turns up and says I know how to acquire X Y and Z and it will cost you nothing, I know where you can go to meet a hitman and what to say to him, if you're real men you'll do it. Any prat who nods is destined for court.

No oscar, that's not a justice system, that's manipulation for the sake of boiling a political pot. Or do you think I'm mis-describing events? If this case didn't start out much as I've described then obviously I'm wrong in this instance but I don't believe I am, these pro-active stings are becoming a US speciality.

Assuming I've roughly described reality would you approve of what they're doing?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:11 pm

spot;1372468 wrote: I disagree, actually. In my book a crime's a crime when someone at least intends to attempt it. These pro-active stings aren't like that. It starts with a disgruntled bunch with no intention at all of ever doing anything. The Fairy Godmother turns up and says I know how to acquire X Y and Z and it will cost you nothing, I know where you can go to meet a hitman and what to say to him, if you're real men you'll do it. Any prat who nods is destined for court. No oscar, that's not a justice system, that's manipulation for the sake of boiling a political pot. Or do you think I'm mis-describing events?

Why do you find It Incredulous that a sting is required?

How do you know this would be a 'disgruntled bunch' and not possibly another 9/11.

How do you know for sure that they never had any Intention of doing anything? Surely that's playing god with people's lives ?

If they had no Intention of carrying anything out, then their defence can argue that In court.

Where there Is even a Iota of a possibility of people losing their lives, I'd rather opt for an FBI sting. What do you think British terrorist Intelligence officers work on ?

Oh he's just showing off so we won't bother following him for a few months.? Ridiculous.

Post by **spot** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:14 pm

And just so we're singing from the same hymn-sheet, assuming I've roughly described reality would you approve of what they're doing?

At the moment we're going in circles saying "X is bad" , "No, Y is good". Which may both be true. Perhaps you'd like to address X this time instead of Y.

Here's a helping hand - where there is even a iota of a possibility of people losing their lives, I'd rather opt for an FBI sting. That's got Y out of the way.

As for "If they had no Intention of carrying anything out, then their defence can argue that In court", I'm sure that after the FBI fired them with enthusiasm that a viable plan was within their capability they had every intention of carrying it out. That's because they had no idea that none of the promised equipment of hitmen existed, that there was never any possibility of their designing or completing any such project. The intention was planted, nurtured and finally brought to court by the FBI. It only ever existed within the FBI until it was fed to the dupes.

None of this is a defence in court because pro-active stings are legal in the USA. They're illegal in England and always have been.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:25 pm

spot;1372472 wrote: And just so we're singing from the same hymn-sheet, assuming I've roughly described reality would you approve of what they're doing?

At the moment we're going in circles saying "X is bad" , "No, Y is good". Which may both be true. Perhaps you'd like to address X this time instead of Y.

Here's a helping hand - where there is even a iota of a possibility of people losing their lives, I'd rather opt for an FBI sting. That's got Y out of the way.

As for "If they had no Intention of carrying anything out, then their defence can argue that In court", I'm sure that after the FBI fired them with enthusiasm that a viable plan was within their capability they had every intention of carrying it out. That's because they had no idea that none of the promised equipment of hitmen existed, that there was never any possibility of their designing or completing any such project. The intention was planted, nurtured and finally brought to court by the FBI. It only ever existed within the FBI until it was fed to the dupes.

None of this is a defence in court because pro-active stings are legal in the USA. They're illegal in England and always have been.

All of which could be dealt with by the dupes at the time saying... 'Kill Innocent people'? 'No thanks, I'm out of this.'

Post by **spot** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:33 pm

oscar;1372473 wrote: All of which could be dealt with by the dupes at the time saying... 'Kill Innocent people'? 'No thanks, I'm out of this.'

Indeed it could. But you're criminalizing an impotent desire as though it were an active capability and with an identical penalty. Assuming I've roughly described reality would you approve of what they're doing?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:51 pm

spot;1372475 wrote: Indeed it could. But you're criminalizing an impotent desire as though it were an active capability and with an identical penalty. Assuming I've roughly described reality would you approve of what they're doing?

The desire has to be there however Impotent, small or whimsical. No desire equates no Interest to the FBI and no sting.

Post by **spot** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:15 pm

oscar;1372476 wrote: The desire has to be there however Impotent, small or whimsical. No desire equates no Interest to the FBI and no sting.

My reaction is - so what? Since when was mere desire a criminal offence in any area of the law[1]? I can think of no instance other than this.

It breaks down to a curious sequence. Before the FBI shows up, no crime has been or could be committed. The mere intervention of the FBI creates the crime. That, I suggest, is why it shouldn't be lawful for the FBI to behave that way.

Assuming I've roughly described reality would you approve of what they're doing?

