Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Crime The Military United States Politics

Would-Be Bomber Arrested In Kansas; Planned Suicide Attack on Ft. Riley 297

The Associated Press (as carried by the Boston Herald) reports that a 20-year old Topeka man has been arrested as he attempted to arm what he believed to be a thousand-pound bomb outside Ft. Riley, Kansas. John T. Booker Jr. is alleged to have planned an attack in conspiracy with others who were actually FBI agents; Booker's postings to Facebook in March 2014 about his desire to die as a martyr brought him to the FBI's attention, and the FBI sting operation which ended in his arrest began after these posts. Booker had been recruited by the U.S. Army in February of last year, but his enlistment was cancelled shortly thereafter.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Would-Be Bomber Arrested In Kansas; Planned Suicide Attack on Ft. Riley

Comments Filter:
  • masdf (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10, 2015 @11:18PM (#49451457)

    So once again, the FBI entraps someone by convincing them to carry out an attack so that they can stop it and pretend to be heroes. How about actually stopping attacks that you haven't yourself created? Oh, right. That count is still at zero. And I guess you need to justify all your bullshit somehow.

    • Re:masdf (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BitterOak ( 537666 ) on Friday April 10, 2015 @11:27PM (#49451485)

      So once again, the FBI entraps someone by convincing them to carry out an attack so that they can stop it and pretend to be heroes. How about actually stopping attacks that you haven't yourself created? Oh, right. That count is still at zero. And I guess you need to justify all your bullshit somehow.

      Actually, stings like this may prevent actual attacks from occurring by providing a deterrent. Would you join such a conspiracy if your co-conspirators might be FBI agents? Operations like these send a message out to would-be terrorists: you're not safe planning attacks in this country.

      • Re:masdf (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10, 2015 @11:32PM (#49451505)

        This does *not* make us safer. Quite the opposite, really. They use people like him to promote their own agenda. That is, they want to "prove" that everyone is a terrorist and they need more money and approval to stomp all over our rights, and you shouldn't complain about it.

        What happens when one of their sting operations don't go according to plan? Maybe their guy goes a little nuts and decides to do things his own way, ends up killing or hurting a lot of innocent people. The FBI in this case could have stopped it by behaving appropriately instead of pressuring and reassuring him that doing evil was the way to go. Maybe without the FBI egging him on, he wouldn't have done anything.

        Here, they found someone that was exhibiting some obvious mental problems. Instead of getting him the help he clearly needed, they decided to make a show out of it for their own propaganda machine.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by cold fjord ( 826450 )

          You apparently didn't comprehend the story. That guy was committed to make an attack and die in the process before he came into contact with the FBI. Where is your evidence that the FBI was "pressuring" and "reassuring him"?

          Here, they found someone that was exhibiting some obvious mental problems. Instead of getting him the help he clearly needed, they decided to make a show out of it for their own propaganda machine.

          What is your evidence that he had mental problems? He certainly had different values, but that isn't the same as being mentally ill. If anything your claim of "obvious mental problems" and that they "decided to make of show out of it for their own propaganda machine" indicates you pr

          • Re:masdf (Score:5, Informative)

            by Gadget_Guy ( 627405 ) on Saturday April 11, 2015 @12:23AM (#49451661)

            What is your evidence that he had mental problems?

            Apparently you didn't comprehend the story either. According the TFA, he was "mentally ill and was acting strangely only days before his arrest, according to a Muslim cleric who said he was counseling him at the request of the FBI.". The cleric went on to say that "the agents told him that Booker suffered from bipolar disorder, characterized by unusual mood swings that can affect functioning."

            So he had mental problems according to the FBI and the person that was counselling him.

            • Re:masdf (Score:5, Informative)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11, 2015 @01:14AM (#49451819)

              > Apparently you didn't comprehend the story either.

              Dude, its Cold Fjord, he has a mental illness where he only sees the most extremist right-wing version of anything he reads. His visual cortex is physical incapable of processing any words that might even hint at a more sane interpretation.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by cold fjord ( 826450 )

              Apparently you didn't comprehend the story either. According the TFA ...

