ConfusingJazz
Member
Man, we're going back to the days of bomb throwing anarchists? What's next, is the Kaiser going to show the French what for? I think the newfangled American League is going to ruin baseball!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
- Status
No force is required for entrapment.
Consider this extreme (absurd) scenario:
I would love to take over the country if I could. I have no means to do so. I can't be considered a traitor, because I haven't taken any steps to accomplish my goal. Then I somehow become friends with someone who does have all the resources I would need to take over the country, a plan to do so, and a willingness to help me. In this hypothetical situation, and assuming that I believe it would be succesful, I would go along with my new friend's plan. That would make me a traitor.
Is it entrapment? Probably not, under the law (arguably it is under the definition). According to the logic being presented in this thread, however, I should be arrested now and considered a dangerous traitor because I would, if given the opportunity and resources, try to take over the country. Yet, if that miraculous friend never shows up to give me everything I need, I will never try to take over the country.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
I wish it were easy to draw a line with the whole FBI entrapment thing. It's obvious that the FBI has been facilitating (intentionally impotent) terrorist plots, and it is entrapment, but you can't completely throw away the argument that if you can be facilitated you're still something of a threat and that needs to be recognized.
I think that people who have been facilitated by the FBI should face a lesser jail sentence, and an acknowledgement in their criminal prosecution that the FBI let (influenced) their plots (to) evolve to the point they did.
Perhaps they should be hit with lesser conspirator charges.
And to one of the guys above me. The drone situation is fucked up for a lot of reasons. It's great that we have the ability to do these things, but the ability to carry out these missions needs to be accountable. That means that the CIA can't carry them out, and private military organizations can't.
A lot of civilians die because of drone attacks, and we can't have unaccountable assaults.
I think that people who have been facilitated by the FBI should face a lesser jail sentence, and an acknowledgement in their criminal prosecution that the FBI let (influenced) their plots (to) evolve to the point they did.
Perhaps they should be hit with lesser conspirator charges.
And to one of the guys above me. The drone situation is fucked up for a lot of reasons. It's great that we have the ability to do these things, but the ability to carry out these missions needs to be accountable. That means that the CIA can't carry them out, and private military organizations can't.
A lot of civilians die because of drone attacks, and we can't have unaccountable assaults.
I think this speaks about the Ron Paul thread more than anything.
I prefer french baguettes to kaiser rolls any day
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Brilliant.
You are still grown enough to say no.
travisbickle
Member
Actions by an FBI agent that couldn't make a citizen plan an elaborate terrorist plot to blow up a public land mark:
Put a gun to his head.
Actions by an FBI agent that could make a citizen plan an elaborate terrorist plot to blow up a public landmark:
give the citizen access to firearms.
give the citizen access to explosives.
work with the citizen in planning the plot, with knowledge of strategies, potential targets, and information on how to execute the plot.
pretending to also be an extremist, and putting pressure on the citizen to execute the plot.
Honestly, I think that example I quoted goes even further than that. The informant says, Revelation is going to come in your dreams that you have to do this thing, O.K.? That is identical to the kind of language used by, say, an evangelical going door to door trying to win converts. God will show you the truth in your dreams. I've literally heard Christian preachers use that.
When an evangelical uses it to try to convince someone to "get saved" it's plainly proselytizing. When an FBI agent uses it to propose buying a missile from China...
You're moralizing things instead of being practical.
There are countless patsies willing to carry an explosive vest, supply of ideological idiots this is not a weak link in the chain of terrorism.
You want to attack funding and bomb-making capabilities, which are much harder to come by than idiots.
But no, we go after the idiots, because it's easy.
Yes, I agree, but the point I was just trying to make is that right now I would stipulate that I would commit this crime if given all of the resources I need and if I had a belief it would work. It seems to me, that the rest of the fake plot/investigation would be pointless and according to the logic of many in this thread I should be arrested today, even though I will never actually commit the crime I agree that I would commit.
Before the FBI turned Mohamed Osman Mohamud into a bomber mastermind, he was already a failed terrorist trying to get a job fishing in Alaska because he couldn't get a visa to Yemen. The components for his bomb were supplied by the FBI and later assembled into a fake bomb by the FBI. There is nothing to suggest he could have carried out his attack without the FBI.
Criminals are mostly idiots though. Very rarely are they well-educated.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
But ones who have certain backgrounds, features, passports, that make them far better potential people to use in an attack.
We still do that and in significant ways. That's absurd to assert otherwise.
You mean But Yes, since we go after both,.
Come on, you know what I'm saying, don't play semantics with me.
