(This rant was also published on Daily Kos. For the record, I beat Glenn Greenwald by six hours.)
Let’s start with the obvious: all of us are, or should be, thankful that Portland’s Christmas tree lighting ceremony was not bombed by a would-be terrorist. Other facts to put on the table: the young man harbored strong anti-American feelings, he communicated with and attempted to visit a friend that moved to Pakistan, and, most importantly, he believed his actions would lead to the detonation of a bomb at the tree-lighting ceremony.
But there’s another important point that may not be as obvious to those of us reading the news reports this week: there never was a plot to bomb Portland’s Christmas tree lighting ceremony, nor was there ever any danger of such an attack. In the media’s rush of breathless triumphalism, it’s easy to overlook the fact that this young man was not arrested as the result of the government uncovering a bomb plot; he was arrested after the government lead him into a fictional bomb plot that was wholly the creation of FBI informants.
If we were less preoccupied with the professed-heroism of the FBI informants who invented and suggested the fictional bomb plot to this young person, we might think to stop and ask questions that were either de-emphisized or completely ignored in the media. Questions like, what is it that would make a teenage, naturalized American citizen want to participate in actions that he believed would kill people? Why would such a young person feel that way about his adopted country? Exactly what good was served by entrapping this young man with the fictional bomb plot? Is staging acts of terrorism an effective way to root out and prevent acts of terrorism, or are these sting operations just fishing expeditions that further alienate groups of Americans who are already being made to feel unwelcome in in a host of other ways? Exactly what message do we want our government to send to disaffected youth from other cultures? In the end, do these types of actions make us more, or less safe as a nation? And finally, do we really believe that we’re going to be better off focusing on security measures instead of examining actions and policies that lead to anti-American sentiment around the world?
An interesting point. True: the plot was a creation of the law enforcement agencies charged with preventing these kinds of crimes. If the FBI has done anything, it has removed a young person who under the influence of older and manipulative individuals expressed a high level of anti-social behavior. What would have happened if an adult would have been responsible and told him that “this is wrong” rather than encouraging criminal behavior, albeit theatrical. How different is this kid from the young people in Chicago, Los Angeles and New York that hook up with older, street savvy adults and become pawns in their games?
I agree that it’s important to remember that there was no bomb plot. But I’m taking exception to this:
“Questions like, what is it that would make a teenage, naturalized American citizen want to participate in actions that he believed would kill people? Why would such a young person feel that way about his adopted country?”
True, he may well be mentally ill, but these questions seem to be making the point that American culture brought this on itself. To me, the guy seems less as if he were acting from some coherent political philosophy and more from the same destructive influences that a lot of young men–especially those with disrupted family or cultural ties–are susceptible to worldwide. @ Gabacho, I get what you’re saying, but as someone who has worked with street-tough kids younger than the Somali guy…the idea that someone from outside the culture can take aside an street-wise 18 year old man, have a heart-to-heart and send him on his (straight and narrow) way is not realistic.
No doubt a lot of factors turned this guy into a would-be predator, including his own very bad choices. Any social intervention has to be equally complicated–to what extent the government should be involved in that is another discussion.
Darcy, I read those questions as being pointed more towards the actions of the FBI and its informants, rather than the influence of American culture at large. Are such raids truly preventing terrorist attacks, or do they serve to further marginalize groups of Americans who already may feel marginalized?
As far as Gabacho’s suggestion a responsible adult could have played a positive role in this kid’s life, I didn’t assume Gabacho was suggesting someone from outside his culture should be having the heart-to-heart. I think you’re right the kid may suffer from a mental illness that influenced him more than anything, which would only make the FBI’s actions all the more questionable.
That’s my take. Maybe TomT and Jimmy and others will chime in.
I’m not trying to be a jerk or twist anyone’s meaning. But I do think that the Somali guy should be afforded some moral agency. To me, he does appear to be mentally ill, but as so many school shootings show, disturbed young men have taken a lot of lives. The array of interventions that could have worked is no doubt varied, but the men/boys definitely needed serious intervention. Meanwhile, addressing the predatory and isolating aspects of our culture should be an ongoing project…but I’m not going to look to the FBI to take that on.
Agreed, the FBI taking on “predatory and isolating aspects of our culture” would be a bad idea as the FBI is kind of predatory and isolating.
Darcy, I wasn’t intending to suggest that American culture brought this on itself, but I am asking us to examine why it is that someone might come to have such extreme anti-American feelings (I don’t believe that the Bush administration’s “they hate us for our freedoms” line of argument holds much water).
It is worrisome to see what looks like a glitch in our national thinking and discourse when we encounter anti-American sentiment. Rather than stop to think about possible root-causes (or, God forbid, listening to the people who are impacted by our actions), we seem to be obsessively focused on security measures. There will always be isolated lunatics, but it seems strange to me that we never stop to consider whether our government’s behavior could be causing people around the world to dislike us.
As far as dealing with this particular disturbed teenager: I’m not a social worker, and not in a position to offer up the most effective intervention for a person in that position. But I can tell you what I wouldn’t do: engage multiple government informants, money, and other resources in a months-long effort to entrap him in a fake bomb plot. If he was on the government’s radar screen for at least a year as a terrorist sympathizer but not an actual terrorist, then it’s hard to understand what purpose was served by concocting such an elaborate scheme, other than political kabuki (forgive my misspelling). Are we really going to do this with every single person we think might sympathize with our enemies?
Finally, and most disturbing to me; the Mosque that the boy’s family attends has now been firebombed — most likely, and I admit I’m speculating here — by a white Christian, in retribution for a fake bomb plot invented by the FBI. Someone needs to help me understand how this is justice, or ultimately makes us any safer.
With all of that (my previous comment) said, I forgot to say thanks for taking time to read and discuss my original post (I’m trying to keep the bark out of my mouth as much as possible!)
Hi, folks,
Interesting posts. It has gone in some directions that I hadn’t foreseen, and this is a good thing.
I tend to gravitate toward a lot of different comments and perhaps not for the same reasons that the writers intended. Just to get down to brass tacks, I liked Darcy’s comments. One in particular stood out: “But I do think that the Somali guy should be afforded some moral agency. To me, he does appear to be mentally ill, but as so many school shootings show, disturbed young men have taken a lot of lives.”
It would be nice if we could come up with a moral framework to give him some agency, but the similarities to young violent people (US urban, rural, in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, and of all make and model) are horrifying. Put a weapon in a kid’s hands, and he is dangerous.
It used to be that male adolescents had three things on their minds: 1) eat, sleep, and sex. Face it, men are pigs. Now, however, killing has made it to the list. If young people have the tools, they will do violent things.
These are violent times, and the rugged individualism in our culture doesn’t help. If you cross the border from Canada, the first thing you want to do is get a shotgun. Can’t explain it. Maybe it’s in the air.
Regarding anti-Americanism, Jean-Francios Revel has a good book by the same title. While at times there are very strong and logical reasons for opposition to US policies, at times, it is just another version of xenophobia and populist manipulations.
In this regard, I tend to agree with some of Tom T’s comments (but for different reasons): adolescents are already on the edge, and giving them the tools to do violent things is bad, very BAD. The FBI only proved how easy it is for anyone to bring about acts of violence, and in doing so, became one of the dominos in the fire-bombing of a mosque, which will perhaps cause another domino to fall, upping the ante.
Great point, Jimmy:
But Ma, the FBI said smoking is cool.