In January of this year, Ben Swann pointed out the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is often accused of taking antisocial or weak-minded individuals and convincing them to begin planning terror attacks so that agents can bust them, declare victory, and use fear of future attacks to bolster anti-terror budget requests. Often, the agents in question are accused of providing the alleged terrorists with assistance in planning or carrying out their plots. On that note, the Department of Justice charged two New York women last Thursday in what it calls a conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction on US soil.
The two women allegedly had ties to ISIS and al-Qaeda and intended to use information from a 1971 book called The Anarchist Cookbook to create bombs in an effort to launch a terror attack on the United States. Ars Technica notes the fact that the criminal complaint against them “seems to suggest that it was [an undercover FBI] agent that provided the text to the women.” The agent also reportedly took the alleged terrorists to the library for chemistry lessons.
According to The Washington Post, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) issued a press release in response to the case that called for The Anarchist Cookbook to be banned and purged from the internet. Said Feinstein, “I am particularly struck that the alleged bombers made use of online bombmaking guides like The Anarchist Cookbook and Inspire Magazine. These documents are not, in my view, protected by the First Amendment and should be removed from the Internet.”
The Anarchist Cookbook is a controversial, Vietnam-era protest book that includes instructions on how to create bombs and illegal drugs. Ars Technica notes that the book is available on Amazon and has been published online for so long that “removing it from the Internet would be impossible.”
Powerline cited comments by University of Missouri Law School scholar Christina Wells which said that The Anarchist Cookbook is protected by the First Amendment under current jurisprudence because of the fact that it can not be proven that the 1971 book is “likely to incite imminent lawless action.”