Is it just me, or does it seem like we're basically conducting sting operations against social r-tards and then calling it "battling terrorism?"
I've heard of a few of these deals where agents hear some kid prattling about jihad, they offer to give him a van full of explosives, and then arrest him when he tries to use it.
I suppose I support these people being arrested, but at the same time, there are LOTS of young people with idiot ideas. It's not the idiot ideas that are the really big problem, it's the van full of explosives or the shoulder launched SAM. When the weapons are fake, it all feels a bit fake.
I mean, couldn't you pretty much find a kid in every highschool who would gladly pull his own Columbine if somebody would just give him a bunch of weapons? Kids are naive and melodramatic. It's the overseas networks that are the real issue. Some local nutjob with no capacity of his own is really not very important, and while it's nice to lock him away, it's really not something we should confuse with 'fighting terrorism.'
It's like going looking for a serial killer, and catching somebody whacking off on a park on the way. Sure, fine, arrest the guy. But you didn't solve any serial killings.
I've had school administrators at my door, with police in tow, several times because my search history (on school networks) was littered with jihadist sites.
Thing is, I'm white as hell, and basically a long-haired California hippie. Not the sort of dude that blows things up, but they come down anyway. Even though they know that I'm a political science graduate student that specializes in nonproliferation and the Middle East.
That's why I do all my research for class from home.
Well, that and the school network has blocked access to objectionable sites, which apparently includes virtually anything to do with the Middle East or the military in general.
dogma wrote:I've had school administrators at my door, with police in tow, several times because my search history (on school networks) was littered with jihadist sites.
Thing is, I'm white as hell, and basically a long-haired California hippie. Not the sort of dude that blows things up, but they come down anyway. Even though they know that I'm a political science graduate student that specializes in nonproliferation and the Middle East.
Well they also keep getting anonymous tips from someone. Of course I know nothing about that and it surely isn't me. Nope, wouldn't do that. I swear.
dogma wrote:I've had school administrators at my door, with police in tow, several times because my search history (on school networks) was littered with jihadist sites.
Thing is, I'm white as hell, and basically a long-haired California hippie. Not the sort of dude that blows things up, but they come down anyway. Even though they know that I'm a political science graduate student that specializes in nonproliferation and the Middle East.
Well they also keep getting anonymous tips from someone. Of course I know nothing about that and it surely isn't me. Nope, wouldn't do that. I swear.
The case seems almost to stray over the borderline of entrapment.
It would appear that this guy's crime basically was to have some Jihadist ideas. He didn't take things any further until the scheme was put together by the FBI. So it looks like this was done in order to lead him on to a place where he could be arrested for something serious.
OTOH the real MO of real Jihadists is to watch out for disaffected youth and recruit them in this way.
How can we know if this bloke was just a teenage knobend or genuinely capable of putting together a detailed bomb plot.
To be honest, apart from fake instead of real, the FBI did nothing different to the Jihaists. Find someone a bit loopy, talk bollocks, give them a bomb and a target.
But, cynical as I may be, we have to trust that the powers that be can tell someone being an attention seeker, and someone with genuine intent apart.
Ive also heard of police/drug units doing something similar to x-drug users. I personally think its a pretty low move. I honestly feel bad for a person, that had a horrible addiction, and finally kicked it, only to have some under cover guy trying to "gift" the person with a drug that he/she just kicked. But what can ya do? I mean really? Its gakky, but it also keeps the streets clean...............weird I feel dirty for saying that
I would prefer to hear about arrests of genuine jihadist plotters rather than dimwit little mugs who have been entrapped.
Let's be clear about it. In this case there wasn't any bomb plot. It was got up by the FBI for the purpose of building a case against this bloke. He hadn't committed any crime until the FBI fabricated the plot to give him the opportunity. If the FBI hadn't tagged him, nothing would have happened.
It is moving into Minority Report territory. Spot people whom you suspect may commit a crime, and furnish a pseudo crime for them to commit, then arrest them for that conspiracy.
There just seems something wrong about it. It doesn't sit well.
I hope that it is a good investment of police resources.
KingCracker wrote:Ive also heard of police/drug units doing something similar to x-drug users. I personally think its a pretty low move. I honestly feel bad for a person, that had a horrible addiction, and finally kicked it, only to have some undercover guy trying to "gift" the person with a drug that he/she just kicked. But what can ya do? I mean really? Its gakky, but it also keeps the streets clean...............weird I feel dirty for saying that
What?
Police and drug units have better things to do than try to hook ex-drug users. I can't even think of any reason that they would try to do something like you described.
Kilkrazy wrote:I would prefer to hear about arrests of genuine jihadist plotters rather than dimwit little mugs who have been entrapped.
You probably won't hear about them being arrested, what with most of them being ganked by Reaper UAVs whenever they poke their heads up.
Let's be clear about it. In this case there wasn't any bomb plot. It was got up by the FBI for the purpose of building a case against this bloke. He hadn't committed any crime until the FBI fabricated the plot to give him the opportunity. If the FBI hadn't tagged him, nothing would have happened.
You know that nothing would have happened for a fact?
The FBI didn't fabricate the plot. They gave him the materials. That's the extent of what they've been doing in these cases, because otherwise it is entrapment.
It is moving into Minority Report territory. Spot people whom you suspect may commit a crime, and furnish a pseudo crime for them to commit, then arrest them for that conspiracy.
That's not what Minority Report was about...
Minority Report was psychically seeing someone who was going to commit a crime, then arresting them for that crime.
Part of where the FBI is getting these people?
Monitoring known Jihadist websites, or even creating Jihadist websites that they can monitor themselves.
There just seems something wrong about it. It doesn't sit well.
I hope that it is a good investment of police resources.
Well, it's not an investment of police resources. It's the FBI, not local law enforcement, doing these arrests and the stings and the preparatory work.
Kilkrazy wrote:I would prefer to hear about arrests of genuine jihadist plotters rather than dimwit little mugs who have been entrapped.
You probably won't hear about them being arrested, what with most of them being ganked by Reaper UAVs whenever they poke their heads up.
Let's be clear about it. In this case there wasn't any bomb plot. It was got up by the FBI for the purpose of building a case against this bloke. He hadn't committed any crime until the FBI fabricated the plot to give him the opportunity. If the FBI hadn't tagged him, nothing would have happened.
You know that nothing would have happened for a fact?
The FBI didn't fabricate the plot. They gave him the materials. That's the extent of what they've been doing in these cases, because otherwise it is entrapment.
It is moving into Minority Report territory. Spot people whom you suspect may commit a crime, and furnish a pseudo crime for them to commit, then arrest them for that conspiracy.
That's not what Minority Report was about...
Minority Report was psychically seeing someone who was going to commit a crime, then arresting them for that crime.
Part of where the FBI is getting these people?
Monitoring known Jihadist websites, or even creating Jihadist websites that they can monitor themselves.
There just seems something wrong about it. It doesn't sit well.
I hope that it is a good investment of police resources.
Well, it's not an investment of police resources. It's the FBI, not local law enforcement, doing these arrests and the stings and the preparatory work.
According to the report, the FBI recruited him, gathered materials, assembled a fake bomb, and gave him the pretend trigger and ordered him to set it off.
The FBI is a law enforcement organisation and costs money. To day they are not "the police", so whatever they do is OK, is very disingenuous.
As you think this pattern of law enforcement is fine, you do not need to defend it by twisting the meaning of the evidence.
These sorts of sting operations are designed with the avoidance of entrapment in mind. They're taping their conversations, and deliberately giving the guy outs to assure that it's not viewed as entrapment. I don't think that it would stand up as a legal defense.
So, I don't think there's anything wrong with arresting this kid, I think it's a good thing overall, I just think it's rather diappointing that we keep coming up with nobodies, when we really need to be working up the tree and getting people that have the ability to supply these guys.
I mean, we had that guy try to blow up Times Square, and he would have succeeded were he not incompetent. He was trained and supplied by foreign forces. That network is what we need to take out. There are unlimited stupid people who will dial a phone for jihad. Collecting them up just leads to prisons full of the mentally unfortunate.
Kilkrazy wrote:
According to the report, the FBI recruited him, gathered materials, assembled a fake bomb, and gave him the pretend trigger and ordered him to set it off.
And at no stage did he stop and say 'oh well, perhaps fully intending to murder families at a peaceful religious gathering might be a gakky idea'.
They found this little twerp on Jihadist websites, he wanted to be recruited by real terrorists and intended to commit mass murder.
These sorts of sting operations are designed with the avoidance of entrapment in mind. They're taping their conversations, and deliberately giving the guy outs to assure that it's not viewed as entrapment. I don't think that it would stand up as a legal defense.
Not always, the FBI hasn't been very good at following it's conflicting procedural book over the last 10 years and there are numerous cases of them violating quite a few constitutional laws in order to secure a capture (if not a conviction, many of their detainees are still awaiting trial). Will this man go before civilian court?
So, I don't think there's anything wrong with arresting this kid, I think it's a good thing overall, I just think it's rather diappointing that we keep coming up with nobodies, when we really need to be working up the tree and getting people that have the ability to supply these guys.
Did you just advocate arresting the FBI? I keed, I keed. I agree with what they've done, though not really the methods. The FBI isn't transparent enough for me to lay my faith in their ability to morally violate the constitution with good judgement, too often they've ignored the facts or followed and given spurious evidence in order to secure a conviction that was demanded by a specific political potentate rather then their own need to act. I'm glad they caught the guy, but I would really feel a whole lot safer if I could trust the people that caught him too.
I mean, we had that guy try to blow up Times Square, and he would have succeeded were he not incompetent. He was trained and supplied by foreign forces.
I thought he was self trained and supplied and only absorbed ideology during time abroad? He had a good amount of money due to his career and he wasn't well trained. Did they supply him with the money to buy the beater car and the propane tanks? I could afford most of what he bought as a student.
That network is what we need to take out. There are unlimited stupid people who will dial a phone for jihad. Collecting them up just leads to prisons full of the mentally unfortunate.
We're engaged in occupying two countries under the guise of counter terror operations, how much more would you have us do?
Kilkrazy wrote:
According to the report, the FBI recruited him, gathered materials, assembled a fake bomb, and gave him the pretend trigger and ordered him to set it off.
And at no stage did he stop and say 'oh well, perhaps fully intending to murder families at a peaceful religious gathering might be a gakky idea'.
They found this little twerp on Jihadist websites, he wanted to be recruited by real terrorists and intended to commit mass murder.
Yes, it is very troubling. I don't defend his actions, which were clearly wrong.
At the same time, if the FBI had not put the plot together, he wouldn't have gone ahead with it.
Or would he have been recruited by a real jihadist? Who knows how much of a danger this chap really presented?
I agree with Phryxis, basically. The FBI may have crossed a line in contriving the arrest of someone who wasn't a genuine jihadist. Have they done it to make themselves look good? The resources used in organising this fake plot could have been spent on pursuing real plotters.
Maybe it would have been better to continue observation of this guy, and wait for him to be contacted by real jihadists.
I agree with Killkrazy. I read this and thought it was silly. Why would they push the plot all the way till Christmas time? They started on him in june. Why make such a public statement out of it. It reminds me of the new york cops busting anybody they can to keep the numbers up. If i gave a lil bullied kids the guns and the push to hose down his school, then bust him for it, shouldn't I bust myself too?
Update: some body has set the kid's Islamic place of worship on fire. Thanks for making things worse FBI.
snurl wrote:Criminal methods are great for catching criminals.
Yes, its a setup, but why should a criminal expect fair play?
Thing is, I'm not really worried about being fair, or concerned about this kid at all. He pushed the button, so feth him. Put him in jail for as long as you can.
It's about wondering if this kind of operation is really doing anything to reduce the chance of a terrorist attack in future. There'll never be a shortage of disaffected kids that can be prompted into terrorist attacks, so it isn't as though you're going to catch them all in stings before an actual terrorist network can get to one of these kids. Surely what really matters is dismantling the terrorist networks, and controlling their ability to access explosives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:We're engaged in occupying two countries under the guise of counter terror operations, how much more would you have us do?
That seems a little wrong headed, mate. Can't we put down Iraq in the column of 'a thing that was done much which people claimed would make us safer from terrorism but really hasn't', and then put this sting operation in the same column.
The point really is about putting more things in 'actually dismantling terror networks and/or restricting their ability to access materials they might use to launch attacks' column.
That seems a little wrong headed, mate. Can't we put down Iraq in the column of 'a thing that was done much which people claimed would make us safer from terrorism but really hasn't', and then put this sting operation in the same column.
The point really is about putting more things in 'actually dismantling terror networks and/or restricting their ability to access materials they might use to launch attacks' column.
We can't censure Saudi Arabia, we're already engaged to the fullest extent we really can be in Pakistan, we can't invade Iran without a shitstorm, moving into Yemen would be nice but we lack the political will, and we don't have the political gumption to heavily restrict or monitor people of ethnic arab descent in America. Other then being smarter with how we gather intelligence we're doing the best possible thing by giving them better targets in countries other then the U.S.. The next time Germany wants to send a few tanks into Yemen or Sudan I'm all for it, until then I think we're engaged well past the point that we reasonably should be in "combating terror" abroad.
Most def, if Obama's policies continue. This is pretty much entirely domestic, Obama gives civillian trials for stuff going on in Afghanistan.
I thought he was self trained and supplied and only absorbed ideology during time abroad?
I dunno, they claim he was trained in Pakistan, which is pretty much where it's done these days. Not sure what "training" really means, one tends to think that somebody living in America, with reasonable income, and real training, wouldn't have a problem making a serious bomb. But, who knows. That guy just reads "douchebag" to me. Like, the sort of guy who just can't get things done, no matter how many mujaheddin try to get him sorted out.
At the same time, if the FBI had not put the plot together, he wouldn't have gone ahead with it.
The articles I'm reading are suggesting that this was his idea. I don't think they guided him as directly as you suggest.
It wasn't "if you want to help jihad, you have to take this van to this place, and use this phone to blow up these people."
They were giving him choices along the way. "Will you convert people to Islam, or do operations." "Operations." Etc. The article I read said that he chose what was to be done (a bombing) and the target.
Of course, who knows, I wasn't there. But the story, at least, is going to be that he pretty much "chose his own adventure." At each page he was given the option to "turn to page 3 and notice that there are children involved" and he always turned to page crazy.
The FBI may have crossed a line in contriving the arrest of someone who wasn't a genuine jihadist.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the did the wrong thing, I think this guy belongs in jail for life. I just think it makes us look ineffectual. We're looking for real professional terrorists, and we keep getting lucky (as with Faisal Shazad), or getting dollar store nutjobs like this kid.
I don't think he was going to lead us to anything. If a 19 year old kid can get access, then a FBI agent posing as a 19 year old kid can get access.
I'm more concerned that we had a lot of people taking a lot of time to pin a (valid) charge on a nobody. It's just a lot of time and effort for somebody that doesn't matter. It also suggests to me that they're not getting much else done, either.
Other then being smarter with how we gather intelligence we're doing the best possible thing by giving them better targets in countries other then the U.S..
It's not so much as "we have to do something different" as "gak, look how this is going." I'm not telling the FBI to "lern2play" I'm just saying it doesn't look very good for our chances of doing anything relevant.
It's the same as all this drama with the TSA. There comes a point at which you have to realize that basically lunatics are going to kill you if they want to kill you, and maybe the best thing to do is to stop thinking about it and just try to be happy while you're alive.
ShumaGorath wrote:We can't censure Saudi Arabia, we're already engaged to the fullest extent we really can be in Pakistan, we can't invade Iran without a shitstorm, moving into Yemen would be nice but we lack the political will, and we don't have the political gumption to heavily restrict or monitor people of ethnic arab descent in America. Other then being smarter with how we gather intelligence we're doing the best possible thing by giving them better targets in countries other then the U.S.. The next time Germany wants to send a few tanks into Yemen or Sudan I'm all for it, until then I think we're engaged well past the point that we reasonably should be in "combating terror" abroad.
Except that breaking down international terror groups isn't restricted to just invading other countries. Indeed, invading other countries is barely related, and in some cases makes breaking down terror networks even harder. As Phryxis said, surely the better option here would be to tag this kid, then track any efforts from actual terrorists to contact this kid, and work up the chain from there?
As Phryxis said, surely the better option here would be to tag this kid, then track any efforts from actual terrorists to contact this kid, and work up the chain from there?
Nah, I didn't say that, I think the kid is a worthless dead end. I want them to take out the real networks, but this kid wasn't leading there.
Honestly, it'd be fine with me if they just shot him in the head the second he dialed the phone. If I could think of a way to make that legal without undermining our moral code, I'd be super glad.
Hey, how about that? A death warrant? "Sure, if person X does thing Y, you can shoot him to death immediately."
ShumaGorath wrote:We can't censure Saudi Arabia, we're already engaged to the fullest extent we really can be in Pakistan, we can't invade Iran without a shitstorm, moving into Yemen would be nice but we lack the political will, and we don't have the political gumption to heavily restrict or monitor people of ethnic arab descent in America. Other then being smarter with how we gather intelligence we're doing the best possible thing by giving them better targets in countries other then the U.S.. The next time Germany wants to send a few tanks into Yemen or Sudan I'm all for it, until then I think we're engaged well past the point that we reasonably should be in "combating terror" abroad.
Except that breaking down international terror groups isn't restricted to just invading other countries. Indeed, invading other countries is barely related, and in some cases makes breaking down terror networks even harder. As Phryxis said, surely the better option here would be to tag this kid, then track any efforts from actual terrorists to contact this kid, and work up the chain from there?
We could also have dogma and sebster logically argue those terrorists out of hiding.
Terrorist: I want to destroy America!
dogma/sebster: How will you do it?
T: By blowing it up!
d/s: How will it blow up?
T: With bombs!
d/s: How will these bombs detonate?
T: Via remote control!
d/s: You should switch to the 4G coverage as it will mean faster exploding time.
T: Amazing! I'll go sign up with Sprint now.
And there you have it: Now we have the terrorist right where we want it, on a mobile broadband provider!
ShumaGorath wrote:We can't censure Saudi Arabia, we're already engaged to the fullest extent we really can be in Pakistan, we can't invade Iran without a shitstorm, moving into Yemen would be nice but we lack the political will, and we don't have the political gumption to heavily restrict or monitor people of ethnic arab descent in America. Other then being smarter with how we gather intelligence we're doing the best possible thing by giving them better targets in countries other then the U.S.. The next time Germany wants to send a few tanks into Yemen or Sudan I'm all for it, until then I think we're engaged well past the point that we reasonably should be in "combating terror" abroad.
