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.

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The narative is that the FBI is great at stopping terrorists that they groom, and that non-FBI trained terrorists pulling into airports with "bombs" are quite rare.

It could just be that the FBI is great at id'ing the potential terrorists, and helps guide them to the result that we can put them away for, while keeping others safe.

I'm not a federal law enforcement agent though, so I couldn't really say.

Meh, I don't think our government is so efficient that they manage to ID every potential terrorist and intercept them that early

Well, I'd like to hope that the billions of calls the NSA is monitoring daily is having some impact...

 Peregrine wrote:
Not random people, but hating the US and dreaming about terrorism isn't a crime, just like hating your boss and dreaming of murdering them isn't a crime. The concern here is that the FBI is pushing people over the line from thought to action, just so they can make a big show of "stopping the terrorist plot". Remember, this idiot couldn't figure out how to execute a simple suicide car bomb attack without the FBI's help. Odds are that if the FBI hadn't started helping him he would have just spent the rest of his life sitting around fantasizing about being an awesome terrorist and feeling ashamed of how much of a failure he was, just like the gun nuts who sit around fantasizing about stopping a terrorist attack with their $999999999 AR-15 full of "tactical" attachments.

Well, I'd say the Tsarnaev boys would disagree with those odds. I wonder if they'd have been stacked up in the "they weren't ever going to be terrorists for real," camp if the FBI'd been working them before the Marathon and the pressure cookers turned out to be loaded with Play-Doh thanks to federal intervention? If you're willing to commit a crime when given the opportunity, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the argument that you might not have had the opportunity not existed. That's a bit like saying someone's not really a car thief because the Lamborghini was just sitting there with the door open and the keys in the ignition when he hopped in and took it.

Also, those fantasizers you assure me are out there need to get on the right train. Stopping a terrorist attack with a GBU-32's much more satisfying than an AR-15 could ever be.

 Seaward wrote:
If you're willing to commit a crime when given the opportunity, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the argument that you might not have had the opportunity not existed. That's a bit like saying someone's not really a car thief because the Lamborghini was just sitting there with the door open and the keys in the ignition when he hopped in and took it.

And this is the key question: are these people eager to commit a crime and the FBI just provides them with the "opportunity" that they ask for, or does the FBI attempt to persuade them from thought to action, confirm their beliefs that the crime is really the command of god and not a crime at all, help them go from "it would be cool to kill people" to actually forming a viable plot, etc? I have no problem with the FBI running www.cheapbombs.com and arresting anyone who tries to buy one, but I'm not convinced that the government isn't crossing that line into active persuasion for the sake of "stopping" a more impressive plot.

 Peregrine wrote:
And this is the key question: are these people eager to commit a crime and the FBI just provides them with the "opportunity" that they ask for, or does the FBI attempt to persuade them from thought to action, confirm their beliefs that the crime is really the command of god and not a crime at all, help them go from "it would be cool to kill people" to actually forming a viable plot, etc? I have no problem with the FBI running www.cheapbombs.com and arresting anyone who tries to buy one, but I'm not convinced that the government isn't crossing that line into active persuasion for the sake of "stopping" a more impressive plot.

How would you rate that differently from undercover cops trying to talk someone into a big coke deal, if it turned out to be the case?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
If you're willing to commit a crime when given the opportunity, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the argument that you might not have had the opportunity not existed. That's a bit like saying someone's not really a car thief because the Lamborghini was just sitting there with the door open and the keys in the ignition when he hopped in and took it.

And this is the key question: are these people eager to commit a crime and the FBI just provides them with the "opportunity" that they ask for, or does the FBI attempt to persuade them from thought to action, confirm their beliefs that the crime is really the command of god and not a crime at all, help them go from "it would be cool to kill people" to actually forming a viable plot, etc? I have no problem with the FBI running www.cheapbombs.com and arresting anyone who tries to buy one, but I'm not convinced that the government isn't crossing that line into active persuasion for the sake of "stopping" a more impressive plot.

But what evidence is there for such a thing? We know there are no shortage of people out there who would want to do this. It's a fact of life.