[1]: I quote this from the web - "The 1351 Statute of Treasons specified seven different offences which amounted to high treason. The first was 'when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King'. In this context, both words mean to design or intend. By the 18th century 'imagine' had come to take on its modern meaning-to picture in the mind". Even in that extreme law, as you can see, simple desire wasn't an offence.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:39 pm

spot;1372477 wrote: My reaction is - so what? Since when was mere desire a criminal offence in any area of the law[1]? I can think of no instance other than this.

It breaks down to a curious sequence. Before the FBI shows up, no crime has been or could be committed. The mere intervention of the FBI creates the crime. That, I suggest, is why it shouldn't be lawful for the FBI to behave that way.

Assuming I've roughly described reality would you approve of what they're doing?

[1]: I quote this from the web - "The 1351 Statute of Treasons specified seven different offences which amounted to high treason. The first was 'when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King'. In this context, both words mean to design or intend. By the 18th century 'imagine' had come to take on its modern meaning-to picture in the mind". Even in that extreme law, as you can see, simple desire wasn't an offence. I would agree with you should the undercover FBI agent approach the dupes with ' Hi, I am an undercover FBI agent, how do you do? Shall we discuss ways of blowing up the Saudi Embassador ? And the dupes proceed to discuss the finer details In full knowledge that their counter-part Is the FBI.

" The first was 'when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King'. In this context, both words mean to design or intend."

The Intent by the dupes has to be there In order for the FBI agent to continue the plot further... no co-operation.... no plot... no Intent.

I concede that the Involvement of the FBI can be seen as a Honey Trap but In the prevention of crime, I feel that the FBI have not committed any crime here or wrong doing.

Post by **spot** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:55 pm

oscar;1372479 wrote: I concede that the Involvement of the FBI can be seen as a Honey Trap but In the prevention of crime, I feel that the FBI have not committed any crime here or wrong doing.I would argue they have, and for why. I contend that a significant fraction of the population is fractious enough that, if their buttons are pressed in the right way, they'd up and go all patriotic and say be damned with the law, let's do it.

The FBI can show up in some redneck drinking house and talk about the iniquities of government and say hell, those ATF teams have gone too far, let's burn their office; or hell, let's take out another Black church hall; or hell, those Mormons are all pedophiles, let's string up a couple - whatever the headlines of the day might be.

But they don't, do they. The FBI is selective as regards who is targeted or the courts would be fuller than they already are. The State Department wants to bring Iran onto the front burner, it can simply trawl the FBI's database of potential victims, people who'd never do more than moan, and entrap them into a prosecution. And what does the State Department get out of it? All the headlines they wanted, all the two-minute-hate Orwell predicted. And nobody uses the word "propaganda" at all because it would be un-American.

You say "but In the prevention of crime" - I take it you still maintain there could have been a crime without the FBI involvement, and consequently it needed preventing?

Set that aside and consider my question, which you continually refuse to consider: assuming I've roughly described reality would you approve of what they're doing?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:47 pm

spot;1372481 wrote: I would argue they have, and for why. I contend that a significant fraction of the population is fractious enough that, if their buttons are pressed in the right way, they'd up and go all patriotic and say be damned with the law, let's do it.

The FBI can show up in some redneck drinking house and talk about the iniquities of government and say hell, those ATF teams have gone too far, let's burn their office; or hell, let's take out another Black church hall; or hell, those Mormons are all pedophiles, let's string up a couple - whatever the headlines of the day might be.

But they don't, do they. The FBI is selective as regards who is targeted or the courts would be fuller than they already are. The State Department wants to bring Iran onto the front burner, it can simply trawl the FBI's database of potential victims, people who'd never do more than moan, and entrap them into a prosecution. And what does the State Department get out of it? All the headlines they wanted, all the two-minute-hate Orwell predicted. And nobody uses the word "propaganda" at all because it would be un-American.

You say "but In the prevention of crime" - I take it you still maintain there could have been a crime without the FBI involvement, and consequently it needed preventing?

Set that aside and consider my question, which you continually refuse to consider: assuming I've roughly described reality would you approve of what they're doing?

The definition defined as 'A sting operation' Is a deceptive operation designed to catch a person committing a crime A typical sting will have a law-enforcement officer or cooperative member of the public play a role as criminal partner or potential victim and go along with a suspect's actions to gather evidence of the suspect's wrongdoing.

If there Is no criminal Intent there In the first place and no desire to blow people up, the dupes would not allow the sting to progress as far as It did.

Law-enforcement may have to be careful not to provoke the commission of a crime by someone who would not normally be inclined to do so. Additionally, In the process of such operations, the police engage In the same crimes however, the onus Is on the dupes to prove entrapment In court and prove they had no Intent.

