Shocker: Only 1% of So Called Terrorists Nabbed by the FBI Were Real
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/fbis-terror-scam
***SNIP
Aaronson recently appeared on the AlterNet Radio Hour. Below is a lightly edited transcript of the discussion.
Joshua Holland: Trevor, the raw statistical data say that Americans have a significantly better chance of being struck dead by lightning than of being killed in a terrorist attack here at home. It’s obviously different for people in some other countries.
I got that from the official terrorism statistics put out by the FBI and other related agencies. And they also track foiled attacks. These law enforcement agencies say that these foiled attacks prove that they are saving American lives. How would you respond to that?
Trevor Aaronson: I’d say that the majority of the foiled attacks that they cite are really only foiled attacks because the FBI made the attack possible, and most of the people who are caught in these so-called foiled attacks are caught through sting operations that use either an undercover FBI agent or informant posing as some sort of Al-Qaeda operative.
In all of these cases, the defendants, or the would-be terrorists, are people who at best have a vague idea that they want to commit some sort of violent act or some sort of act of terrorism but have no means on their own. They don’t have weapons. They don’t have connections with any international terrorist groups.
In many cases they’re mentally ill or they’re economically desperate. An undercover informant or agent posing as an Al-Qaeda operative gives them everything they need… gives them the transportation, gives them the money if they need it, and then gives them the bomb and even the idea for the terrorist attack. And then when that person pushes a button to detonate the bomb that they believe will explode—a bomb that was provided to them in whole by the FBI—agents rush in, arrest them and charge them with conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction and then parade that person out to the public saying, "Look at us. We caught a terrorist. This is us keeping you safe."
= new reply since forum marked as read
so it's just too bad about that 99%.
rather than let one Terrorist succeed.
Most of the "terrorists" caught by the FBI weren't terrorists, they were conspirators with the avowed intent to commit terrorism.
By definition, if you nab the conspirators you aren't nabbing terrorists. But the intent of the programs aren't to nab terrorists, i.e., those who have committed terrorist acts. They're preventive. In other words, saying that only 1% of those caught were actual terrorists could be interpreted as high praise 
It's the same catch-22 with the idea of arming people to prevent mass shootings. "Show me a mass shooting that was prevented!" we hear. If I can show you a mass shooting, then it wasn't prevented, now was it? If I show you where somebody gunned down somebody carrying a gun and ammo, I can claim until I'm blue in the face that it prevented a mass shooting but the counterclaim is simple: "Prove that this guy really would have killed a lot of people."
As for entrapment, it's a question of odds. If you're casting around for a while trying to find some conspirators to blow up the Mall, sure, there's a good chance the feds will eventually find you and nab you. Then again, there's a good chance that somebody into planning this kind of thing will find you and nab you. It's also true that if you find nobody to help you might manage to do something on your own, unassisted. Or fail miserably, and give up on the plans to commit mass murder. Anything's possible. But it's not reasonable to assume that there are only two options--the FBI luring you into a conspiracy and giving up because the effort's futile. We have some non-extremist attacks that show lone wolves can kill just fine, thank you, without either the FBI's assistance or abandoning the plans.
It's likely that the Tsarnaevs were helped in some way--sheltered, mentored, guided, assisted. In other words, by the going definition here, "entrapped." Even if it was their idea. Which would make them innocent until the moment they actually killed somebody? Uh, no. It's a free country, and more than one or two days' conspiracy would be required. In a lot of cases the would-be terrorists were arrested after they had picked up the fake bomb or had done stuff which, had all the materials been real, become dangerous. That's more than just luring somebody. It's rather a pity that the FBI/etc. didn't manage to "entrap" the Tsarnaevs. But if there's browbeating involved, cajoling of a serious nature, then the courts would through the case out and the agents know it. Does that kind of entrapment happen? Sure. Agents get overzealous, and then the courts, if they're doing their job, toss the evidence or dismiss the case.
We don't like the tool. So it's a given that we'd like to show that it's ineffective *and* not necessary in the first place. A bonus would be to show that not only is it ineffective and unnecssary, but that it's also immoral because it has an immoral use. In this case, there was a need, a use, and it found a tool. However it's also typically true that tools find uses. The temptation is to use the flat-head screwdriver as a chisel, as a hammer, as an awl, as a lever, right? Heck, I've used one as a can opener and bottle opener. But there have been those who have found a screwdriver useful as a murder weapon. The difficulty is keeping the tool from finding other uses, not in trying to make the screwdriver out to be unnecessary and ineffective so therefore not only something we have no need for but even something that's immoral. (Note that this is the gun-control argumentation of choice these days.)
Let's regulate some of that government.
of your constitutionally-protected liberties, will keep you safe from terraists, all the while doing little or nothing to protect you from the rampant carnage created by wanton gun violence. 
