THE INFORMANT IN THE NEW YORK TERROR PLOT

Earlier this month (June ’07) the federal government indicted four
men – one from Trinidad, another from Tobago, and the other two from
Guyana – in a “terror plot” that targeted New York’s John F. Kennedy
International Airport. Labeled “homegrown terrorists,” the four men were
introduced to the American public with sensational media fanfare and
boogaboo warnings from federal law enforcement officials.
After the media hysteria subsided and federal investigators had
embarrassingly answered hundreds of questions, it was realized that these
“terrorists” did not have a bomb, no material means to make a bomb, and
lacked any organizational ability to carry out the “terror plot.” It must be
conceded that the four men had the desire to inflict incomprehensible terror
on the United States but had absolutely no means to put that desire into
action.
The question that immediately arose was how the FBI became aware
of the plot. The Bureau responded that it had an “informant” on the inside
that “made” the case for the agency. In virtually all of the “homegrown
terror plots” uncovered by the FBI since September 11, 2001, an
“informant” was secreted into the conspiracy.
But the question that the maintain media has neglected to ask is where
that first kernel of information about the New York terror plot – or any other
plot – came from?
The media has recently reported that the “informant” was a convicted
felon willing to cooperate with the FBI to secure a sentence reduction on a
narcotics and racketeering conviction. He was released from federal custody,
provided substantial financial assistance from the FBI, given a false life, and
instructed to start attending a Brooklyn mosque.
The scenario reveals several significant points. First, the informant
was known by the FBI. Perhaps the agency had prior dealings with him.
Second, he had some Islamic religious exposure. The FBI is not going to
infiltrate a Muslim mosque with an African-American evangelical
worshipper.
This signals that the FBI is actively recruiting “informants” from the
ranks of Muslim inmates incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and
probably larger state penal facilities. These inmates are known in the prison
community for their “anti-system” sentiment and political views. Most have
earned their “prison credits” fighting the American judicial and political
system.
But at the core of their being many are criminals before they are
Muslims. They understand the “street culture” more than they do Islam –
and the street culture is not known for maintaining criminal allegiances.
Gangsta’ rap can promote all the “kill the snitch” campaigns it wants but the
bottom line is that when the FBI walks into a prison with a “get out of jail
free” pass with lucrative financial rewards attached to it, the “need” to be a
snitch will always prevail over any “stand up, stay strong” notions of
criminal loyalty.
The New York “terror plot” informant snatched up the “get out of jail
free” pass and, with his Islamic prison training, began attending the
Brooklyn mosque where he met Russell Defreitas, the alleged leader and
mastermind of the terror plot. Talking the “anti-system” rhetoric he had so
masterfully picked up in prison, the informant quickly had Defreitas
believing that the informant had been sent by Allah to fulfill his desire to
inflict more damage on American than was done by the 9/11 attacks.
But why the Brooklyn mosque?
Does the FBI have a secret program of recruiting prison informants,
wiring them for sound, and sending them into Muslim mosques to see what
kind of information they can either uncover about “terror plots” or entice
unwitting participants into a fabricated plot?
Or, did the FBI have specific information about Defreitas?
Has the FBI with the unlimited and secret powers of the Patriot Act
compiled as list of persons suspected of being potential terrorists or who
may have ties to terrorists groups?
It is clear that the FBI had enough information about Defreitas and his
cronies that the agency wanted to know more. So the agency placed the
informant in Defreitas midst to gather information.
Many civil libertarians and criminal justice professionals have an
innate distaste for the use of “informants” – whom they refer to as
“jailhouse snitches.” Indeed, there have been significant instances where
jailhouse snitches have fabricated cases against criminal defendants, some of
whom were later declared innocent.
But in the majority of cases the opportunistic jailhouse snitch simply
takes advantage of the “loose lips” of criminal defendants, especially in
capital cases. These defendants get arrested for a high-profile murder and
some can’t wait to boast about their criminal exploits. That’s what inmates
do on a jail tier – they read newspapers, cheap action thrillers, and brag
about “whores and scores.” The jailhouse snitch is always in the middle of
this social waterhole, trying to elicit and weigh the value of information
being dispensed for community consumption.
Regardless if it is the Mob or terrorists conspirators, the FBI
understands that these underground people are going to talk. They have to. It
takes three people to make a conspiracy – two to make a “witness.” John
Gotti had to talk just as Russell Defreitas had to talk. It not only measured
and reinforced their own personal sense of importance but it was the only
way they could achieve their criminal objectives. All the FBI had to do was
recruit informants to bring both of these men down.
Of course, it is difficult sometimes to infiltrate well-organized
international terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Intelligence agencies really do
not have the time, or means, to recruit and place informants in these groups.
They simply target and capture as many members as they can, relying upon
“torture” to extract valuable information about activities of the group.
But which is the worse evil: surveillance or torture?
The FBI utilizes all sorts of secret surveillance activities to gather
information about potential terrorists. In the process, the agency had
admitted that it has trampled upon individual privacy rights of law-abiding
citizens to secure this information. Covert governmental surveillance
inevitably destroys individual privacy. Some people are initially willing to
give up their privacy interests to “protect the group” but a right relinquished
is a right lost.
While the CIA and other intelligence agencies prefer covert
surveillance to gather information, these agencies have become increasingly
attracted to torture as the preferred information-gathering method. More
often than not, these agencies “out-source” these torture tasks to private
contractors or rogue governments to protect their “non-involvement”
defense.
The aftermath of 9/11 has certainly created the “brave new world” –
prison informant recruiting, spying eyes in the private lives of the law-
abiding, suspension of habeas corpus, indefinite confinement of “unlawful
enemy combatants,” the sacrifice of protections of due process of law, and
the systematic infliction of cruel and unusual punishment in secret prisons.
It will one day be said that the first casualty in the “war on terror” was
democracy.