We go after the easiest target instead of the important one.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
We actually go after both. A lot of the money stuff is handled by Treasury though.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
Well, the article did say that some of them described themselves as anarchists. However, anarchists, terrorist, methodists... They're all the same to me.
Deified Data
Banned
lol, white people can't be terrorists.
But, who are 'the important ones' they are missing? You act as if every year there are some mastermind syndicates that are pulling the wool over the Feds eyes and blowing shit up or terrorizing citizens.
el retorno
Member
That´s the court system. He said the FBI doesn´t care about right wing terrorists just muslims and terrorists, that´s just not true.
perryfarrell
Member
I think it boils down to: Who do we want in our prisons? Criminals that actually pose a danger to society OR harmless, impressionable people that, when nudged and guided by an informant, will go along with the planning of some type of violent 'terrorist' action?
And what is it to 'go along' with such a plan? If you don't object loudly, do you agree with it? What if you agree with it, but you're inebriated, or just giving in to the peer pressure of your homespun 'terrorist cell'? Again, the stories show that it's the FBI undercover agents who do the initiating and the hatching of the plot.
There are tens of thousands of people within the US that would 'go along' with such plans when in the right circumstances. Perhaps hundreds of thousands. Hell, there'd be even GAFers who would. It's a waste of money, resources and lives to lock all these people up.
Dude Abides
Banned
Yes, it does rebut his assertion re right-wing terrorists. But it also rebuts your suggestion that the FBI does not go after people in instances where they have no case.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Not really, it means the Judge ruled against them, not that they thought they had no case.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
Here's what I am saying - you can't achieve any meaningful reduction in terrorism by going after people who only possess willingness to be persuaded to act.
I don't feel particularly sorry for that guy, but you are no safer for arresting him.
Dude Abides
Banned
You don't find this post disingenuous? I do.
There is a line that can be crossed, for sure, and I wouldn't give the FBI carte blanche to do whatever they wanted, but I agree with you here. Isn't this how the real terrorist plots come around as well? Bin Laden and Co. didn't fly the planes or plant bombs themselves. They found radicals to do it for them. It's one thing to nudge someone into doing something like smuggling drugs. You can't nudge someone into murder and mayhem.
And this is the same way the police catch other criminals. How often do you hear about a person contacting what he or she thinks is a hit man, only to find out later it is cop. No difference.
I want criminals in jails. Period. You still have to be responsible for your actions.
If a police officer drops a loaded gun in a bank and I pick it up to rob the bank, I am still the criminal. It doesn't matter if someone else provided the means to do it. It doesn't matter if I have a low IQ. It doesn't matter if it was an impulsive move.
This wasn't an impulsive act either. This was something that was planned and discussed for months.
There two main problems with entrapment -
- It focuses our limited law enforcement resources on places where we're not sure a crime would've even be committed.
- It's very easy to abuse such system.
Now obviously, this is not a black and white question, but those are the main concerns I have against allowing such practices to go unchecked.
You act like being a criminal is a personality trait or a genetic disorder.
A criminal is someone who broke the law, if the breaking would've never happened without law enforcement, is that person a criminal?
You're getting into the dangerous "capacity for crime" territory here.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
You current post above? No, I don't.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Yeah, it's a tough sort of thing. I agree that they should be very selective and not take on the role of facilitating beyond the false dealing.
But if you want to talk about people who are suffering at the hands of our criminal justice system, you have to consider the depth of the problems with our war on drugs. It's been shown to be extremely racially biased and poverty biased. It eclipses this... probably tens of thousands of times over, and is aiding in upsetting the economic viability of an entire (and large) group of people. Especially young ones.
In the end I want to make efforts keep my concerns in check, I suppose. I do see your point though.
empty vessel
Member
The dangerous ones often are. People who are actually planning on committing terrorism for political ends tend not to be that stupid or gullible, whatever else one may think of them. All of the 9/11 hijackers, for example, were college educated (many at Western schools, no less).
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/opinion/14bergen.html
(This was looking specifically at so-called "Islamic" terrorism, which is usually more secular and politically motivated than religiously motivated.)
Timothy McVeigh, while never completing college, had obtained a scholarship to go.
Anders Breivik fits this mold as well.
The people the FBI pursues in these operations tend to be simpletons. I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of them are literally--i.e., clinically--mildly mentally retarded or otherwise suffer from various mental illnesses. They pursue them precisely because they are already surveilling them (itself a problematic thing that law enforcement does that violates the First Amendment) and because they are easy. This kind of law enforcement is in fact optimized to catch the most naive and most simple people who but for the encouragement, prodding, and persuading of law enforcement agents (who typically take the organizational lead to move things along), never would have found themselves in these situations.
