FBI's Scam of Catching Terrorist

According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, in the past 10 years there have been 20 terrorist plots against the US.  Three of those plots were real but were discovered and stopped by private Americans.  The other 17 were manufactured and then stopped by the FBI.

The apparent purpose of these false flag operations was to deceive Americans into believing we’re under attack by foreign or domestic terrorists who are fictional.  Based on this false belief that we’re being persistently attacked, Americans tend to accept and even support the government’s invasions of foreign countries and our own growing police state.

If you want to fly on an airplane, you must first be x-rayed or groped, in part because these 17 plots were created by the FBI to prove the existence of terrorists who don’t actually exist.

This article from the New York Times explains that the FBI is not necessarily finding terrorists, so much as creating and grooming people who are upset with government to become “terrorists” in “sting operations”.  The article claims that “Of the 22 most frightening plans for attacks since 9/11 on American soil, 14 were developed in [FBI] sting operations.” These numbers don’t precisely match Judge Napolitano’s, but they’re similar.

Interestingly, the article reveals that most defendants charged in these sting operations claim “entrapment” as their defense and thereby lose in federal court.  That tells me that entrapment is probably an “affirmative defense” which is first and foremost a confession.

You can’t claim to have been entrapped into committing a crime without first implicitly confessing that you did, in fact, commit the alleged crime.  Once you make an affirmative defense/confession, the prosecution’s case is made, and the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove that the defendant would not have committed the crime.  Because it’s near impossible for the defendant to prove their state of mind and intent, convicting fools who make affirmative defenses is like shooting fish in a barrel.  If the defendant had not made an affirmative defense, the burden of proof would remain on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s state of mind/state.

The most important consequence of using the affirmative defense of entrapment to excuse some alleged criminal act inspired by the FBI (or some other governmental agency) is that such defense constitutes a confession that you have attempted to commit a crime. The second most important consequence may be that “entrapment” implicitly admits that the person who tried to entrap the defendant was a government agent.  If so, by alleging that he/she was entrapped by a government agent, the defendant cloaks that government agent with official immunity that might not otherwise exist.  In other words, if a defendant doesn’t claim “entrapment,” the alleged government agent might be just as liable for the offense as the defendant.

If someone were being prosecuted for attempting to commit a terrorist act that had been inspired by a purported FBI agent, what if instead the defendant challenged the credentials of the government agent, attempting to prove that the agent was a private actor and the real brains behind the terror plot?  By not confessing, the defendant could make the prosecution prove every element of the crime, including venue, and even sue the purported FBI agent for misleading and deceiving the defendant.  By submitting “evidence” that the alleged government agent was the real brains behind the terror plot and thus a co-defendant rather than some “official” of government, how far do you think the case would go? Have every one of these 17 fake terrorist plot defendants claimed “entrapment” or have they any claimed innocence?