Reply #213: fine, but I was addressing the facts --

[iverglas]

not the legality of any facts, you see.

The question is whether the accused in this case were entrapped, not whether any entrapment of them was legal.

I see no reason to think that they were entrapped, myself. I haven't seen anything that would suggest any *active* participation by any police or intelligence service in what they were doing. Apparently they were observed, and then prevented from actually completing what they were planning -- taking delivery of the fertilizer -- by substituting something else for the fertilizer. It was they who came up with the idea, formulated the plan, sought out the supplies, and organized the acquisition of the supplies.

I don't think this even really qualifies as "sting". The transaction was between two private parties; the police and intelligence services weren't parties to it, they were merely controlling the manner in which the supplier carried out its side of the transaction once it was already initiated by the accused.

Of course, one could believe that there were redcoats at computer screens, hanging out in cyberspace at places frequented by angry young Muslim men, going "yeah, hey, let's blow some stuff up! I know where we can get some fertilizer real cheap!" ... if one wanted to. I suppose. How many absurd things before breakfast?