Human Rights Watch Report - FBI Terrorism Prosecutions "Often An Illusion"

Human Rights Watch released a comprehensive 214-page report documenting that many high-profile FBI terrorism prosecutions were “an illusion” based on aggressive sting operations that entrapped vulnerable individuals who posed no genuine threat. The report analyzed decades of terrorism cases and found systematic targeting of mentally ill, intellectually disabled, and economically desperate people.

Report Findings: Manufacturing Terrorism

The report, titled “Illusion of Justice: Human Rights Abuses in U.S. Terrorism Prosecutions,” examined 494 terrorism-related cases from September 11, 2001, through 2013. The investigation revealed disturbing patterns:

Targeting the Vulnerable:

• Many defendants had mental health issues, intellectual disabilities, or were economically desperate
• FBI informants specifically sought out vulnerable individuals who could be manipulated
• Targets often had no connections to actual terrorist networks or capability to carry out attacks independently
• Some targets had IQs well below average or diagnosed mental illnesses

Informant-Driven Operations:

• The FBI used over 15,000 informants post-9/11—the most in Bureau history
• Informants were often paid substantial sums ($100,000+ in many cases) and working to avoid prosecution or deportation
• Many informants had criminal records and were motivated by money rather than public safety
• Informants frequently initiated contact, suggested plots, and provided all resources

Government as Architect of Plots:

• In numerous cases, the government conceived the terrorist plot
• FBI provided or facilitated access to weapons (invariably fake or inert)
• Informants removed logistical obstacles and provided financial resources
• Plots would not have existed without government involvement

Statistical Analysis

The report’s quantitative findings were striking:

• Nearly 50% of federal counterterrorism convictions resulted from informant-based cases
• Approximately 30% involved sting operations where the informant played an active role in the underlying plot
• In many cases, informants were the primary or sole source of terrorist rhetoric and ideology
• Multiple studies confirmed that most defendants would not have been capable of carrying out attacks without extensive government assistance

A separate 2018 academic study analyzing 580 terrorism cases from 9/11 to 2014 found that 54% (316 defendants) involved informants or undercover agents, with the government playing a central role in constructing the alleged plots.

Case Examples Documented

The report detailed numerous cases exemplifying the pattern:

Rezwan Ferdaus (2011):

• Young man with physics degree but severe mental health issues
• FBI agent told Ferdaus’ father that his son “obviously” had mental health problems
• Despite this knowledge, FBI targeted him for elaborate sting
• Provided fake explosives and weapons for plot to attack Pentagon and Capitol
• Sentenced to 17 years in prison

Mohamed Osman Mohamud (2010):

• 19-year-old college student
• FBI agents posed as terrorists and cultivated relationship over months
• Provided inert explosives for Portland Christmas tree lighting ceremony plot
• No evidence of capability or connections to actual terrorists
• Sentenced to 30 years in prison

Sami Osmakac (2012):

• Diagnosed with schizophrenia
• FBI informant supplied weapons and encouraged violent rhetoric
• Osmakac had no money, connections, or capability to obtain weapons or explosives
• Convicted based on plot entirely facilitated by FBI

Racial and Religious Profiling

The report documented systematic targeting based on religion and race:

• Research found “Black Muslim identity” was the most consistent predictor of being subjected to sting operations
• Black Muslims were over three times as likely as white non-Muslims to have multiple entrapment indicators
• FBI informants specifically infiltrated mosques and Muslim community centers to identify targets
• Minority racial and religious groups, undocumented immigrants, and individuals with low socioeconomic status all faced elevated risk

Legal Framework Failures

Human Rights Watch identified fundamental problems with the legal framework:

Entrapment Defense Inadequacy:

• U.S. entrapment law focuses on defendant’s “predisposition” rather than government conduct
• Making inflammatory statements or expressing sympathy for terrorist causes is treated as predisposition
• Judges often exclude evidence of government overreach from juries
• Between 2001-2014, only 33% of sting operation cases went to trial, with entrapment defenses rarely succeeding

Harsh Mandatory Sentences:

• Terrorism charges carry mandatory minimum sentences of 25 years or more
• Defendants facing life imprisonment often accept plea deals even when entrapment occurred
• Judges express discomfort with sentences but feel bound by mandatory minimums

Secret Evidence:

• Government frequently uses classified evidence unavailable to defense
• FISA warrants and national security letters prevent defendants from examining how they were targeted
• State secrets privilege blocks judicial review of FBI tactics

Recommendations

Human Rights Watch called for:

• Reform of entrapment law to focus on government conduct rather than predisposition
• Prohibition on targeting individuals with mental disabilities or illness
• Public reporting on FBI informant use and sting operations
• Judicial oversight of aggressive informant tactics
• Review of cases where vulnerable individuals were targeted

Response and Impact

The FBI rejected the report’s conclusions, arguing that all prosecutions were based on legitimate predisposition and that sting operations prevented genuine terrorism. However, the report influenced public debate and provided systematic documentation of concerns raised by civil liberties groups, defense attorneys, and some federal judges.

Significance

The Human Rights Watch report provided authoritative documentation that post-9/11 counterterrorism efforts had devolved into systematic entrapment of vulnerable individuals who posed no genuine threat. By manufacturing terrorist plots and pressuring mentally ill, intellectually disabled, and economically desperate people to participate, the FBI created the illusion of disrupting terrorism while actually generating cases that would not otherwise exist.

The report demonstrated how counterterrorism resources were being deployed not against genuine threats but against marginalized communities, particularly poor Muslims and people of color. The systematic nature of these practices—affecting hundreds of cases over more than a decade—revealed entrapment not as occasional overreach but as a central counterterrorism strategy, raising profound questions about civil liberties, due process, and the criminalization of vulnerable populations.