The Role of the Informers in the Fort Dix Case

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:21:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The New York Times reports on the role of the informers used in the Fort Dix case. Did they merely facilitate plans already in the minds of the defendants? Or, did they engineer and create the crimes?

Entrapment is likely to be a defense raised by those charged. As in all entrapment cases, the critical issue will be whether those charged were predisposed to commit the crime.

It seems from the article like one of the informers kept jump-starting the plan.

Indeed, over the months that followed, as the targets of the investigation spoke with a sometimes unfocused zeal about waging holy war, the informer, one of two used in the investigation, would tell them that he could get them the sophisticated weapons they wanted. He would accompany them on surveillance missions to military installations, debating the risks, and when the men looked ready to purchase the weapons, it was the informer who seemed to be pushing the idea of buying the deadliest items, startling at least one of the suspects.

....As the case goes forward, the role of the main informer will almost surely be contested. Over the years, informers in terror cases have become the focus of efforts by defense lawyers and others to call into question the legitimacy of the investigations. They have often sought to show that informers engaged in entrapment.

One of the informers in the Fort Dix case presents another problem for the Government:

More...

He previously lied to agents in an attempt to protect a friend of his. The Government hopes that it can diffuse this by early disclosure.

Is it enough if the defendants merely discussed vague plans that would not have progressed further but for the informer?

Months elapsed without significant developments. The complaint indicates that in October 2006, seven months after the informer first entered the ranks of the men, it might have been the informer who helped jump-start another suspect, Serdar Tatar, who still had not followed through on his promise to get a map of the base from his father’s pizzeria near Fort Dix. The two men were discussing Fort Dix, the complaint said, when the informer “expressed anger at the United States.”

“You want to make them pay for something that they did,” Mr. Tatar said to the informer, according to the complaint. “O.K., you need maps?” Soon, Mr. Tatar provided the map, the complaint says.

In November, it was the informer who volunteered that he might have a source who could provide the machine guns and heavier arms the men had long been talking about.

“Shnewer expressed interest,” the complaint says.

Would the defendants have acted on their interests but for the provocation of the informer? Was it just talk, with the action being taken by the informer?

We don't know yet, but it's something to keep in mind in following the case.

< Meanwhile In Iraq . . | Another US Atty Scandal: Missouri >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Role of the Informers in the Fort Dix Case | 32 comments (32 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I'm not a lawyer, after reading this (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:36:20 PM EST

I feel sad. People say silly things all the time when they feel highly emotional. Maps of military posts and bases aren't that hard to come by either and thank God or I would be completely lost in Korea or Fort Sam or even here where I live and the post is giant because they have to have four airfields to train with and a ton of airspace to fly in. With military families moving every three years it isn't like they can have maps of military facilities under lock and key!

WSWS: another strange alleged terrorist plot (1.00 / 1) (#1)
by Andreas on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:40:44 AM EST

The only information about the alleged plot that has been provided has come from the prosecution and the FBI. From the indictment, however, it is evident that the case follows a pattern of similar highly publicized terrorist "conspiracies" pursued by the Bush administration, in which the chief instigator of the alleged plot was a paid government informant and agent provocateur who encouraged the operation, made arrangements to secure weapons and pressed ahead in the face of the caution and reluctance of the so-called jihadists.

The New Jersey jihadists: another strange alleged terrorist plot
By Jerry White, 10 May 2007

: I'm not buying it... (none / 0) (#4)
by Kitt on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:36:43 AM EST

....and didn't when I first heard it.

Hodge podge (1.00 / 2) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:37:14 PM EST

I find it amazing at the length some of you go to defend these people.

1. Informers are normally not nice people. Your complaints remind of the complaints of the Demos during the Church Commission days that spies aren't nice people and we must not work with bad ones...

Do you think this might have been the chief cause we had no human intelligence about Iraq?

2. And what did the informer have to do with this?

"You want to make them pay for something that they did," Mr. Tatar said to the informer, according to the complaint. "O.K., you need maps?" Soon, Mr. Tatar provided the map, the complaint says.

Can we just get a deep breath and note that Tartar didn't have to provide the map? Indeeed, if he had been concerned about the safety of the soldiers on Ft Dix, and loyal to the country that had taken him in, he would have ran, not walked, to the nearest FBI agent.

"Hello, FBI?? I know this guy who wants to make the US pay for something it has done, and now he wants a map of Ft. Dix."

That he didn't thoroughly convicts him in his own words.

3. cpinva - Not everyone is as super smart as you are. In fact, as Decon noted yesterday, not many terrorists give up careers as rocket scientists..

