FBI foils bombing of Portland Christmas tree lighting ceremony

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/us/28portland.html

The above article, written by Liz Robbins, was published in the New York Times and entitled "Oregon Teen Arrested in Plot to Bomb Holiday Event."

I was first struck by the NYT emphasis on his being a "teenager." Good grief, he was 19. When I was 19 I was a corporal in the Marine Corps stationed in Korea -- or perhaps I had already returned from Korea and was stationed at Camp Pendleton as a rifle instructor -- I can't recall precisely. Can't a person who is 19 be a man? Does his being a "teen-ager" ameliorate his murderous intentions in some way? I suspect his lawyer will use the term "teen-ager" quite a lot in his defense. One can only hope that the prosecuting attorney will call him a morally responsible man deserving of the "maximum sentence of life in prison."

After reading quite a lot about British permissiveness in the treatment of their Islamic criminals, it is refreshing to read of our FBI doing it the right way. Mr. Mohamud sought to engage in some spectacular form of terrorism; so someone in the FBI took on the guise of the contact Mohamud was looking for. Well done FBI!

However, I suspect that Mohamud's defense attorney will claim that Mohamud was tricked or set up by the FBI and would not have gone as far as he did without the complicity of the FBI. Hopefully the FBI will have their proverbial ducks in a row and be able to show that the desire to blow something up came entirely from Mr. Mohamud and not from them.

But I also wonder whether Leftist-Liberals reading this article won't feel a little sorry for Mr. Mohamud: Heck, he never had a chance. The FBI was all over him before he really got going with his plans. He wasn't treated fairly. He should have been treated fairly. Also, he didn't actually do anything or hurt anyone. How can they send him to jail for life unless he actually hurts someone?

Perhaps a Leftist-Liberal will struggle with those thoughts and back away from them, but they will, I suspect, cross his mind, for he hasn't supported the ACLU all these years for nothing. He knows how to excuse crime: Sure Mr. Mohamud may have told the FBI "I want whoever is attending that event to leave, either dead or injured," but those are only words, and words are protected by the First Amendment. As to the bomb components, they weren't actually a bomb, just parts. You can't count those, and the mere dialing of his phone? How can that be a crime? Since he didn't actually kill anyone, he should go free.

I certainly hope he doesn't go free. Maybe in the past the police couldn't arrest anyone until after they had committed a crime, but these are more perilous times. Can we really afford to let the Mohamuds living amongst us in the U.S. and Britain to commit their crimes? Surely we need the means of arresting and convicting our Mohamuds without being fair and allowing them a chance to do their worst. The article makes it sound as though we do have the means. Let us hope so.