One Year Ago, FBI Insisted That 'Terrorist' Guy It Arrested Last Week Was No Threat At All

from the look-at-that... dept

Mon, Apr 13th 2015 7:58am — Mike Masnick

Last week, we wrote about the FBI arresting John Booker, who was involved in yet another of the FBI's own plots. At the beginning of our post (and the criminal complaint) against Booker, we noted how a year ago Booker had tried to join the army, and had then been denied after posting stuff to his Facebook page about how he was going to "wage jihad" and planned to die. It was noted that the FBI visited him at that time, and we found it odd that if he was such a threat, why wasn't he arrested then. Instead, it appears that months later, the FBI got together and concocted a ridiculous plot for Booker to join, in which the FBI itself did all the planning.

What he hadn't realized was that when the incident happened last year with Booker and his Facebook page, there was actually news coverage about it, with the FBI actually saying that they had investigated and Booker was no threat at all:

The alert, which was sourced to “an FBI agent,” stated it was distributed to “inform and protect officers who may encounter this individual or others exhibiting the same aspirations.”

Four days later, on Tuesday, the FBI downplayed the "routine" alert, saying it was not actively searching for Booker. The agency said it did not believe he posed an "imminent threat," despite the original alert's invocation of the Fort Hood shooting, where an Army psychologist killed 13 and wounded more than 30 on a Texas military base in 2009.

“We have interviewed this individual,” an FBI spokesman said. “There is not a manhunt and there never was one. There is no imminent threat to public safety, nor should the public be concerned that this threat exists from an individual at large."

The reporter who wrote that above now works at the Intercept and has revealed more details, including the FBI's Situational Information Report after it had interviewed Booker a year ago. It notes that not only had Booker checked himself into a mental health facility a month earlier, but also that he basically had no way of carrying out any threat:

BOOKER does not have access to a vehicle or other form of transportation at this time, nor is there evidence he possess firearms.

It appears that Booker only became a real threat... once two FBI informants showed up and created the plot for him.

Booker Fbi (PDF)Booker Fbi (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: fbi, john booker, own plots, terrorism, threats

22 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

scotts13 (profile), 13 Apr 2015 @ 8:18am

But afterward...
Fortunately, after they MADE him a threat they averted it! Thanks be, they saved us all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baron von Robber, 13 Apr 2015 @ 8:20am

The Federal Bureau of Instigation. Providing plots and ammunition for wanna be, flake terrorists since 9/11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Padpaw (profile), 13 Apr 2015 @ 2:10pm
  
  Re:
  why not since before 9/11 as well?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 13 Apr 2015 @ 8:37am

Entrapment?
Isn't this considered entrapment, and thus illegal? Or did they change the law about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2015 @ 8:39am
  
  Re: Entrapment?
  What does the law matter anymore to people in power?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2015 @ 9:03am
  
  Re: Entrapment?
  As if they care about "laws"! They're a rouge agency that's corrupt and will do whatever the fuck it wants and has no desire to be reigned in.
  
  Want proof? Just look at all the articles about them taking every precaution to keep their Stingray devices secret.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Craig Welch (profile), 13 Apr 2015 @ 9:53am
    
    Re: Re: Entrapment?
    A 'rouge' agency? Does that mean they're a bunch of pinkos?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2015 @ 11:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Entrapment?
      No, but you must admit... they look fabulous!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 13 Apr 2015 @ 9:12am
  
  Re: Entrapment?
  Unlike laws regarding things like terrorism, computer fraud, and bribery, entrapment laws are pretty specific and easily avoided by someone that knows about them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2015 @ 10:46am
  
  Re: Entrapment?
  It would be entrapment if he knew he was working with the fbi. Otherwise how could undercover cops be able to operate.
  
  Still.. It's shady as hell
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Pragmatic, 14 Apr 2015 @ 2:31am
    
    Re: Re: Entrapment?
    Uh, no. Undercover cops gather information until they have enough to make an arrest and process it until they can secure a conviction, in theory.
    