              I am amused to inform you that you aren't quoting from TFA. If you follow the link in the story summary [bostonherald.com] it brings you to a story that doesn't contain the paragraph you quote, or even a number of the key words. You are quoting from a different story at the same source. Since you didn't provide a link, allow me:

              Man charged with plotting bombing at Kansas military base [bostonherald.com]

              So, it turns out that I comprehended the story, and you didn't. What you did do was bring in new facts in a different story from a reputable

              • Re:masdf (Score:5, Insightful)

                by Pseudonym ( 62607 ) on Saturday April 11, 2015 @07:02AM (#49452443)

                That doesn't make him less dangerous.

                What makes him dangerous is filling his head with dangerous thoughts. The vast majority, if not all, of the people whom the FBI have entrapped in the past are some of the more vulnerable members of society: people without a strong social support structure, part of a marginalised community, often poor, often unemployed, and so on.

                It's a fundamental axiom of modern policing that the best way to stop crime is to stop people from becoming criminals in the first place. If someone is at risk of becoming a criminal, the best thing you can do is divert them away from that as early as possible. For the FBI to turn a non-criminal into a criminal is not just a failure, it's sociopathic.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by gtall ( 79522 )

              I see. So a Muslim cleric is now a trained psychiatrist who can spot an Islamic nutjob from a regular Muslim...by what, precisely? Wanting to do something the cleric wouldn't entertain himself?

              • Clergy of all kinds often have qualifications in psychology or counselling, because that's part of the job description. This is just a guess, but I'd say that while "nutjob" isn't a diagnosis, the mechanism by which said nutjobs are spotted is "science".

          • Re:masdf (Score:5, Insightful)

            by bkmoore ( 1910118 ) on Saturday April 11, 2015 @01:10AM (#49451803)

            You apparently didn't comprehend the story. That guy was committed to make an attack and die in the process before he came into contact with the FBI. Where is your evidence that the FBI was "pressuring" and "reassuring him"?

            Quick google, the FBI has charged over 150 suspected 'terrorists' since 9-11 based on evidence from sting operations. Did they really prevent 150 people from committing terrorist acts? The FBI is either very good at catching terrorists before they even plan their attacks, or they are going out and setting people up. The Tsarnaev brothers kind of disprove the first possibility.

            • by itzly ( 3699663 )

              The FBI is either very good at catching terrorists before they even plan their attacks, or they are going out and setting people up. The Tsarnaev brothers kind of disprove the first possibility.

              More likely, it's a combination of both. Some of the people they caught would probably have succeeded without the FBI, others needed FBI help, and some needed FBI encouragement. Of course, the FBI can't reliably see what kind of person they're dealing with when they start the sting, and how this person may develop later.

              • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                by Anonymous Coward

                That's actually not likely at all, since the ONLY ones they stopped were the sting operations, which, again, are things that almost certainly never would have happened without their encouragement.

                People really need to understand just how evil the people in our government are. They want to think of them as good people, but they aren't. They have been corrupted by an evil system. For case studies of how this works, read "The Lucifer Effect" or the wiki on the Stanford Prison Experiment. There good men pla

            • If the FBI arrests 0 people, they are doing a bad job.

              If the FBI arrests 150 people, they are doing a bad job.

              How many people should the FBI have arrested to be doing a good job?

              • By the powers vested in me by my Atlanta GED I proclaim ... 75!

              • Re:masdf (Score:5, Insightful)

                by mellon ( 7048 ) on Saturday April 11, 2015 @06:09AM (#49452355) Homepage

                17.3.

                Dumb question. The job of the FBI is to arrest people who commit crimes. They should arrest exactly those people, and no other people. Of course it's an imperfect science, and they will miss some criminals and arrest some innocent people. But a key demographic they should avoid is arresting people who wouldn't have committed crimes without their help, because it is explicitly not their job to instigate criminal activity.

            • Re:masdf (Score:5, Insightful)

              by amiga3D ( 567632 ) on Saturday April 11, 2015 @04:57AM (#49452223)

              They've been doing this same stuff for decades. Before the Islamic nutcases it was other groups like the so called home grown "militia" groups. They infiltrated one local group of idiots here that just got together to shoot guns, drink beer and bitch about the government. Impatient with the fact that the pussies weren't ever going to do shit they got their inside guy to show them how to make a bomb, then he helped them get the stuff to make one and then after that he helped them make it. Since they were too big a bunch of pussies (or just not really that crazy) to use the thing they only got to prosecute for "conspiracy." I didn't feel much pity for them as they were a sad group of morons but what a waste of money.

