The FBI has a choice; it doesn't need to pursue these people. Prosecutors can decline to prosecute. Juries can temper their conclusions and judges can temper their sentences. Etc.
Absolutely. I say this all the time.
> Prosecutors can decline to prosecute.
But prosecutors can also choose to prosecute. When there's that much give in the legal code (giving a ride falls between 'no charge' and the death penalty), there's a lot of room for abuse and corruption. It might be worth giving up the ability to execute people for guarding (terrorist) warehouses for the assurance that we are governed by laws and not by (fickle, prejudiced, and corruptible) men.
well you are not doing anything to improve the laws and society then. Given than logic we'd still have slavery and sodomy laws among other things...
It would certainly be a strong case if a suspect had actively sought the final ingredients of a self-planned act of terror, which would have killed people had the FBI not responded to the call first with fake equipment. But the objection in these cases is that when you subtract the FBI-provided motivation, plans, and equipment, all that's left are the person's own suggestibility and weak moral compass. Those don't constitute a criminal act in themselves. Experts could argue that they aren't likely to have ever resulted in one.
The religious targeting aspect is even more unfair. As far as I know, the FBI isn't spending similar time and resources to identify disaffected and suggestible non-Muslims, and then convincing them of the glory and honor awaiting them if only they would help push a button to bomb a local mosque.
Edit: In the above example, the "predictably persuadable" person isn't criminally responsible for murder if the ride was given to an FBI agent, and there was no actual robbery or murder.
That may be true, but it undermines much of the legal code. A 'predictably persuadable' person can be talked into giving someone a ride, that person commits a homicide in the commission of a robbery, and then the 'predictably persuadable' person is legally responsible for the murder as well.
So, you may be correct that we need a more sophisticated understanding of mens rea into our legal code, but the premise of your objection is fairly far-reaching. We should be deliberate and thoughtful about embracing it fully, even if it is true and fair.