Except that breaking down international terror groups isn't restricted to just invading other countries. Indeed, invading other countries is barely related, and in some cases makes breaking down terror networks even harder. As Phryxis said, surely the better option here would be to tag this kid, then track any efforts from actual terrorists to contact this kid, and work up the chain from there?
And when they are operating in areas like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen where we have little recourse for action within their borders? I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, but keep in mind, it was that exact course of action that saw an extremist international terrorist organization take hold of an entire country (afghanistan) while the seeds for another was spread across the entirety of the mideast. Do you believe that small scale directed action can dismantle a network like Al-Queda, which draws much of it's funding from our allies or the Taliban which has the backing of tribes and can set up defacto governments to draw funds and recruits from the moment military scrutiny is moved from them? Cutting the talibans funding directly involves military intervention in afghanistan and effectively damaging or destroying Al-Queda and similar international organizations requires either strong and effective allied foreign governance (Neither of which exist in the mideast) or direct military intervention on a large scale (which is proven only truly effective at making their war localized rather than international). There are no easy answers besides going back a few decades an making sure that we didn't play dominos with the ruskies in the mideast, at this point the ball is rolling and to date we haven't had another major terror incident within U.S. borders, so at least the concept of externalizing the conflict seems to be somewhat effective.
ShumaGorath wrote:And when they are operating in areas like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen where we have little recourse for action within their borders?
That's where bringing stable, effective governments to Yemen and Pakistan comes in. Which is admittedly easier said that done.
I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, but keep in mind, it was that exact course of action that saw an extremist international terrorist organization take hold of an entire country (afghanistan) while the seeds for another was spread across the entirety of the mideast.
I'm not really sure what you mean here. What course of action?
Do you believe that small scale directed action can dismantle a network like Al-Queda, which draws much of it's funding from our allies or the Taliban which has the backing of tribes and can set up defacto governments to draw funds and recruits from the moment military scrutiny is moved from them?
I'm not sure the answer is to look to dismantle AQ. I don't think that's possible. Really the idea is to take out what elements we can, limit their actions elsewhere, and look towards a long term decrease in people becoming extremists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarOne wrote:We could also have dogma and sebster logically argue those terrorists out of hiding.
Terrorist: I want to destroy America!
(snip)
d/s: You should switch to the 4G coverage as it will mean faster exploding time.
T: Amazing! I'll go sign up with Sprint now.
And there you have it: Now we have the terrorist right where we want it, on a mobile broadband provider!
I can't speak for dogma, but I've never been unlucky enough to have to take a job selling phone plans. I think I would suck at it, quite badly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:Nah, I didn't say that, I think the kid is a worthless dead end.
Yeah, sorry, I was a little general in my language there. I meant that you suggested that it's better to focus on higher ups, and added the suggestion on how higher ups might be connected to this kid myself.
I don't know enough about the case in question to know if there was any chance of this kid being connected by actual terrorist groups at some time in the future. If so, it seems a wasted chance to catch someone more powerful. If not, the whole operation seems like it was completely pointless.
djones520 wrote:If the man had the will to drive a car full of what he thought was explosives, into a populated area, and then attempted to detonate it...
The FBI gave him the "equipment". They didn't make him do it. He did that himself.
Just be glad that it was the FBI that he got in contact with, and not a real jihadist cell.
Because then you'd be screaming about how the FBI didn't do enough.
Exactly. Evidently there are some notes that he was in contact with others overseas as well. Take him north of San Fran. Chum up the water a bit for a nice great white. Throw him in = profit!!!
djones520 wrote:If the man had the will to drive a car full of what he thought was explosives, into a populated area, and then attempted to detonate it...
The FBI gave him the "equipment". They didn't make him do it. He did that himself.
Just be glad that it was the FBI that he got in contact with, and not a real jihadist cell.
Because then you'd be screaming about how the FBI didn't do enough.
Exactly. Evidently there are some notes that he was in contact with others overseas as well. Take him north of San Fran. Chum up the water a bit for a nice great white. Throw him in = profit!!!
Does this come from personal usage of that method Frazzled?
djones520 wrote:If the man had the will to drive a car full of what he thought was explosives, into a populated area, and then attempted to detonate it...
The FBI gave him the "equipment". They didn't make him do it. He did that himself.
Just be glad that it was the FBI that he got in contact with, and not a real jihadist cell.
Because then you'd be screaming about how the FBI didn't do enough.
Exactly. Evidently there are some notes that he was in contact with others overseas as well. Take him north of San Fran. Chum up the water a bit for a nice great white. Throw him in = profit!!!
Does this come from personal usage of that method Frazzled?
(hidesbucket marked "fishguts" behind back) What? Me? I am shocked, just shocked...
djones520 wrote:If the man had the will to drive a car full of what he thought was explosives, into a populated area, and then attempted to detonate it...
The FBI gave him the "equipment". They didn't make him do it. He did that himself.
Just be glad that it was the FBI that he got in contact with, and not a real jihadist cell.
Because then you'd be screaming about how the FBI didn't do enough.
Exactly. Evidently there are some notes that he was in contact with others overseas as well. Take him north of San Fran. Chum up the water a bit for a nice great white. Throw him in = profit!!!
Does this come from personal usage of that method Frazzled?
(hidesbucket marked "fishguts" behind back) What? Me? I am shocked, just shocked...
Except it doesn't because there wasn't a terrorist attack.
Maybe the resources spent on getting this guy were needed on another guy who really is being contacted by real terrorists.
Or maybe if the FBI had let this guy alone, and kept tabs on him, eventually he would have been contacted by real terrorists and the FBI could then have followed up a real lead.
Kilkrazy wrote:Except it doesn't because there wasn't a terrorist attack.
Maybe the resources spent on getting this guy were needed on another guy who really is being contacted by real terrorists.
Or maybe if the FBI had let this guy alone, and kept tabs on him, eventually he would have been contacted by real terrorists and the FBI could then have followed up a real lead.
One can only presume given that all the facts are unlikely to enter into the public domain but I would assume that the latter is the case; that the FBI had evidence or suspicion that he would be contacted by a genuine terrorist group and therefore decided to act.
Presumably it is easier for them to control the operation if it is of their own invention rather than trying to react to the situation created if this chap was acting on the orders of a genuine terrorist group and with a real bomb.
Kilkrazy wrote:Except it doesn't because there wasn't a terrorist attack.
Maybe the resources spent on getting this guy were needed on another guy who really is being contacted by real terrorists.
Or maybe if the FBI had let this guy alone, and kept tabs on him, eventually he would have been contacted by real terrorists and the FBI could then have followed up a real lead.
They can't leave him alone now. He's was waiting to kill people. He didn't need a big bomb to do that.
Have to agree with KK - might have been a better option to keep tabs on the guy until (or if) he is contacted by actual "bad guys" so they can, you know, take down an actual "bad guy network" rather than some random disenfranchised guy with no ties to anyone who was just making noise until the FBI essentially gave him the ways and means to actually do something.
Melissia wrote:Of course the attack hasn't happened yet.
BECAUSE THEY STOPPED IT.
TF2 players have something for this kind of conversations. "Herpaderp."
There wasn't an attack, because it was made up by the FBI.
No. The terrorist attempted an attack. This is the classic definition of attempted murder.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:Have to agree with KK - might have been a better option to keep tabs on the guy until (or if) he is contacted by actual "bad guys" so they can, you know, take down an actual "bad guy network" rather than some random disenfranchised guy with no ties to anyone who was just making noise until the FBI essentially gave him the ways and means to actually do something.
You're assuming they are not doing that as well. That would be a false assumption.
Frazzled wrote:You're assuming they are not doing that as well. That would be a false assumption.
Don't get me wrong, I would imagine that they are keeping tabs on a lot of people. Presumably they thought (without knowing a great deal about the case) that anyone shouting their heads off on the internet about wanting to take down America (or whatever) is less likely to be contacted by "real" terrorists groups precicely because security forces would be more likely to be watching these sorts of people.
My guess would be that he fell both into the category of "too loud to be contacted by terrorist types" and "potential danger of actually carrying out an attack anyway". Hence he was then trapped in a sting operation so that he could be apprehended and detained with little risk to citizens and property.
Obviously we can only guess at why it was appropriate in this case to entrap someone in such an operation rather than "watch and wait" since none of us has access to the details.
Melissia wrote:Being stupid isn't a legal defense.
Mental retardation might be, but I don't think he qualifies for that.
Melissia is correct. lets not forget what he thought he was doing.
Authorities say the youth, who recently attended Oregon State University in Corvallis, twice attempted to use a cellphone to detonate what he believed were explosives stored in 55-gallon drums packed into a white van, which he drove to the scene and parked near the Christmas tree gathering.
filbert wrote:Presumably it is easier for them to control the operation if it is of their own invention rather than trying to react to the situation created if this chap was acting on the orders of a genuine terrorist group and with a real bomb.
Sure, but is 'easier' really worth sacrificing 'effective'. It's just... I'd rather see an announcement that the FBI has arrested people with the intent and ability to launch a terrorist attack, than see them announce they've arrested a guy with the intent, but whose only ability to launch an attack came from the FBI themselves.
Melissia wrote:TF2 players have something for this kind of conversations. "Herpaderp."
Which goes a long way to explaining why so few of the world's future leaders have come from among the TF2 community.
Frazzled wrote:No. The terrorist attempted an attack. This is the classic definition of attempted murder.
Well, duh. No-one is arguing this guy isn't a bad guy. No-one. That this kid is guilty of a crime is obvious, and really not the point of this conversation. People are arguing that maybe instead of placing all their resources into catching some kid who only got the ability to make an attack through the FBI, they could have used him to track the people who represent a much greater threat - those with the ability to give bombs to other disaffected loons.
Frazzled wrote:Duh...people are arguing he was entrapped. Thats an excuse for his attempt to kill many many people. He deserves death by Weinerdogbreath.
I think people are arguing that the use of the operation was poor when we were better off utilizing resources to find funded and intended terrorists, rather then propping up a 19 year old with a long false trail for him to convict himself with. I doubt anyones said that it was an "excuse" for what he's done. They would just have rathered the agency do something useful with this, rather then capping it off with the capture of a nobody.
But then that would involve a shade of gray, and frazzled is a zebra.
Frazzled wrote:Duh...people are arguing he was entrapped. Thats an excuse for his attempt to kill many many people. He deserves death by Weinerdogbreath.
I think people are arguing that the use of the operation was poor when we were better off utilizing resources to find funded and intended terrorists, rather then propping up a 19 year old with a long false trail for him to convict himself with. I doubt anyones said that it was an "excuse" for what he's done. They would just have rathered the agency do something useful with this, rather then capping it off with the capture of a nobody.
But then that would involve a shade of gray, and frazzled is a zebra.
Frazzled wrote:Duh...people are arguing he was entrapped. Thats an excuse for his attempt to kill many many people. He deserves death by Weinerdogbreath.
I think people are arguing that the use of the operation was poor when we were better off utilizing resources to find funded and intended terrorists, rather then propping up a 19 year old with a long false trail for him to convict himself with. I doubt anyones said that it was an "excuse" for what he's done. They would just have rathered the agency do something useful with this, rather then capping it off with the capture of a nobody.
But then that would involve a shade of gray, and frazzled is a zebra.
Tell that to the Fort Hood Shooter.
Why, did the FBI give him the gun? They shouldn't of used real bullets.
Frazzled wrote:Duh...people are arguing he was entrapped. Thats an excuse for his attempt to kill many many people. He deserves death by Weinerdogbreath.
I think people are arguing that the use of the operation was poor when we were better off utilizing resources to find funded and intended terrorists, rather then propping up a 19 year old with a long false trail for him to convict himself with. I doubt anyones said that it was an "excuse" for what he's done. They would just have rathered the agency do something useful with this, rather then capping it off with the capture of a nobody.
But then that would involve a shade of gray, and frazzled is a zebra.
Tell that to the Fort Hood Shooter.
Why, did the FBI give him the gun? They shouldn't of used real bullets.
You made the statement they had better utilization of resources. the Fort Hood Shooter proves, if you find a terrorist or one espousing such, you take them out.
Frazzled wrote:Duh...people are arguing he was entrapped. Thats an excuse for his attempt to kill many many people. He deserves death by Weinerdogbreath.
I think people are arguing that the use of the operation was poor when we were better off utilizing resources to find funded and intended terrorists, rather then propping up a 19 year old with a long false trail for him to convict himself with. I doubt anyones said that it was an "excuse" for what he's done. They would just have rathered the agency do something useful with this, rather then capping it off with the capture of a nobody.
But then that would involve a shade of gray, and frazzled is a zebra.
Tell that to the Fort Hood Shooter.
Why, did the FBI give him the gun? They shouldn't of used real bullets.
You made the statement they had better utilization of resources. the Fort Hood Shooter proves, if you find a terrorist or one espousing such, you take them out.
No, it really doesn't. The cases are incredibly disimilar, but ok. Whatever mang. I know you don't run by any sort of real world logic so I'll just accept that a psychiatrically damaged military psychiatrist who had active contact with an extremist cleric is just like a 19 year old who the FBI talked to, convinced to act, provided the means for, then caught all by their lonesome. Black is white, war is peace, the center encircles us and you can buy dehydrated water at all 7/11 locations.
Monster Rain wrote:If an undercover agent asked me if I wanted to blow up a bunch of kids, I'm pretty sure I'd say no.
I'm pretty sure I'd shoot that person in the face.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Duh...people are arguing he was entrapped. Thats an excuse for his attempt to kill many many people. He deserves death by Weinerdogbreath.
I think people are arguing that the use of the operation was poor when we were better off utilizing resources to find funded and intended terrorists, rather then propping up a 19 year old with a long false trail for him to convict himself with. I doubt anyones said that it was an "excuse" for what he's done. They would just have rathered the agency do something useful with this, rather then capping it off with the capture of a nobody.
But then that would involve a shade of gray, and frazzled is a zebra.
Tell that to the Fort Hood Shooter.
Why, did the FBI give him the gun? They shouldn't of used real bullets.
You made the statement they had better utilization of resources. the Fort Hood Shooter proves, if you find a terrorist or one espousing such, you take them out.
No, it really doesn't. The cases are incredibly disimilar, but ok. Whatever mang. I know you don't run by any sort of real world logic so I'll just accept that a psychiatrically damaged military psychiatrist who had active contact with an extremist cleric is just like a 19 year old who the FBI talked to, convinced to act, provided the means for, then caught all by their lonesome. Black is white, war is peace, the center encircles us and you can buy dehydrated water at all 7/11 locations.
He was also posting on websites the FBI was monitoring, espousing global jihad. Thats how they found him. He was a terrorist, quit defending it.
Phryxis wrote:I've heard of a few of these deals where agents hear some kid prattling about jihad, they offer to give him a van full of explosives, and then arrest him when he tries to use it.
Ranting about jihad on the internet is probably a bad idea in the first place. Just because someone is an idiot doesn't mean they're not dangerous. Insert George Bush joke here.
Frazzled wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:If an undercover agent asked me if I wanted to blow up a bunch of kids, I'm pretty sure I'd say no.
I'm pretty sure I'd shoot that person in the face.
Kilkrazy wrote:It would have been a lot quicker and cheaper to arrest him for posting on websites.
Thats not illegal here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Phryxis wrote:I've heard of a few of these deals where agents hear some kid prattling about jihad, they offer to give him a van full of explosives, and then arrest him when he tries to use it.
Ranting about jihad on the internet is probably a bad idea in the first place. Just because someone is an idiot doesn't mean they're not dangerous. Insert George Bush joke here.
Frazzled wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:If an undercover agent asked me if I wanted to blow up a bunch of kids, I'm pretty sure I'd say no.
I'm pretty sure I'd shoot that person in the face.
Nah, that's too quick.
Throw them to the Shanker.
Good point. The Shanker hasn't eaten any snakes in what, a week? He's getting hungry...
He was also posting on websites the FBI was monitoring, espousing global jihad. Thats how they found him. He was a terrorist, quit defending it.
I didn't say he wasn't a terrorist, but then again this is why I dismissed you in the first place. You are incapable of having a conversation without somehow fitting the person you're talking to into a little box. I'm the terrorist sympathizer, woo. Get a new trick, this ones old and bad.
Frazzled wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'd shoot that person in the face.
Then you would be arrested for murder and, at the very least, end up charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism.
So, you would probably be better off not shooting them.
Frazzled wrote:
He was also posting on websites the FBI was monitoring, espousing global jihad. Thats how they found him. He was a terrorist, quit defending it.
So, wait, does that mean your posting habits here are precisely indicative of your beliefs and intention?
If I ask you if you want to blow up a bunch of kids, should your first statement be taken as a tacit threat of bodily harm with respect to me?
Should you therefore be arrested on suspicion of attempted murder?
dogma wrote:If I ask you if you want to blow up a bunch of kids, should your first statement be taken as a tacit threat of bodily harm with respect to me?
You seem to be glossing over your own implied craziness in asking the question in the first place.
Monster Rain wrote:
If the guy in the OP hadn't gone through with a terrorist plot, he wouldn't be in trouble, right?
Sure, but does that mean the FBI should now be wandering around Frazzled's neighborhood, asking him if he wants to blow up a bunch of kids, in order to induce him to carry out attempted murder (or murder, as the case may be)?
I mean, he posted on a website advocating an illegal course of action, so clearly he may intend to commit murder when given the opportunity. That type of person shouldn't be a part of free society.
Monster Rain wrote:
I suppose it would really depend on the phrasing of the question then.
The point is that simply saying something on a website isn't sufficient grounds to arrest someone.
Even "To Catch a Predator" relies on the predator in question showing up at the planned spot.
Wait a minute.
What are we talking about?
If the guy in the OP hadn't gone through with a terrorist plot, he wouldn't be in trouble, right?
Right. That was the point I was making, they didn't arrest the guy for foaming at the mouth on the intranets, they discovered him doing so and had reasonlable suspicion to begin the investigation. He's charged with thinking he was about to go blow up dozens/hundreds at a Christmas ceremony.
Monster Rain wrote:
If the guy in the OP hadn't gone through with a terrorist plot, he wouldn't be in trouble, right?
Sure, but does that mean the FBI should now be wandering around Frazzled's neighborhood, asking him if he wants to blow up a bunch of kids, in order to induce him to carry out attempted murder (or murder, as the case may be)?
The FBI knows better than to trifle with that particular Texan.
dogma wrote:I mean, he posted on a website advocating an illegal course of action, so clearly he may intend to commit murder when given the opportunity. That type of person shouldn't be a part of free society.
So then when they follow up and find out that he's not actually trying to shoot anyone, the investigation would end there.
The man in the OP went a lot farther than internet crazy talk.
Frazzled wrote:
Right. That was the point I was making, they didn't arrest the guy for foaming at the mouth on the intranets, they discovered him doing so and had reasonlable suspicion to begin the investigation. He's charged with thinking he was about to go blow up dozens/hundreds at a Christmas ceremony.
No one said that isn't why he was charged. What's being argued is whether or not internet posting is sufficient grounds for the provision of opportunity to commit a crime by authority figures.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
So then when they follow up and find out that he's not actually trying to shoot anyone, the investigation would end there.
The man in the OP went a lot farther than internet crazy talk.
Sure, but you're missing the point entirely.
Investigations cost money, and it would be pretty expensive to follow up every single crazy internet ramble that entailed violence with an investigation that turns on the provision of opportunity. So expensive that it would preclude a whole ton of potentially more important police work.
Therefore, the point is that this may not be the best use of the FBI's time, despite public fear regarding terrorism.
Then again, since police forces tend to be more about making people feel warm and fuzzy than actually preventing crime, public fear may be a legitimate motivation.
Monster Rain wrote:
If the guy in the OP hadn't gone through with a terrorist plot, he wouldn't be in trouble, right?
Sure, but does that mean the FBI should now be wandering around Frazzled's neighborhood, asking him if he wants to blow up a bunch of kids, in order to induce him to carry out attempted murder (or murder, as the case may be)?
I mean, he posted on a website advocating an illegal course of action, so clearly he may intend to commit murder when given the opportunity. That type of person shouldn't be a part of free society.
1. Shooting a child murderer would get you nobilled in Texas. So cool.
2. You're assuming they're not now. Come to think of it, we have new neighbors and they always have that van parked right out in front. Better nuke it from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.
Frazzled wrote:
Right. That was the point I was making, they didn't arrest the guy for foaming at the mouth on the intranets, they discovered him doing so and had reasonlable suspicion to begin the investigation. He's charged with thinking he was about to go blow up dozens/hundreds at a Christmas ceremony.
No one said that isn't why he was charged. What's being argued is whether or not internet posting is sufficient grounds for the provision of opportunity to commit a crime by authority figures.
I'm sure the FBI has certain sites that they monitor more closely than others.
Monster Rain wrote:
So then when they follow up and find out that he's not actually trying to shoot anyone, the investigation would end there.
The man in the OP went a lot farther than internet crazy talk.
Exactly, as long as they don't find out about the still in back...er pile of junk er look over there!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:No one said that isn't why he was charged. What's being argued is whether or not internet posting is sufficient grounds for the provision of opportunity to commit a crime by authority figures.
***No, thats what you're suddenly arguing about.
Therefore, the point is that this may not be the best use of the FBI's time, despite public fear regarding terrorism.
***And thats why you don't work for the FBI.
Then again, since police forces tend to be more about making people feel warm and fuzzy than actually preventing crime, public fear may be a legitimate motivation.
***And you have this on authority from where?
Monster Rain wrote:
I'm sure the FBI has certain sites that they monitor more closely than others.
Of course they do, and its perfectly acceptable to do so.
I'm not really saying that the FBI was in the wrong.
I'm merely capitalizing on Frazzled's refusal to read threads.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:No, thats what you're suddenly arguing about.
I'm stating exactly the same argument that Phryxis made in the original post; essentially verbatim.
Frazzled wrote:
And thats why you don't work for the FBI.
Wait, its suddenly bad to posit that a government organization might have better uses of its time and taxpayer dollars?
I think at this point you would post a picture of Mussolini.
Frazzled wrote:
And you have this on authority from where?
Come on Fraz, you know that appeals to authority are fallacious. I made a statement that may lead into an argument, whether or not I, or anyone else, has 'authority' regarding that argument is irrelevant.
Come on Fraz, you know that appeals to authority are fallacious. I made a statement that may lead into an argument, whether or not I, or anyone else, has 'authority' regarding that argument is irrelevant.
****Translation, you pulled your statement out of your ass. got it.
Frazzled wrote:Translation, you pulled your statement out of your ass. got it.
No, not really. I've read some research that indicates that the real benefit of police forces is that they create an environment in which people are inherently less hostile not because they fear the police, but because they believe other people fear the police and are thus unlikely to act on malevolent inclinations; meaning there is also less of a reason to behave aggressively.
Its an interesting argument that has about as much integrity as the notion that fear of consequences uniformly affects everyone, but has the benefit of getting around the inconvenient reality that is posed by the nonlinear relationship between the severity of possible consequences and rate of crime.
I no more "pulled that out of my ass" than someone who posits that the primary benefit of police forces is the direct prevention of crime through preemptive apprehension.
I know that you appear essentially incapable of being either civil or thoughtful, but please attempt to at least refrain from entering into arguments that you don't intend to carry.
I'm pretty sure I'd shoot that person in the face.
Actually, that's an interesting thought...
You see these guys who get arrested for taking a katana on a plane to Afghanistan to kill OBL... Then you see the FBI arresting some stupid kid for wishing he was a real jihadi...
How long before some dude mounts his own quest to find OBL via the internet, and then meets up with FBI agents posing as terrorists, and then shoots one as his own person war on terrorism?
Frazzled wrote:Duh...people are arguing he was entrapped. Thats an excuse for his attempt to kill many many people. He deserves death by Weinerdogbreath.
When you say 'people' you mean Killkrazy, for two posts, on the first page. So not really, then, no.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:Yep. I don't see the problem with the FBI arresting people who when given the opportunity to possibly blow up a bunch of people, take the opportunity.
If an undercover agent asked me if I wanted to blow up a bunch of kids, I'm pretty sure I'd say no.
I'd say no, then ask if that was really the best use of government resources, and wonder if they should probably be focusing on the people actually providing materials to young lunatics.
Monster Rain wrote:Yep. I don't see the problem with the FBI arresting people who when given the opportunity to possibly blow up a bunch of people, take the opportunity.
If an undercover agent asked me if I wanted to blow up a bunch of kids, I'm pretty sure I'd say no.
I'd say no, then ask if that was really the best use of government resources, and wonder if they should probably be focusing on the people actually providing materials to young lunatics.
They're doing that too, I imagine.
It's just as important to weed out people with the motivation to actually do these things, though.
Monster Rain wrote:They're doing that too, I imagine.
It's just as important to weed out people with the motivation to actually do these things, though.
Do you think that's even possible? The pool of disaffected kids with dreams of ultra-violence isn't small. God, there was at least a couple in my highschool...
Also, most of those kids don't have the dedication, courage, or unhinged-ness (if that makes sense) to actually go through with it, even if they were given the chance, materials, opportunity, etc.
One part that stuck out a bit for me was the whole "my parents won't stop me from doing this," bit.
Ugh. I mean, again, not sure what you do with a 19 year adult that was willing to dial the phone besides put him in jail forever, but this dude is basically just a stupid child.
"The FBI monitored Mohamud's e-mail and found he was in contact with people overseas, asking how he could travel to Pakistan and join the fight for jihad, according to an FBI affidavit. "
This part stuck out at me. Seems like all of that entrapment talk was pretty pointless. Trying to blow up children who are waiting to see Santa Claus?
Monster Rain wrote:You can't get them all, no. But the fewer potential terrorists out there the better.
Sure, but is taking one or two kids out of circulation really a meaningful contribution, when those police resources could have been used to stop more dangerous, more connected terrorists?
Monster Rain wrote:You can't get them all, no. But the fewer potential terrorists out there the better.
Sure, but is taking one or two kids out of circulation really a meaningful contribution, when those police resources could have been used to stop more dangerous, more connected terrorists?
If Timothy McVeigh or Mohammed Atta had been taken out of circulation I think things might have turned out differently, yes. These people have to start somewhere.
Phryxis wrote:One part that stuck out a bit for me was the whole "my parents won't stop me from doing this," bit.
Ugh. I mean, again, not sure what you do with a 19 year adult that was willing to dial the phone besides put him in jail forever, but this dude is basically just a stupid child.
I mean, since this particular kid is of majority he's going to, and should, face full legal consequences. Though they'll likely be mitigated by his age anyway.
But what if the kid had been a minor? And not the sort of minor that is commonly tried as an adult for severe crimes.
Are we going to start holding 14-year-old kids accountable in the same manner as adults?
Monster Rain wrote:If Timothy McVeigh or Mohammed Atta had been taken out of circulation I think things might have turned out differently, yes. These people have to start somewhere.
Well, yeah, but do you think targetting every person who's expressed violent desires for a sting, is going to pick up enough people to be likely to stop the one Mohammed Atta* who actually goes through with it?
*That probably isn't the best example, because there was a whole lot of reasons to think Atta was going to go through with it. But you get what I mean, yeah?
I'm pretty sure I'd shoot that person in the face.
Actually, that's an interesting thought...
You see these guys who get arrested for taking a katana on a plane to Afghanistan to kill OBL... Then you see the FBI arresting some stupid kid for wishing he was a real jihadi...