        • Re:masdf (Score:4, Funny)

          by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Saturday April 11, 2015 @12:19AM (#49451647)

          "Dude, I got this bomb I ordered from in the mail just like you told me to, but then I noticed it was just a fake. Your contact was trying to cheat us. I decided to take the initiative and get a real bomb instead. Hope you guys with the fake beards don't mind. Now where are those drugs you promised me?"

        • > What happens when one of their sting operations don't go according to plan? Maybe their guy goes a little nuts and decides to do things his own way,

          A federal sting could NEVER go wrong. It's not like the federal government (illegally) provides weapons to murderous drug cartels, who then use exactly those weapons to kill border patrol officers and others. Well okay, that could happen, but if it did, they'd immediately put a stop to the program. They wouldn't KEEP selling weapons to organized crime ev

        • Spend some time looking into the OKC bombing. That this was a sting gone wrong is incredibly possible. It doesn't have to be the way it happened, but certainly toward the top of the list of what really happened. There were government agents involved all over the place, and this has been proven in court. They either knew it was going to happen (possibly with their own involvement?) and thought they would stop him at the last minutes, or they knew about it but didn't have enough information as to when it was

      • Re:masdf (Score:5, Interesting)

        by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Friday April 10, 2015 @11:45PM (#49451539) Journal
        Did you not notice the stories about how random people have breached security at airports many times over the last few years? If there were any serious terrorists, there would have been attacks at airports. The fact that teenagers were able to get on planes [nbcnews.com]while we haven't had any terrorist attacks shows that the threats are wildly over-stated.
        • Maybe the terrorists aren't as fixated on planes as the westerners are after 9/11? I've noticed that when you add "...on a plane" or "...at an airport" to things that people otherwise wouldn't care about, suddenly it's a huge issue. While there are certainly special considerations that need to be made for safety in the context of air travel, there's many easier ways for terrorists to make a statement and kill a bunch of people. Fill a U-Haul with a couple tons of explosive. Fill smaller containers with expl
          • Re:masdf (Score:4, Insightful)

            by mellon ( 7048 ) on Saturday April 11, 2015 @06:13AM (#49452367) Homepage

            Terrorists are interested in instigating terror. If they were as big a danger as they are said to be, they would already have let off a bomb in an airport security line and killed a hundred people waiting to be screened. The fact that this hasn't happened either means that the government has a machine that watches our every move and knows who is going to set off bombs, in which case they don't need these stings, or else it means that there really aren't that many people who are interested in committing mass murder who are able to get into the United States and act on that wish.

      • Re:masdf (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Friday April 10, 2015 @11:45PM (#49451543)

        Actually, stings like this may prevent actual attacks from occurring by providing a deterrent.

        Alternatively, they may make actual terrorist cells more difficult to penetrate, since they will be less trusting of outsiders. This guy just arrested appears to be another crazy homeless person, who would never have been able to organize any sort of attack without FBI help. It is nice that he will have a warm place to sleep and three meals a day, but is this really a smart way to use FBI resources? If they really have nothing better to do, then perhaps we have too many FBI agents.

        • These agents are like the twenty year old narcs at high school who pretend to be students.

          • Do you have a source for that? Certainly there are narcs, but I've never heard of any of them enrolling in high schools undercover. Cops threatening high school kids who got caught anyway to cough up some names, sure. But when they invest an undercover agent (= lots of money), it's going to be for a big investigation, not to find out which high school kid sold a dimebag to which other high school kid.
            • by yzf750 ( 178710 )

              Do you have a source for that? Certainly there are narcs, but I've never heard of any of them enrolling in high schools undercover. Cops threatening high school kids who got caught anyway to cough up some names, sure. But when they invest an undercover agent (= lots of money), it's going to be for a big investigation, not to find out which high school kid sold a dimebag to which other high school kid.

              http://www.chron.com/neighborh... [chron.com]

              There you go. The story quotes one of the sheriffs stating that they have done this in other cities throughout the county as well.

        • by stdarg ( 456557 )

          Secretive terrorist cells are just one threat vector. What about the guys who openly want to join ISIS? Or the people who may listen to the openly broadcast messages of ISIS/al Qaeda/al Shabaab/etc saying things like "Rise up and attack shopping malls." There's nothing to penetrate there, it's just a matter of finding people likely to do it.