What a troll (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Sailor on Thu May 10, 2007 at 04:07:40 PM EST

Most Americans believe in a fair trial before passing judgement and all we have is the gov'ts word so far. Of course since you have previously linked to a wing nut daily article, complete with video not connected to this case, and have advocated murder and torture w/o trial, we get that you don't believe in the founding principles of the country.

And bushco has lied all along about 'terrer' prosecutions.
The lawyer in seattle
Yee
the florida professor
etc, etc, etc.


What a strawman (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 04:36:30 PM EST

sailor uses...

Printing what the individual said is unfair??

Only the government's word??

Now, what was that baddddd word jarober used??

"fellow traveler?"


ppj's continuing personal attacks (none / 0) (#20)
by Sailor on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:29:53 PM EST

bushco said he said that, we don't know that he said that. Let's wait for both sides, like true American's do.

But wait, there's more!

Though the criminal complaint says that Serdar Tartar became familiar with Fort Dix from delivering pizzas on the base and procured a map of the base in November, his wife said he had not worked at the restaurant in two years, and his father said SuperMario's has only been delivering to the base for three months.

So what we have here is a classic case of bushco said v. he said & she said.

Gee, most Americans wait for a trial before they convict, ya know, like the Constitution calls for.

IOW, prove it or STFU.


Sailor (none / 0) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 09:34:11 PM EST

Guess I can keep talking. Now, will you do what you demanded of me?

The above is from this post.

Now. Why didn't Tatar immediately go to the FBI and turn the informant in???

Sailor, you are vulgar trash talking individual who hides behind initals because you think you can slink through the woods and no one will know you are there.

Have some courage, sailor. Drop the initals. Use the words. Prove to us that you can't debate, just try and insult.

What a sweetheart you are.


America Hater (none / 0) (#27)
by Sailor on Fri May 11, 2007 at 12:11:57 AM EST

DId you hear the tapes? Did you see the video!?


Well, maybe (none / 0) (#30)
by Elias on Fri May 11, 2007 at 06:10:37 PM EST

Tatar didn't go to the FBI, because he had already gone to the police.

One of the men, Tatar, called a Philadelphia police officer in November, saying he had been approached by someone who was pressuring him to obtain a map of Fort Dix, and he feared that the incident was terrorist-related, according to court documents.

Link (none / 0) (#31)
by Elias on Fri May 11, 2007 at 06:12:06 PM EST

Winston-Salem Journal


: Elias (none / 0) (#32)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 12, 2007 at 10:17:13 AM EST

One of the men, Tatar, called a Philadelphia police officer in November, saying he had been approached by someone who was pressuring him to obtain a map of Fort Dix, and he feared that the incident was terrorist-related, according to court documents.

The above raises more qustions than it answers.
First, is the "court document" a claim of the defense, or is it actual records of an interview/conversation between Tatar. If it is the latter, someone in the Philly PD is in a heap of trouble, or....
It could also be that the PD told the FBI who decided to let it play further, hoping that they had a second informant in the works. Remember. The operation was in process.
Either way, Tatar could have walked away, or he could have went back to the PD, or to the FBI. That he didn't shows that he was willing to go forward. The defense wants to say he was stupid. That is hardly compelling. Dumb people do bad things all the time.

Former FBI agent Kevin Barrows said that prosecutors appeared to have done things right.
"They corroborated with surveillance, and they had a gun buy set up," Barrows said. "That further solidified the case, as opposed to it just being a tape of somebody saying, `Yeah, I want to buy guns.' They worked this for a long time and the evidence seems really, really solid."

i had noticed a similar pattern (none / 0) (#2)
by cpinva on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:21:08 AM EST

let's see if i have this straight: six guys, with no real training, other than some target shooting in the poconos (poconos?), are going to attack ft. dix, home of thousands of well armed, trained soldiers?

is there a briefcase nuclear weapon involved, that we aren't hearing about? because absent that, this has to be one of the more idiotic "terrorist" plots i've heard of recently.

if they were really, really lucky, they might have lasted 5 minutes, before being shot to bits. can you deflower a virgin, if you died being shot to pieces?

this whole thing just doesn't pass the smell test.

Poconos... (none / 0) (#6)
by desertswine on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:54:36 AM EST

Mountains in eastern PA. Honeymoon Heaven to New Yorkers.


desertswine (none / 0) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:34:31 PM EST

You know, I bet there were a lot of honeymooners in NYC on 9/11.

Anyone know how many honeymooners were on the four commercial jet liners.


: It is sad about the honeymooners (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Peaches on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:46:05 PM EST

In NYC, on the commercial airliners, in Darfur, Mogadishu, Baghdad, Fallujah,...
And, then there are the children, too.

: I ignore... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by desertswine on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:46:20 PM EST

your rampant trolling. I only put that up for the people who didn't happen to know where or what the Poconos are.
Get some air.