Pathetic Basement Virgin
Banned
Most likely. Seem to be the only way they catch any terrorist these days.
sneakypete
Member
If you're willing to go along with a plot to potentially kill innocent people then fk you, you deserve to be incarcerated - regardless of your IQ or education.
Don't you think the more important question here is why the FBI is putting such plots in motion in the first place?
If you look through history, willing idiots are never in short supply, you will never dry that swamp with sting operations.
Again, I don't care that much about that dude, seems like an asshole, but I'm worried about the approach the FBI is taking to counter-terrorism.
Dreams-Visions
Member
The story is about Cleveland, not Detroit.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Because idiots with American passports or addresses are of value for wanting to use in terrorist attacks against the US.
It makes it harder for them to connect with a valid source, discourages people on the line, and makes valid sources doing recruitment have a more difficult time in making contacts. It's one part of Terrorism Disruption.
Again, I don't care that much about that dude, seems like an asshole, but I'm worried about the approach the FBI is taking to counter-terrorism.[/QUOTE]
Why? It's one component of a broad based strategy. It also goes after the money trail and the weapons supplies.
Wait I'm confused, all the terrorist suspects linked on the first page are all White. New calls to profile all White looking people next?
Anyway, imo countless uneducated ignorant people could be persuaded to do crazy shit with the right push. Same can be said of every country. Honestly don't think the FBI should be entrapping people like this. Imagine an FBI plot getting some crazies down south to want to blow shit up because they're persuaded Obama is a Muslim set to blow up America or something similar. Basically, a slightly more radical and specific version of what they already hear and see on Fox News lol.
Anyway, imo countless uneducated ignorant people could be persuaded to do crazy shit with the right push. Same can be said of every country. Honestly don't think the FBI should be entrapping people like this. Imagine an FBI plot getting some crazies down south to want to blow shit up because they're persuaded Obama is a Muslim set to blow up America or something similar. Basically, a slightly more radical and specific version of what they already hear and see on Fox News lol.
Cuba, Afghanistan!!!
sneakypete
Member
Idiots very well may see this headline and think twice before joining in on a plot in the future. I see nothing wrong with this.
Dreams-Visions
Member
empty vessel
Member
It does not accomplish any of that. At all. These people would not try to "connect with a valid source." The "source"--here, an FBI agent--connects with them. It also does not discourage anybody "on the line." There really aren't any such people. People who seriously contemplate and make decisions to commit terrorism (without the inducement and prodding of a government agent) are already politically engaged and connected to like-minded others. It's not like somebody just makes a snap decision one day and then joins up with other terrorists out in a field somewhere. This goes for the last point, too. It does not make people "doing recruitment" have a harder time, because people who are serious about committing terrorism do not recklessly start approaching unknown simpletons for terrorism work. The FBI, sad to say, has that market cornered.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
It actually does, you don't want to acknowledge that because it would undermine your whole argument.
You have no evidence to suggest that in all the cases they have only connecting with an FBI source and not trying to connect with others. Once again this is because it undermines your argument.
Not always, the best terrorists are the ones who are no the clear cut activist. You want someone with little to no record or involvement in the political aspect. It reduces the risk that they'll be picked up.
Such as this person
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Times_Square_car_bombing_attempt#Prior_to_the_attack
Which begs the question, how do you know that the FBI already hasn't picked up someone who would have followed the same path?
Why not? People are driven to join groups an organizations often on spur of the moment events and decisions. This goes for any type of group (legit or illegal), such as 9/11 causing people to join the military. Someone seeing the Israel's acting stupid and getting hot about that.
Except you're wrong about that. You are giving far to much credit to terrorists and their risk management.
I am not aware of any case in history where a terrorism group ran out of patsies.
You defeat terrorism by eliminating its reasons to exist, and you contain it by killing its funding and operational capacity (bomb making, access to weapons etc.).
This is just theater.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Except we're are also doing the containment part of the process too. It's an overall strategy. You need to stop acting like this is the only thing done.
ConfusingJazz
Member
Well yeah, but you don't give them free reign to bomb things while doing that.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Not surprised to see that the cancerous Occupy movement has created this type of home-grown terrorism. I'm expecting all Democrat leaders to condemn this movement in the harshest terms.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I wonder if we're going to get the usual jumping to conclusions and "This is obviously the work of those damn (insert my currently least favorite political group here) I am outraged!" based on flimsy evidence again.
It seems to happen a lot.
It seems to happen a lot.
ConfusingJazz
Member
...dude, no.
But we're not going after their bomb making capacity in such sting operations.
That person was unable to create a bomb, and that's my problem with that approach.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked