FBI Entrapment Harms Vulnerable Muslims

By Rachel Roberts

As details emerge about Matthew Aaron Llenaza, the San Jose man arrested for plotting terrorism at the behest of an undercover FBI agent, we have learned that Mr. Llenaza had a history of bipolar disorder and psychosis. This newly publicized information about Mr. Llenaza casts doubt on the portrait the FBI has drawn of its suspect, whom they characterize as a shrewd and calculating Taliban sympathizer intent on doing harm to the United States. It also raises concerns about the FBI using public resources to thwart plots that it is, in fact, concocting on its own. 

But these new details about Mr. Llenaza highlight something not often talked about in the mainstream discourse about counterterrorism efforts: its effects on the mentally ill.

Our organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, has offered legal representation and advice to hundreds of American Muslims who were approached by FBI and other law enforcement agents purportedly for terrorism-related investigations in recent years. 

Our California offices have received several complaints from family members of mentally ill Muslims that the FBI or a cooperating agency expressed a need to question their disabled loved one as part of a terrorism investigation. The reason given was that the subject had exhibited some "suspicious behavior."  In several such cases, law enforcement agents conducted multiple interviews with mentally ill individuals without an attorney present. 

Family members reported that law enforcement agents asked questions about religion and geopolitics, which were met with answers that, although wild and often incoherent, could be misconstrued as support for violence against the U.S and be used as a basis to further target that subject.

These interviews, when coupled with the generally pervasive fear American Muslims have of terrorism accusations, have also resulted in exacerbating the illnesses of the Muslims approached.  We know of cases in which mentally ill Muslims have suffered psychotic episodes and have even attempted suicide after interactions with law enforcement.

Because mental disabilities often result in an inability to control physical behavior and speech, interviews that take place in this context have the potential not only to unfairly incriminate an innocent suffering person, but to mislead law enforcement and waste public resources on those who need treatment, not criminal penalties for crimes they would never have the capacity to commit.

In many of the prominent terrorism trials of the past decade, the Muslim defendants who worked with FBI and law enforcement agents to plan or attempt to carry out attacks on the U.S. also had histories of mental illness.

For example in the trial of the Newburgh Four, a group of Muslim men were lured by an informant bearing expensive gifts into plotting to blow up synagogues in the Bronx, NY and shoot down a military jet. One of the defendants, Laguerre Payen, who suffered from schizophrenia, was repeatedly disruptive during his trial and engaged the judge in a rambling dialogue about his conviction at the time of his sentencing.

In another case, Ahmad Ferhani, unemployed and in and out of mental institutions for many years, was convicted of plotting to blow up synagogues after being approached by an informant linked to the New York City Police Department.

The pressure on law enforcement to produce results for counterterrorism efforts, especially when combined with anti-Muslim training that characterizes Muslims as unhinged and bent on destroying the U.S., has the potential to criminalize those members of the community most in need of the system's protections.

That the entrapment defense has failed in every terrorism trial in the past dozen years despite clear government overreach highlights how our criminal laws have not been able to overcome the climate of fear that permeates our post-9/11 world.

Law enforcement agencies must take steps to implement ethical standards when they interact with members of the public, Muslim or not, who have been diagnosed with or who exhibit signs of mental illness.

Law enforcement should also focus their efforts on those who have already taken an affirmative step toward committing a terrorism-related crime. According to a recent article in Mother Jones, an FBI informant led one of every three terrorist plots foiled, and also provided all the necessary weapons, money, and transportation to people who ordinarily would not have the resources, intellectual or material, to carry out attacks.

As a society, we have much to learn about how we care for and treat the mentally ill. Scapegoating them for crimes or subjecting them to heightened scrutiny simply for being members of their religious community is a step backward.

Rachel Roberts is an attorney and the civil rights coordinator for CAIR's Northern California offices.