Are you worried or looking for an excuse? (none / 0) (#9)
by Slado on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:13:41 PM EST

Did everyone miss this part of the artilce?

"Without doubt, in most of the instances described in the complaint, the informer seems to be merely facilitating the menacing plans of the suspects or following along".

These guys are bad news. Making excuses for them misses the point.

Maybe they're innocent and they should be given all their rights etc... but it appears that some are willing to give 6 Islamic extrimists the benifit of the doubt over the FBI.

That seems strange considering that these extremists would give you no such benefit when it comes time to commit jihad.


Begging the question (none / 0) (#14)
by roy on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:11:19 PM EST

Due Process (none / 0) (#15)
by squeaky on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:15:56 PM EST

but it appears that some are willing to give 6 Islamic extrimists the benifit of the doubt over the FBI.

That is the way we do things in America. Although some are willing to give up the jewels of America for the sake of a power hungry monarchist.


squeajy (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 04:42:04 PM EST

some are willing to give 6 Islamic extrimists the benifit of the doubt over the FBI

That is the way we do things in America.

No. That's not the way we do things. We don't give either side the "benefit of the doubt." We listen carefully and make a decision.

At this point, having listened carefully, I'd say these guys are ready to go to prison for say, 40 to 60 years WOP.

But, I'm willing to hear more.

Now. Why do you thing they are innocent??


another anti-American belief (none / 0) (#19)
by Sailor on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:23:14 PM EST

apparently the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" escapes some folks.


Sailor (none / 0) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 09:27:07 PM EST

..apparently hearing the guy convict himself escapes you....

No. Not "apparently." It Does.


: America hater (none / 0) (#26)
by Sailor on Fri May 11, 2007 at 12:10:20 AM EST

... did you see/hear the tape?

Come on squeaky (none / 0) (#28)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2007 at 01:57:29 PM EST

You say you will give them the benefit of the doubt, that means you are saying you think them innocent.

So why??

Come on.

Don't be shy.

You must know something to say that.

Don't you???

You don't???

Must be Bush, right?

LOL


: OK (none / 0) (#29)
by squeaky on Fri May 11, 2007 at 02:01:12 PM EST

Knock yourself out.

If you believe this, buy my Nigerian bridges (none / 0) (#3)
by kipling on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:54:05 AM EST

I agree with cpinva and Jerry White: this stinks to high heaven. Xymphora has more details:

they dropped their jihad tapes off at a local video store to be DVD'd, they spoke openly to a Philadelphia police sergeant about obtaining maps of Fort Dix, they were infiltrated at an early stage (probably before they actually decided to do anything, with the juiciest plans suggested by the infiltrator, just like in Canada)

. Fool me once, and... and... you can fool me again!

Am I Having a Flashback (none / 0) (#5)
by squeaky on Thu May 10, 2007 at 09:50:44 AM EST

Sounds awfully similar to the Miami 7 case in that the informer instigated the terror plot.

Fort Dix Six (none / 0) (#7)
by bruce on Thu May 10, 2007 at 11:15:00 AM EST

It appears that these clean cut young men are innocent. They have been framed and need to be let go immediately. Where is the justice?

bruce (none / 0) (#8)
by cpinva on Thu May 10, 2007 at 12:09:08 PM EST

what does "clean cut" have to do with one's innocence or guilt? is there some scientifically observable direct correlation between the two?

i have no idea whether they're guilty of anything, other than illegal immigrant status, in the case of the 3 brothers. however, just from a common sense standpoint, this sounds wholly ridiculous.

granted, it's certainly possible these guys are really that stupid, i'm not discounting that entirely. however, based on recent experience (think: duke case), there does seem to be an inverse relationship between the amount of public braying by the state, and the actual guilt of the parties accused.

i'm just sayin'.........................

"entrapment" (none / 0) (#22)
by diogenes on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:44:04 PM EST

Police undercover people do this kind of stuff all the time, be it buying drugs, offerring to be a "hired killer" when requested, etc. No one would call it entrapment if the police arrested some racists who were conspiring to bomb a black church in the exact same scenario. People here are just in the "hate America first" mode.

oh puhleeeeeeeeeeeeze (none / 0) (#25)
by cpinva on Fri May 11, 2007 at 12:02:39 AM EST

diogenes, that is just so 2002! "hate america first" mode? silly boy! try, "one is assumed innocent, until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt". now where the heck have i heard that "anti-american" nonsense?

think, think, think! oh, the thinks i can think! why, i think it's part of our constitution. oh yes it is! imagine that! those commie forefathers of ours, putting that socialist nonsense in our sacred founding document! how could they? what were they thinking?

probably, and this is just a guess, that it would be needed some day, to protect the rest of us from such as g. bush and diogenes.