How long before some dude mounts his own quest to find OBL via the internet, and then meets up with FBI agents posing as terrorists, and then shoots one as his own person war on terrorism?
Now there's a darned good idea. Terrorist season. You could buy a special stamp for your hunting license that would be good only during a specific period, then go track one down.....
Melissia wrote:lol, U.S. high schools. Such a great example of how NOT to make an education system.
I dread to think about what that implies about the millions of adults who have passed through the system over the years and what it has done to your nation as a whole...
Don't dread, go here and ask them to point out, say, Hungary on a map. Go ask them to find Pakistan on a map. Go ask them what happened in World War I (but not II, they probably have played enough games or watched enough hollywood to get a good idea on that). Go ask them who are the biggest three exporters to the United States. Go and ask them to name five countries in Africa. Ask them to name the five most populous religions. Ask them about some of the basic concepts of micro and macro economics. Ask them if they know their local representatives, both house and senate. Ask them if they know who their representatives in the state government are. Ask them if they even know who the mayor of their town is (I admit to not knowing this one, my focus is on a much broader scale). Ask them who the presidents of various countries in Europe are. Hell, ask them who the presidents of Mexico and Canada are-- our border nations. Ask them if Puerto Rico is a part of the U.S.
They probably won't be able to answer these questions.
Monster Rain wrote:If Timothy McVeigh or Mohammed Atta had been taken out of circulation I think things might have turned out differently, yes. These people have to start somewhere.
Well, yeah, but do you think targetting every person who's expressed violent desires for a sting, is going to pick up enough people to be likely to stop the one Mohammed Atta* who actually goes through with it?
If they go this far:
OP's News Story wrote:The FBI monitored Mohamud's e-mail and found he was in contact with people overseas, asking how he could travel to Pakistan and join the fight for jihad, according to an FBI affidavit.
Then I think that they are a perfectly valid target for a sting.
You'd think that if they were monitoring his email, they would keep on watching it to see what arrangements were being made for this guy to go overseas, who was doing it and how, etc. Surely that insight into the bad guy network would have been far more valuable than just nabbing him.
Hell, let him go but bug the crap out of all his stuff so you can track him to whatever camp they are taking him to. Then arrange some kind of "natural disaster" or something in the area...
SilverMK2 wrote:You'd think that if they were monitoring his email, they would keep on watching it to see what arrangements were being made for this guy to go overseas, who was doing it and how, etc. Surely that insight into the bad guy network would have been far more valuable than just nabbing him.
Hell, let him go but bug the crap out of all his stuff so you can track him to whatever camp they are taking him to. Then arrange some kind of "natural disaster" or something in the area...
Wait, there's an argument that these resources could have been better spent elsewehere but the alternative is to bug and tail him constantly? You do realize the expense and manhours involved right? Plus those talking about his emails-again he doesn't have to leave the country. He only has to get in his car and driver it into a crowd of Christmas revellers.
In addition to currrent charges they should charge him under any state law hate crimes if that state has them.
Now his defense team are bringing up the entrapment issue. He's a dead man walking if thats the case (means they have no defense). Good.
Frazzled wrote:Wait, there's an argument that these resources could have been better spent elsewehere but the alternative is to bug and tail him constantly? You do realize the expense and manhours involved right? Plus those talking about his emails-again he doesn't have to leave the country. He only has to get in his car and driver it into a crowd of Christmas revellers.
I would say that the man hours spent setting up a scheme to get him to think he is going to blow people up is probably about the same as looking at his emails, sending a couple of guys to plant some trackers in his clothes/etc and looking at a big map with a blip on it (yes, I know that it will be more complex than that, possibly with people taking pictures of him and anyone he contacts to arrange flights/transport, etc).
I would also argue that the prize of information on the wider network (or networks) would be greater than bagging some z-list proto-terrorist.
Frazzled wrote:Wait, there's an argument that these resources could have been better spent elsewehere but the alternative is to bug and tail him constantly? You do realize the expense and manhours involved right? Plus those talking about his emails-again he doesn't have to leave the country. He only has to get in his car and driver it into a crowd of Christmas revellers.
I would say that the man hours spent setting up a scheme to get him to think he is going to blow people up is probably about the same as looking at his emails, sending a couple of guys to plant some trackers in his clothes/etc and looking at a big map with a blip on it (yes, I know that it will be more complex than that, possibly with people taking pictures of him and anyone he contacts to arrange flights/transport, etc).
I would also argue that the prize of information on the wider network (or networks) would be greater than bagging some z-list proto-terrorist.
Where do you get the idea that both things can't happen at the same time?
Monster Rain wrote:Doesn't the fact that they know that he was in contact with people overseas indicate that the FBI is already onto them?
You're currently talking to me, and I'm overseas. Doesn't mean you know who I am, what I look like, what I do, etc. Or indeed who I work with or how my network is run (yes, I'm a terrorist for this post).
The point is that by following someone as they pass through the system, you get to map it out, see how it works, the people involved, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:Where do you get the idea that both things can't happen at the same time?
Well, the fact that this guy is sitting in jail after being given some play-doh and a mobile phone rather than sitting on a plane to the Middle East with enough electonics up his butt to light up a Christmas tree and a couple of agents waiting for him at the other end?
I'm not trying to say that it doesn't happen, or even that it was appropriate in this particular case (as I've said before, no one here knows everything involved in this case or the status of the FBI/other agencies in knowing the terrorist agents and networks), but that, to me, it would make more sense to try and get as many people through the system as possible to enable you to build up a good enough picture of it that you can take it down in one go.
As I mentioned before, perhaps this guy was so crap at pointing out that he wanted to be a terrorist that any real terrorist would know he would be watched and so would not go near him, yet unstable/whatever enough that there was a real chance that he would go and do something anyway that the FBI decided to trap him rather than leave him free to do whatever he wants, in which case such a tactic would be appropriate.
Frazzled wrote:Wait, there's an argument that these resources could have been better spent elsewehere but the alternative is to bug and tail him constantly? You do realize the expense and manhours involved right? Plus those talking about his emails-again he doesn't have to leave the country. He only has to get in his car and driver it into a crowd of Christmas revellers.
I would say that the man hours spent setting up a scheme to get him to think he is going to blow people up is probably about the same as looking at his emails, sending a couple of guys to plant some trackers in his clothes/etc and looking at a big map with a blip on it (yes, I know that it will be more complex than that, possibly with people taking pictures of him and anyone he contacts to arrange flights/transport, etc).
I would also argue that the prize of information on the wider network (or networks) would be greater than bagging some z-list proto-terrorist.
Er, you can't just "plant trackers," and such. The FBI is not the CIA both technically and legally. They are bound by strict rules of evidence and judicial oversight.
Again, you people keep thinking you have to fly to the Middle East and get training/equipment to be a terrorist. Thats absolute nonsense. At any point Bob the Terrorist can just go berserk and kill a bunch of people and your devious surveillance methods wouldn't stop him in time. The FBI can't take that risk.
Frazzled wrote:Er, you can't just "plant trackers," and such. The FBI is not the CIA both technically and legally. They are bound by strict rules of evidence and judicial oversight.
Since when has that ever stopped America from doing something it wanted to do?
Frazzled wrote:Er, you can't just "plant trackers," and such. The FBI is not the CIA both technically and legally. They are bound by strict rules of evidence and judicial oversight.
Since when has that ever stopped America from doing something it wanted to do?
Since forever. I don't care what they do in a foreign country ("I'm pleased to announce I've given orders for the B-52s to launch and they should be in Soviet airspace by breakfast"), but in the US the FBI has to follow the law.
Frazzled wrote:Since forever. I don't care what they do in a foreign country ("I'm pleased to announce I've given orders for the B-52s to launch and they should be in Soviet airspace by breakfast"), but in the US the FBI has to follow the law.
Perhaps you should announce (very quietly so they don't find out) their house as not being part of the US?
Edit: Then you can have the fun of invading it later on as well!
Melissia wrote:lol, U.S. high schools. Such a great example of how NOT to make an education system.
Technically the highschools generally bring the education of the student back into parity with other countries. Middleschool is where a significant amount is lost statistically.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Er, you can't just "plant trackers," and such. The FBI is not the CIA both technically and legally. They are bound by strict rules of evidence and judicial oversight.
Since when has that ever stopped America from doing something it wanted to do?
Since forever. I don't care what they do in a foreign country ("I'm pleased to announce I've given orders for the B-52s to launch and they should be in Soviet airspace by breakfast"), but in the US the FBI has to follow the law.
I'll remember that next time you're defending unconstitutional and illegal rendition or coercion by the FBI and CIA.
Frazzled wrote:Since forever. I don't care what they do in a foreign country ("I'm pleased to announce I've given orders for the B-52s to launch and they should be in Soviet airspace by breakfast"), but in the US the FBI has to follow the law.
Perhaps you should announce (very quietly so they don't find out) their house as not being part of the US?
Edit: Then you can have the fun of invading it later on as well!
I like yer thinkin!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Melissia wrote:lol, U.S. high schools. Such a great example of how NOT to make an education system.
Technically the highschools generally bring the education of the student back into parity with other countries. Middleschool is where a significant amount is lost statistically.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Er, you can't just "plant trackers," and such. The FBI is not the CIA both technically and legally. They are bound by strict rules of evidence and judicial oversight.
Since when has that ever stopped America from doing something it wanted to do?
Since forever. I don't care what they do in a foreign country ("I'm pleased to announce I've given orders for the B-52s to launch and they should be in Soviet airspace by breakfast"), but in the US the FBI has to follow the law.
I'll remember that next time you're defending unconstitutional and illegal rendition or coercion by the FBI and CIA.
Thats great. Note your own statement. Here I'll be helpful and requote it for you:
unconstitutional and illegal
Automatically Appended Next Post: Woops looks like he actually was in contact with Al Qaeda. Can we safely say the FBI used its resources wisely now?
Mohamed Osman Mohamud, the Somali-American
college student charged with plotting an attack on a
Christmas lighting event in Portland, Oregon, was in
contact with, and wrote articles for, another
prominent American al Qaeda propagandist for nearly
two years, authorities say.
Mohamud, who was arrested in an FBI sting, is
accused of attempting to detonate what he believed to
be a car bomb in Portland's Pioneer Courthouse
Square via cellphone during the annual lighting of
the Christmas tree last Friday, which had drawn a
crowd of thousands. The supposed explosive device
was non-functional . Mohamud, 19, pled not guilty in
federal court Monday to one count of an attempted
use of a weapon of mass destruction.
The FBI affidavit alleges that Mohamud stated to
undercover agents that he had wanted to take part in
violent jihad since he was 15, and that he told FBI
agents that he had written four articles since 2009 for
two different on-line jihadist magazines edited and
distributed by Samir Khan.
Khan, 24, is the Saudi-born, New York-raised editor
behind Inspire magazine, the English language online
publication of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or
AQAP. Khan, who has said he is currently hiding in
Yemen, has become a rising figure in jihadist
propaganda and an "aspiring" Anwar Awlaqi,
according to U.S. intelligence officials.
Under the pen name "Ibn al-Mubarak," alleges the FBI,
Mohamud wrote three articles "discussing violent
jihad" that appeared in 2009 in Jihad Recollections,
the web magazine edited that Khan edited from his
parents' North Carolina basement before relocating to
Yemen.
One of the articles published under the name Ibn al-
Mubarak was titled, "Getting in shape without
weights," which appeared in the first issue of Jihad
Recollections, urged aspiring jihadists to stay fit for
God.
American forces, said the article, "cannot go to any
battlefront without carrying along with them their
bench, squat sets and sometimes even their
machines," proof that jihadists should avoid costly
devices to get strong.
In a 2009 article that praised al Qaeda's media wing,
As-Sahab, Ibn al-Mubarak wrote that the organization
has a "great influence on the hearts and minds of
many Muslims because they help everyone realize the
reality of the situation and not losing focus of the real
issues at hand."
FBI: Mohamud Exchanged Email With Jihadist In
Pakistan
Mohamud allegedly told agents that he had written
another article for Khan's new, Yemen-based web
magazine, Inspire, but that it had not yet been
published.
In its affidavit, the FBI says it became aware of
Mohamud after he exchanged emails with a jihadist
in Pakistan in 2009. Mohamud was attempting to
travel to Pakistan for weapons and explosives
training, but failed to follow the instructions of his
contact to reach someone who could facilitate his
travel.
Monster Rain wrote:Doesn't the fact that they know that he was in contact with people overseas indicate that the FBI is already onto them?
You're currently talking to me, and I'm overseas. Doesn't mean you know who I am, what I look like, what I do, etc. Or indeed who I work with or how my network is run (yes, I'm a terrorist for this post).
The fact that the nature of our communication doesn't make them want to investigate me for terrorism is the main point here.
Monster Rain wrote:The fact that the nature of our communication doesn't make them want to investigate me for terrorism is the main point here.
No, the main point here is that you need a way in to the network in order to identify its members and how they work. Simply having a couple of emails doesn't really help with that.
Kilkrazy wrote:Doesn't freedom of speech mean he is allowed to write articles for Al Qaeda websites?
Corrected your typo.
By the way, they used to call that Treason.
I think they still do, though the number of times I've seen you advocate the killing of millions makes me think that you're probably not a good bellwether on the issues of free speech.
Monster Rain wrote:The fact that the nature of our communication doesn't make them want to investigate me for terrorism is the main point here.
No, the main point here is that you need a way in to the network in order to identify its members and how they work. Simply having a couple of emails doesn't really help with that.
Monster Rain wrote:And you assume they don't already have both, why?
*points to what he has said over and over again re the limited information we all have on what the FBI/etc do and do not know, and what they are doing about it*
ShumaGorath wrote:
I think they still do, though the number of times I've seen you advocate the killing of millions makes me think that you're probably not a good bellwether on the issues of free speech.
Monster Rain wrote:And you assume they don't already have both, why?
*points to what he has said over and over again re the limited information we all have on what the FBI/etc do and do not know, and what they are doing about it*
So you aren't actually saying anything. That's what I thought.
We can safely assume that the FBI is investigating terrorism at more than the foolish internet ballbag level that this story happens to discuss. To claim otherwise is, if you'll forgive me for saying so, blithering idiocy.
Kilkrazy wrote:I would prefer to hear about arrests of genuine jihadist plotters rather than dimwit little mugs who have been entrapped.
+1. There are more than enough real bad guys to go after without wasting even more of our tax $$ on entrapment stings against a guy that rambled a bit but didn't build anything himself. Plenty of folks would drive a bomb up to a building if you just handed it to them....THAT is the really scary part.
Kilkrazy wrote:I would prefer to hear about arrests of genuine jihadist plotters rather than dimwit little mugs who have been entrapped.
+1. There are more than enough real bad guys to go after without wasting even more of our tax $$ on entrapment stings against a guy that rambled a bit but didn't build anything himself. Plenty of folks would drive a bomb up to a building if you just handed it to them....THAT is the really scary part.
Even if this guy was dead set on killing everyone, this is the equivalent of arresting a street level drug dealer. It makes no difference in the war on terror, just like putting every dealer in jail made no difference in the war on drugs.
They should be looking for high level people, I hear some of them are eating dinner at the Pentagon...
rdlb wrote:Even if this guy was dead set on killing everyone, this is the equivalent of arresting a street level drug dealer. It makes no difference in the war on terror, just like putting every dealer in jail made no difference in the war on drugs.
They should be looking for high level people, I hear some of them are eating dinner at the Pentagon...
OP's News Story wrote:The FBI monitored Mohamud's e-mail and found he was in contact with people overseas, asking how he could travel to Pakistan and join the fight for jihad, according to an FBI affidavit.
Then I think that they are a perfectly valid target for a sting.
Fair enough. I'd be more interested in the people overseas that he's contacting, personally.
But hey, I'm not in the FBI, their knowledge base might argue that getting kids at this level is a much more effective approach than targeting the higher ups. I'm also wondering if nabbing this kid so publically might make other kids very suspicious of making similar contacts, and if that in itself might be very beneficial.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Woops looks like he actually was in contact with Al Qaeda. Can we safely say the FBI used its resources wisely now?
Not when the conversation has concerned whether this lead could be used to capture far more threatening targets. In that context, contact with AQ furthers the argument that it was a wasted opportunity.
Kilkrazy wrote:I would prefer to hear about arrests of genuine jihadist plotters rather than dimwit little mugs who have been entrapped.
+1. There are more than enough real bad guys to go after without wasting even more of our tax $$ on entrapment stings against a guy that rambled a bit but didn't build anything himself. Plenty of folks would drive a bomb up to a building if you just handed it to them....THAT is the really scary part.
Those people should be arrested, actually.
For what? Having the potential to commit an act of violence if the circumstances align in a specific way? I'm lost here....
Kilkrazy wrote:I would prefer to hear about arrests of genuine jihadist plotters rather than dimwit little mugs who have been entrapped.
+1. There are more than enough real bad guys to go after without wasting even more of our tax $$ on entrapment stings against a guy that rambled a bit but didn't build anything himself. Plenty of folks would drive a bomb up to a building if you just handed it to them....THAT is the really scary part.
Those people should be arrested, actually.
For what? Having the potential to commit an act of violence if the circumstances align in a specific way? I'm lost here....
Someone who's on the internet doing the type of things that I've posted twice already that follows through with a conspiracy to kill large numbers of civilians should be taken off the street.
Criticizing the FBI for "entrapping" an animal like this is, to me, ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:If they go this far:
OP's News Story wrote:The FBI monitored Mohamud's e-mail and found he was in contact with people overseas, asking how he could travel to Pakistan and join the fight for jihad, according to an FBI affidavit.
Then I think that they are a perfectly valid target for a sting.
Fair enough. I'd be more interested in the people overseas that he's contacting, personally.
But hey, I'm not in the FBI, their knowledge base might argue that getting kids at this level is a much more effective approach than targeting the higher ups. I'm also wondering if nabbing this kid so publically might make other kids very suspicious of making similar contacts, and if that in itself might be very beneficial.
Again, I'm sure they're working on both things.
As to the part I emphasized, I'd be surprised if that wasn't part of their plan.
Someone who's on the internet doing the type of things that I've posted twice already that follows through with a conspiracy to kill large numbers of civilians should be taken off the street.
Criticizing the FBI for "entrapping" an animal like this is, to me, ridiculous.