Showing 3 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Benjamin Baird
    commented 2018-11-04 16:11:13 -0500
    Your reflexive attempt to attribute my criticism of CAIR and Roberts as inherently “Islamophobic” is the only argument that is “intellectually and morally twisted” here. I have devoted my life to helping Muslims, and have spent more than three years building hospitals and schools in impoverished Muslim neighborhoods, bringing humanitarian aid to Muslims living under Islamist oppression, and protecting Muslim families at risk to my own life. After my mind and body were too battered to go on at this operational tempo, I pursued a degree in Middle Eastern studies to continue my work helping moderate Muslims, this time in opposition to lawful American Islamist groups like CAIR or ISNA. I stand in opposition to the very bigotry you thoughtlessly condemn me for espousing and for which CAIR is a repeat perpetrator.

    I know that it is convenient to shut down an intellectual debate by accusing your opponent of xenophobia, but we really must rise above these brazen ad-hominem attacks if we are going to get anywhere.

    Now, to the heart of the matter. If CAIR is so concerned with protecting the mentally ill from prosecution, then why don’t they haven’t they defended Jeremy Christian, the Portland, Oregon man who killed two men who came the defense of two Muslim teenagers her was harassing? A clinical and forensic psychologist said Christian “exhibits reactions consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder,” and said he exhibited signs of obsessive-compulsive disorder and behavior on a “socialization disorder spectrum.” Here, CAIR politicized the event and used the double homicide to go after the president for failing to condemn what they perceive as a rise in anti-Muslim sentiment.

    There are certainly instances where Muslims have committed acts of terrorism where their poor mental health serves to explain their homicidal actions more than their invocation of extremist religious beliefs. Esteban Santiago comes to mind, the Fort Lauderdale airport shooter.

    However, we cannot arbitrarily decide after a case where the defendents, without provocation, stated a desire to commit terrorist acts and, again without provocation, took steps to carry them out, that they may not have actually determined to do so. Undercover operations are a vital tool of law enforcement, as evidenced by your own admission that one-in-three foiled attacks is subverted by undercover agents.

    You ask for a standard of ethics for law enforcement when interacting with members of the public, but one already exists. In the same jurisdiction as the case in question, one anti-terrorism case was thrown out because the agent brought up Hamas before the suspects. In another case, the Joint Terrorism Task Force refused to become involved because an agent initiated the idea for bombing a structure.

    Here are the ethical standards you are demanding, guidance from the attorney general for uncover operations.

    https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/fbiundercover.pdf

    Police didn’t implant the idea of killing Jews in Ahmad Ferhani. They didn’t give them the idea of rolling grenades into a synagogue. They didn’t make him sell drugs to raise money for his would-be killing spree. They didn’t tell him to seek out weapons, and they only facilitated the sale because they didn’t want him getting his hands on actual weapons outside of a controlled operation.
  • Rashid Al-Banna
    commented 2018-11-04 09:27:05 -0500
    No Benjamin. Your intellectually and morally twisted Islamophobic paradigm has you intentionally looking at the problem backwards as discussed by Attorney Rachel Roberts in her blog. What she is saying is that the FBI has a history of targeting vulnerable US Muslims for entrapment who in certain cases suffer from mental illness. The blog’s author says nothing about what CAIR ought to do or ought not to do when a US Muslim commits an act of terrorism. In fact, CAIR has a history of condemning all acts of terrorism regardless of the background of the perpetrator and has even come to the aid of the victims in many cases., the recent Pittsburgh Tree of Life Synagogue massacre being one example.

    Read the following passage by the author carefully before engaging in gratuitous and dishonest Islamophobic attacks on CAIR:

    “Law enforcement agencies must take steps to implement ethical standards when they interact with members of the public, Muslim or not, who have been diagnosed with or who exhibit signs of mental illness. Law enforcement should also focus their efforts on those who have already taken an affirmative step toward committing a terrorism-related crime. According to a recent article in Mother Jones, an FBI informant led one of every three terrorist plots foiled, and also provided all the necessary weapons, money, and transportation to people who ordinarily would not have the resources, intellectual or material, to carry out attacks”.
  • Benjamin Baird
    commented 2018-08-06 04:02:16 -0400
    So let me get this straight. When Muslims commit acts of terror, CAIR is the first to stand up and attribute these acts to mental illness in their anything-but-Islam canard. Now, however, Muslims who suffer from mental illness AND show a willingness to commit terror are harmless.