Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40389899/ns/us_news-security

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 pretty hilarious, Dogma. Your tax dollars at work!

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.

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.

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.

Ahtman wrote:

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.

Ahtman sounds legit, I beleive him.

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.

The guy is definitely guilty of plotting.

I mean he pushed the button.

If he hadn't pushed the button he'd have been fine.

The tactics used by the FBI in this case are the same as they use to catch child molesters. Very effective.

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

Criminal methods are great for catching criminals.
Yes, its a setup, but why should a criminal expect fair play?

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.

saying he didn't mind that children would die if he bombed a crowded Christmas tree-lighting ceremony,

Purge him from the gene pool.

Hang the fether or let me do it for you.

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.

Kanluwen wrote:

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?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

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 can't say I feel any safer than before.

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.

What would J. Edgar Hoover do?

Will this man go before civilian court?

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.

Laughing Man wrote:That's why I do all my research for class from home.

In general past investigations for illicit behvaior that uncover nothing are actually beneficial to any future check of similar nature.

So, basically, if you ever want to get security clearance its best to be entirely forthright in your research habits.

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."