Even when they have essentially no limit to the number of people like this they can find and "entrap" while determined, skilled, and connected terrorists walk around free?
Someone who's on the internet doing the type of things that I've posted twice already that follows through with a conspiracy to kill large numbers of civilians should be taken off the street.
Criticizing the FBI for "entrapping" an animal like this is, to me, ridiculous.
Even when they have essentially no limit to the number of people like this they can find and "entrap" while determined, skilled, and connected terrorists walk around free?
They don't have unlimited funds and time y'know!
You seem to be trying really hard to prop up this notion that nabbing this guy took attention off of someone else.
I don't see why that has to be the case. I'm also curious as to where you get the idea that there's essentially no limit to the number of people in the US willing to carry out this kind of act.
You seem to be trying really hard to prop up this notion that nabbing this guy took attention off of someone else.
Not really. I don't even care. You're confusing me for everyone else you're arguing with, you just advocated catching every single disturbed individual in america. I just don't think the FBI has time to set up long winded setups and stings for tens of thousands. Thats all.
I don't see why that has to be the case. I'm also curious as to where you get the idea that there's essentially no limit to the number of people in the US willing to carry out this kind of act.
Because theres a large enough number that it might as well be. These people are harmless enough without being given chance after chance after chance to enact their fantasies, but thats exactly what these kinds of sets ups do. I mean, after a short time you're going to go from islamic extremists to anti government nutcases and wacky racists, and rebels, but hey. Those people still exist.
You seem to be trying really hard to prop up this notion that nabbing this guy took attention off of someone else.
Not really. I don't even care. You're confusing me for everyone else you're arguing with, you just advocated catching every single disturbed individual in america. I just don't think the FBI has time to set up long winded setups and stings for tens of thousands. Thats all.
I see what you're saying. I didn't advocate catching all of them, just the ones that actively attempt to contact terrorist organizations so that they can wage jihad. You did read the story, yeah?
ShumaGorath wrote:
I don't see why that has to be the case. I'm also curious as to where you get the idea that there's essentially no limit to the number of people in the US willing to carry out this kind of act.
Because theres a large enough number that it might as well be. These people are harmless enough without being given chance after chance after chance to enact their fantasies, but thats exactly what these kinds of sets ups do. I mean, after a short time you're going to go from islamic extremists to anti government nutcases and wacky racists, and rebels, but hey. Those people still exist.
Well, I'll admit that I'm not basing this on hard data or anything (but when does that stop someone from saying something on an OT thread?) but I'd really like to think that more people wouldn't blow up a Christmas tree lighting than would.
Stormrider wrote:The FBI's juridiction is the Border of the US. They can't legally nab someone overseas. That's the CIA's job.
The CIA can't actually nab people overseas, either, because they're an intelligence service, not policemen. To the extent that you want to capture people legally, you need to engage Interpol or directly use the overseas police forces.
Well, I'll admit that I'm not basing this on hard data or anything (but when does that stop someone from saying something on an OT thread?) but I'd really like to think that more people wouldn't blow up a Christmas tree lighting than would.
Thats why I said tens of thousands, not one hundred and sixty million people.
Monster Rain wrote:So you aren't actually saying anything. That's what I thought.
Le Sigh.
No, again, I am saying that every case is different but given the information we had re this individual, it seems as though it may have made more sense to develop the case in a different way.
We can safely assume that the FBI is investigating terrorism at more than the foolish internet ballbag level that this story happens to discuss. To claim otherwise is, if you'll forgive me for saying so, blithering idiocy.
Then I am supremely glad that I have maintained throughout that I have not assumed that the FBI goes round entrapping nobody tools who are not a danger to anyone and/or has no connection to terrorist organisations. I would hate to be considered a blithering idiot.
rdlb wrote:Even if this guy was dead set on killing everyone, this is the equivalent of arresting a street level drug dealer. It makes no difference in the war on terror, just like putting every dealer in jail made no difference in the war on drugs.
They should be looking for high level people, I hear some of them are eating dinner at the Pentagon...
Someone who's on the internet doing the type of things that I've posted twice already that follows through with a conspiracy to kill large numbers of civilians should be taken off the street.
Criticizing the FBI for "entrapping" an animal like this is, to me, ridiculous.
Even when they have essentially no limit to the number of people like this they can find and "entrap" while determined, skilled, and connected terrorists walk around free?
They don't have unlimited funds and time y'know!
You seem to be trying really hard to prop up this notion that nabbing this guy took attention off of someone else.
I don't see why that has to be the case. I'm also curious as to where you get the idea that there's essentially no limit to the number of people in the US willing to carry out this kind of act.
Note the FBI and local agencies routinely goes after similar "stings" when it gets wind of spouses looking to hire hire others to take out their spouse and that sort of thing. Its part of what they do to keep these sort of things from actually being carried through.
SilverMK2 wrote:No, again, I am saying that every case is different but given the information we had re this individual, it seems as though it may have made more sense to develop the case in a different way.
The FBI could absolutely let low level terrorists do their thing in order to get the high level ones. I mean, that's pretty much how anti-drug operations go.
After all, we're not in danger of running out of people.
If we were, you'd think all those crusades against food that leads to hear disease would have more traction.
Monster Rain wrote:
I'm also curious as to where you get the idea that there's essentially no limit to the number of people in the US willing to carry out this kind of act.
Well, there's no limit because simply chasing down angry people that want to kill lots of other people isn't exactly going to put an end to people being angry and wanting to kill other people.
People get angry, and want to kill other people as a result. That's just humanity.
The rate at which that happens might be limited, but that's a different issue.
The more important thing is that almost everyone, especially when young, had probably had times in which, if presented the opportunity, would have done something really violent and stupid.
The FBI could absolutely let low level terrorists do their thing in order to get the high level ones. I mean, that's pretty much how anti-drug operations go.
After all, we're not in danger of running out of people.
Thats not right in the head, are you on drugs or just a replicant? Quick someone get a blade runner!
Monster Rain wrote: I'm also curious as to where you get the idea that there's essentially no limit to the number of people in the US willing to carry out this kind of act.
Well, there's no limit because simply chasing down angry people that want to kill lots of other people isn't exactly going to put an end to people being angry and wanting to kill other people.
Again, how about we set them up for a sting if they go this far:
OP's News Story wrote:The FBI monitored Mohamud's e-mail and found he was in contact with people overseas, asking how he could travel to Pakistan and join the fight for jihad, according to an FBI affidavit.
Frazzled wrote:
Thats not right in the head, are you on drugs or just a replicant? Quick someone get a blade runner!
Did I say anything about what the FBI should do?
Unless "could" and "should" now mean the same thing you really need to start reading what people post.
Again, no one has to do anything, not even if we're talking about a relatively limited conditional like "deter terrorism".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Again, how about we set them up for a sting if they go this far:
OP's News Story wrote:The FBI monitored Mohamud's e-mail and found he was in contact with people overseas, asking how he could travel to Pakistan and join the fight for jihad, according to an FBI affidavit.
That's still not a limited set of people, as you're never going to actually stop all people from doing that.
I guess its a limited set at any given time, but that's not what I was commenting on.
The FBI could absolutely let low level terrorists do their thing in order to get the high level ones. I mean, that's pretty much how anti-drug operations go.
After all, we're not in danger of running out of people.
I think the only thing we can do now is reaffirm the greater greatness of weiner dog legions:
The FBI could absolutely let low level terrorists do their thing in order to get the high level ones. I mean, that's pretty much how anti-drug operations go.
After all, we're not in danger of running out of people.
Thats not right in the head, are you on drugs or just a replicant? Quick someone get a blade runner!
Says the man on record as advocating mass murder in other countries to prevent terrorism here.
Again, how about we set them up for a sting if they go this far:
As opposed to stringing him along and attempting to catch those people?
The FBI could absolutely let low level terrorists do their thing in order to get the high level ones. I mean, that's pretty much how anti-drug operations go.
After all, we're not in danger of running out of people.
Having to do something is not the same thing as being able to do something, or being asked to do something because someone else believes that it should be done.
For a lawyer, your grasp of the English language isn't particularly impressive.
The FBI could absolutely let low level terrorists do their thing in order to get the high level ones. I mean, that's pretty much how anti-drug operations go.
After all, we're not in danger of running out of people.
Thats not right in the head, are you on drugs or just a replicant? Quick someone get a blade runner!
Says the man on record as advocating mass murder in other countries to prevent terrorism here.
Again, how about we set them up for a sting if they go this far:
As opposed to stringing him along and attempting to catch those people?
Wait, there is something wrong with killing millions of people to save the life of one American?
Oh, that's right. Terrorists in other countries should die if it means saving the life of one American.
Fateweaver wrote:
Wait, there is something wrong with killing millions of people to save the life of one American?
Oh, that's right. Terrorists in other countries should die if it means saving the life of one American.
Those are statements based on different premises, unless you're insinuating that there exist countries in which all people are bent on killing Americans.
In any case, that whole genocide thing tends to be frowned upon regardless of motivation. And the desire to save one life isn't even a particularly strong motivation.
There's a difference between merely acknowledging that the lives of people in one group are more important to you than the lives of people in another group (for example, I care about my friends, but not people that aren't my friends), and stating that a million people in one group are less important that 1 person in another.
To put it in perspective, Fate, you're basically arguing that we should be willing to kill a few million people in order to save Nancy Pelosi.
-