Entrapment is typically only a defense If a suspect is pressured into committing a crime they would probably not have committed otherwise. EG If undercover officers coerced a potential suspect Into manufacturing illegal drugs to sell them, then the accused could use entrapment as a defense. However, If a suspect is already manufacturing drugs and police pose as buyers to catch him, then entrapment usually has not occurred.

The prosecution has to prove there was no Intent and it was a case a entrapment.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/ ... Q920111013

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:04 pm

why would Iran risk everything for such a poorly planned plot? That's the question that isn't being answered. They may be unlikeable to many but they aren't stupid.

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:00 am

oscar;1372483 wrote: Entrapment is typically only a defense If a suspect is pressured into committing a crime they would probably not have committed otherwise. EG If undercover officers coerced a potential suspect Into manufacturing illegal drugs to sell them, then the accused could use entrapment as a defense. However, If a suspect is already manufacturing drugs and police pose as buyers to catch him, then entrapment usually has not occurred.

The prosecution has to prove there was no Intent and it was a case a entrapment.You're using all the right words but only about UK law, none of this applies in the US. That's been my point throughout. The lack of these restraints is why the FBI behaves in an unrestrained manner. All of those comments you've made in the quote box above are irrelevant in the US.

As your reference says (and I note your reference has nothing to do with what's in the quote box), "Entrapment requires the defendant to show that he was not predisposed to commit the crime, so that the crime was instigated by the government rather than by himself". That's the US position. Not predisposed? I take that to mean, taking out the double negative, that he was disposed to do it even if incapable. We're discussing state of mind as opposed to actual risk. The man's being prosecuted for what he thought, up until his FBI Fairy Godmother said your wishes can become true and it'll cost you nothing at all. Without the appearance of the FBI Fairy Godmother nothing at all would ever have happened, because the chap was utterly incapable of enacting his fantasies even had he decided to try (which is demonstrably a thing he'd never done in the past).

Assuming I've roughly described reality would you approve of what they're doing?

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:28 am

koan;1372497 wrote: why would Iran risk everything for such a poorly planned plot? That's the question that isn't being answered. They may be unlikeable to many but they aren't stupid.

That question's discussed in some detail at BBC News - Iran 'plot' raises unanswered questions

Firstly, why would the Quds Force use Mr Arbabsiar as its principal agent for what would have been one of the boldest operations in its history? Reports say that he has a criminal record in Texas for evading arrest and theft. "I would be surprised if the Quds Force used such an unreliable asset in its operations given his track record," Prof Lucas.

Secondly, why would the Quds Force believe that a Mexican drug cartel would be prepared to carry out a bomb attack in Washington? Mexican drug cartels are multi-billion dollar businesses interested in self-preservation. Carrying out a major attack in Washington DC for the relatively small sum of $1.5m would risk bringing the US military on to the cartels' own ground in Mexico.

It may be that the Quds Force is more amateur or reckless in the planning of its operations than previously thought. But many will want an answer to a simple question: why would this special branch of the Revolutionary Guards seek such a dramatic change in the way that it operates?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 8:13 am

spot;1372507 wrote: You're using all the right words but only about UK law, none of this applies in the US. That's been my point throughout. The lack of these restraints is why the FBI behaves in an unrestrained manner. All of those comments you've made in the quote box above are irrelevant in the US.

As your reference says (and I note your reference has nothing to do with what's in the quote box), "Entrapment requires the defendant to show that he was not predisposed to commit the crime, so that the crime was instigated by the government rather than by himself". That's the US position. Not predisposed? I take that to mean, taking out the double negative, that he was disposed to do it even if incapable. We're discussing state of mind as opposed to actual risk. The man's being prosecuted for what he thought, up until his FBI Fairy Godmother said your wishes can become true and it'll cost you nothing at all. Without the appearance of the FBI Fairy Godmother nothing at all would ever have happened, because the chap was utterly incapable of enacting his fantasies even had he decided to try (which is demonstrably a thing he'd never done in the past).

Assuming I've roughly described reality would you approve of what they're doing?

This case set a precedent It seems and now seems perfectly legal In the US.

As to your question, If the dupe was deemed to be a serious risk to National Security, then Yes, a sting would be acceptable.

The point I keep trying to make Is that the FBI can not surely just determine to set up John Doe. It has to be someone who has come to their attention In the past and maybe when this dupe gets to court, we may hear of his past dealings.

The whole case If pleading entrapment, will centre on the dupes state of mind as you said.

Now by sheer co-Incidence, I would not have believed that prosecution could present a case of state of mind to a Jury and have them convict on It until I saw one of the most awful cases In US law very recently that conviction all depended on state of mind.

This Is the case and worth a look because this conviction was for second degree murder based on state of mind.

Lawyer found guilty of murder after dog mauling | Mail Online