          Somebody who was so radicalized and at the tipping point that they went along with a plot like this is a serious public threat, and not because they might have ended up

      • Entrapment is unlawful. Just because an agent slaps the label "terrorist" on someone does not nullify the laws that must be followed by law enforcement officers.

        • by gl4ss ( 559668 )

          entrapment is perfectly lawful.

          or maybe it's not lawful, but it still goes on through the courts and the entrapped person gets jailtime and the feds walk free.

          kinda like many other things aren't lawful, but still go through. unlawful surveillance and what have you.

          and the people who do go to court rarely get sentenced for whatever crime they get slapped with first, thank's to the fucked up plea-bargain system you have that quite often modifies the crimes to be totally other crimes than what the action taken

      • I doubt there would have been any attack unless he was "radicalized" by the FBI. He could have not had his enlistment in the US military canceled because of a Facebook post, and could have been taken in and counseled and put through boot camp instead of being manipulated like a foreign asset for months until he committed the crime that was orchestrated for him.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by cold fjord ( 826450 )

          I doubt there would have been any attack unless he was "radicalized" by the FBI.

          The first of many holes in your theory is that the accused indicated his interest in dying in attacks before any contact with the FBI.

          .... came to the attention of federal investigators after posting a Facebook message on March 19, 2014, that read: "Getting ready to be killed in jihad is a HUGE adrenaline rush! I am so nervous. NOT because I'm scared to die but I am eager to meet my lord,"

          -----

          He could have not had his enlistment in the US military canceled because of a Facebook post, and could have been taken in and counseled and put through boot camp instead of being manipulated like a foreign asset for months until he committed the crime that was orchestrated for him.

          Basic training provides instruction on basic military skills, including weapons. To provide that training he would be given weapons and ammunition. I can't believe you think that is a good idea. You know about the Fort Hood attack, don't you? There have been other attacks as well.

          The purpose of the military means it is best to keep people like him out.

      • by gl4ss ( 559668 )

        unless you know the idea for the attack came from you and not from the feds....

        this is predatory, looking for vulnerable people and then exploiting them. they should have sent him to the doctors long before they gave him what he thought was a 1000 pound bomb. like, they could have saved a hell of a lot of money and effort just nailing him for planning a terrorist attack(of course, I guess he could have then argued it was the feds who did all the planning, as they did).

      • by TheCarp ( 96830 )

        Oh well if it MAY do something desirable through a mechanism you can imagine in the simple fantasies of your head, then by all means lets toss millions of dollars at it, surely its not only easier than finding people with the actual interest and means and a plan, lets continue just making our own and arresting them for show.

        This totally justifies the invasion of our privacy so wide scale that they will drop criminal charges against people rather than admit their capabilities in court.

        Look its totally workin

      • by Livius ( 318358 )

        Actually, stings like this may prevent actual attacks from occurring

        Or, they show terrorists how easy it is to tie up counter-terrorism resources while the serious terrorists go unnoticed. Kind of a reverse SWATting.

    • You won't believe how many attacks the NSA has stopped, just this week. Of course, it's all classified beyond ultra-super-mega-top-secret, so they can't even talk about it amongst themselves.

      • Trust us. It's real, but we can't show you.
        Yeah, just like the harem of gorgeous women that wait on me hand and foot. I'd love to show you, but you know how shy they can be, so you'll just have to take my word for it...
        • Trust us. It's real, but we can't show you.
          Yeah, just like the harem of gorgeous women that wait on me hand and foot. I'd love to show you, but you know how shy they can be, so you'll just have to take my word for it...

          You have 72 virgins???

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      you don't know what entrapment means

      entrapment is getting you to do something you would not have otherwise done

      if the guy expresses his desire to bomb, and proceeds to go through with it, all of his own choice, he's not entrapped

      the involvement of the fbi is manipulating all of his material to be harmless, and allowing him to proceed. they are not telling him what to do, he's choosing to do it

      they let him go forward so they can see if he is an isolated wackjob or if there are conspirators. it also means the

      • by sjames ( 1099 )

        On the other hand, without the FBI keeping him on track, next week he would talk of his desire to be a lion tamer. The week after, an F1 driver...

        The FBI did likely get him to do something he wouldn't have done otherwise. That is, get up off the couch and actually take steps to reach his stated goal.