    Entrapment is when they supply the information and dupe some poor fool into taking part in a plot they have cooked up themselves.
    
    See the difference? Right = spot and record the details of the plot.
    
    Wrong = invent and facilitate the plot and convince some poor sucker to take part in it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Padpaw (profile), 13 Apr 2015 @ 2:11pm
  
  Re: Entrapment?
  I notice those in power in the USA just ignore the laws when it gets in their way. No one ever seems to call them out on it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2015 @ 9:44am

What does constitute entrapment then?
...and why wasn't this guy arrested for making threats and then involuntarily committed to a psyc ward?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AnonCow, 13 Apr 2015 @ 11:46am

How long before a terrorist organization manipulates one of these FBI-generated plots to actually execute a terrorist attack?

Imagine a REAL terrorist that knows he is being managed by the FBI and right before the supposedly staged attack is able to swap out the FBI-provided fake bomb for a real, live bomb?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 13 Apr 2015 @ 12:51pm
  
  Re:
  Please, the only way the FBI could ever run across a real terrorist would be by pure accident. They're so used to 'finding' their homemade 'terrorists' that they couldn't find the real thing if it was standing right in front of them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 13 Apr 2015 @ 1:57pm
  
  Re:
  That sounds very similar to the plot of the (quite excellent) movie "Arlington Road".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
OldGeezer (profile), 13 Apr 2015 @ 7:28pm

In this case I think they might have actually done a good thing in creating a way to get this dumb shit off the streets. He seemed hellbent on committing some kind of terrorist act and willing to die in the process. He obviously wasn't very bright posting his intentions online and admitting that he only wanted to join the service to kill people. Real terrorists operate under extreme secrecy and often cells working on the same plot don't even know the identity of the other participants. As ignorant as this guy is, he likely would have eventually done something stupid and killed somebody. The statements that he wasn't a threat probably were a diversion and the FBI intended from the beginning that they would do something to get him locked away. Many criminals that commit violent acts are just as dumb as this guy yet they still find some way to carry it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 7:56am
  
  Re:
  "As ignorant as this guy is, he likely would have eventually done something stupid and killed somebody."
  
  Maybe, maybe not. That's pure peculation. Regardless, what you are cheering amounts to arresting people for crimes that they haven't yet committed. I very strongly object to that injustice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - OldGeezer (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 4:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If someone threatens to kill me I can have them arrested. The threat alone is a crime. Just because he did not name a specific target does not make him any less potentially dangerous. He made it very clear that he wanted to kill people and become a martyr. Just try making a statement that you intend to kill the president and see how long it takes before SWAT is kicking down your door. Even if you are a total whack job and not stand the slightest chance of getting past the president's security you will still go to jail.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 15 Apr 2015 @ 8:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, making a threat is against the law -- but there are certain characteristics that have to be met to be considered an illegal threat.
      
      Since this guy was not in fact arrested for making an illegal threat, I have to assume that wasn't a law he broke.
      
      "Even if you are a total whack job and not stand the slightest chance of getting past the president's security you will still go to jail."
      
      In the first place, a threat against the president is a specific threat, not a general one. I think the difference is critically important. In the second place, what you wrote here isn't true. If you threaten the president, you will get a visit from the secret service. They will be there to determine if the threat is genuine. If it's not, then you are unlikely to go to jail.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Craig Welch (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 8:03am
  
  Re:
  "As ignorant as this guy is, he likely would have eventually done something stupid and killed somebody."
  
  On that basis, half the population should be in gaol.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - OldGeezer (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 8:32pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It is true that a lot of people at times have been angry enough to experience the urge to kill. For normal people reason takes over before they get the gun or ball bat. Thankfully very few want to die killing others but this guy made his intentions very clear. He was quick to jump at the chance when the undercover agents recruited him. Maybe this idiot couldn't get laid so he wanted his 72 virgins. Personally I am glad this guy is behind bars. Whether he had a lot of means makes little difference. It just is not that hard to get your hands on a gun or other weapon.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]