        • by robi5 ( 1261542 )

          Lion tamer? Sounds like a realistic next goal for someone like this ticking bomb guy. Once someone clearly identifies with the goal of killing hundreds of people, it's more economical to test his intentions (which they did) and carve the rotten flesh out of society's body, versus resorting to asking him "enjoy the World, how do you feel about your mother, and hey here are some pills, if all fails, they'll change your mind - because you want this, right? - , pretty please never ever skip them" or following h

      • the involvement of the fbi is manipulating all of his material to be harmless, and allowing him to proceed. they are not telling him what to do, he's choosing to do it

        You did not read the story properly. The FBI told him exactly what to do. They provided detailed instructions and "training". The FBI built the "bomb" for him and showed him how to "arm" it.

        • because no one knows how to buy fertilizer and gasoline?

          did the guy back out, back down?

          if i sell you a gun, am i responsible for what you do with the gun?

          we WANT the fbi providing harmless alternatives for people who intend mass murder

          • if i sell you a gun, am i responsible for what you do with the gun?

            If I tell you what to do with said gun first, then yes, I would also be liable. If you tell me you plan to use a gun to commit a crime, I would also be liable if I then sold you a gun. This logic has been applied to all sorts of criminal activity (for example, building secret compartments into cars).

            /welp, I've run out of anonymous posts for the day. Good thing the karma burner is fully fueled.

      • This is, by far, the weirdest thread on Slashdot, ever.

        Face it, any thread which has both Cold Fjord and Circletimessquare making insightful points is weird. Are pigs about to fly?

  • He posted it on Facebook?!

    Of course you're not going to get too many rocket scientists wanting to die a martyr's death; but still...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      it's not entrapment

      it really isn't

      entrapment is getting you to do something you don't want to do

      if the guy expresses his sincere, original desire to do something, no coaxing, no suggestion, that's 100% on him

      i don't know why so many people don't understand what entrapment is

      • by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Saturday April 11, 2015 @12:09AM (#49451607) Journal

        it's not entrapment

        Just because it doesn't fit the legal definition of entrapment doesn't mean that it isn't morally entrapment.

        In this case, yes, the guy had the desire to do something. However, he did not and would never have had the capability to do anything. There was no public safety justificaton for this FBI operation.

      • it's not entrapment

        it really isn't

        entrapment is getting you to do something you don't want to do

        if the guy expresses his sincere, original desire to do something, no coaxing, no suggestion, that's 100% on him

        i don't know why so many people don't understand what entrapment is

        No it isn't. Entrapment is getting you to do something you wouldn't have done otherwise.

        In this case the FBI recruited Booker, planned the plot, and then gave him the materials to carry out the plot.

        Now this kid obviously has some serious issues, he was basically asking for an ISIS recruiter to come along and find him, if one didn't come along there is a possibility he would have eventually committed a lone attack on his own.

        That being said he also might have grown out of it, either way I suspect that both

      • it's not entrapment

        it really isn't

        entrapment is getting you to do something you don't want to do

        if the guy expresses his sincere, original desire to do something, no coaxing, no suggestion, that's 100% on him

        i don't know why so many people don't understand what entrapment is

        Huh. You don't say. And here I was reading some excerpts from the original complaint [techdirt.com]:

        [The FBI supplied, what Booker understood was, the explosives (actually inert material) needed for the bomb, then:]

        CHS 1(*) provided Booker with a list of supplies that they needed to purchase in order to build the bomb.

        Booker understood that CHS 1 and CHS 2 would build the VBIED

        CHS 2 explained the function of the inert VBIED to Booker and demonstrated how to arm the device.

        Out of curiosity, does this look like "no coa

  • Yet there is still no legal requirment for the oversight of these spying powers.

  • Gotta say, if I lived in Kansas when I was 20 years old, I mighta done something ... something strange too. As it is I lived in another midwest state, not quite as boring. I acted out. Nobody should live in such circumstances. Everyone knows your business. Gossip. Rumors. Spiteful neighbors. If you're not a devout Christian, forget being accepted. God help you if you are LGBT etc. A simple lapse of judgement when you sorta borrow a car or release some cash from a liquor store and you're marked like forever.

  • When they start using cold drops to coordinate, that's when to start worrying. With surveillance as it is, they've got nothing better than a rogue or two using IEDs and assault rifles.

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Working...