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And this is the key question: are these people eager to commit a crime and the FBI just provides them with the "opportunity" that they ask for, or does the FBI attempt to persuade them from thought to action, confirm their beliefs that the crime is really the command of god and not a crime at all, help them go from "it would be cool to kill people" to actually forming a viable plot, etc? I have no problem with the FBI running www.cheapbombs.com and arresting anyone who tries to buy one, but I'm not convinced that the government isn't crossing that line into active persuasion for the sake of "stopping" a more impressive plot.

How would you rate that differently from undercover cops trying to talk someone into a big coke deal, if it turned out to be the case?

The difference would be "do you want to buy some coke" vs "hey, have you ever done coke? You haven't? Have you ever thought about it? It's pretty great. Here, smoke some weed. See, you've already smoked weed so why not try a little coke. Wanna try it? Cool, I got some. Wanna buy it? GUYS WE JUST STOPPED ANOTHER DRUG DEAL!"




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
If you're willing to commit a crime when given the opportunity, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the argument that you might not have had the opportunity not existed. That's a bit like saying someone's not really a car thief because the Lamborghini was just sitting there with the door open and the keys in the ignition when he hopped in and took it.

And this is the key question: are these people eager to commit a crime and the FBI just provides them with the "opportunity" that they ask for, or does the FBI attempt to persuade them from thought to action, confirm their beliefs that the crime is really the command of god and not a crime at all, help them go from "it would be cool to kill people" to actually forming a viable plot, etc? I have no problem with the FBI running www.cheapbombs.com and arresting anyone who tries to buy one, but I'm not convinced that the government isn't crossing that line into active persuasion for the sake of "stopping" a more impressive plot.

But what evidence is there for such a thing? We know there are no shortage of people out there who would want to do this. It's a fact of life.

For me it's just that the numbers are suspect. The whole "Is the FBI really that good that they manage to grab almost every single person that wants to do this."

A more philosophical question might even be "Is it really that bad if we have people that want to do bad things to the USA if they have no realistic means of actually doing so" and should people like that be targeted and provided with "bombs" to get them off the street if they wouldn't ever gotten a hold of one if it weren't for the FBI?

 d-usa wrote:
The difference would be "do you want to buy some coke" vs "hey, have you ever done coke? You haven't? Have you ever thought about it? It's pretty great. Here, smoke some weed. See, you've already smoked weed so why not try a little coke. Wanna try it? Cool, I got some. Wanna buy it? GUYS WE JUST STOPPED ANOTHER DRUG DEAL!"

Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
How would you rate that differently from undercover cops trying to talk someone into a big coke deal, if it turned out to be the case?

I don't think it's all that different, and I think the cops are wrong in that case as well. Pretending to be a dealer and letting someone come to them and try to buy drugs? Great, arrest them. But you can't cross that line from making a crime available and seeing if anyone takes it to actively trying to persuade someone to commit that crime.

 djones520 wrote:
But what evidence is there for such a thing? We know there are no shortage of people out there who would want to do this. It's a fact of life.

Obviously we're never going to hear the whole story, but look at the timeline. Before the FBI gets involved we have an old guy sitting around his house fantasizing about terrorism, just like countless people fantasize about killing their boss/stopping a terrorist attack and saving their family/etc, and being ashamed of being an old guy with a family who is too afraid to ever do anything. He doesn't act on those desires until the FBI gets involved, and even then his brilliant plan is "hey guys, give me a bomb and I'll drive it over to the airport for you". Our hero is so stuck on his special access card that he can't even figure out that it would be way more effective to take a bomb into the security checkpoint and blow up everyone in line. The whole thing just feels like the FBI manufacturing a plot so they can brag about how they stopped it.

And, again, wanting to commit a crime is not a crime. It only becomes a crime once you turn thought into action.

 Peregrine wrote:
he would have just spent the rest of his life sitting around fantasizing about being an awesome terrorist and feeling ashamed of how much of a failure he was, just like the gun nuts who sit around fantasizing about stopping a terrorist attack with their $999999999 AR-15 full of "tactical" attachments.

As Freud might have said, "Sometimes a flashlight with a picatinny mount is just a flashlight with a picatinny mount".

Of course, he never said that (or the other aphorism commonly attributed to him)l but I'd like to imagine he would have said so; probably while sitting at his desk in front of a comically giant pile of cocaine.

 Ouze wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
he would have just spent the rest of his life sitting around fantasizing about being an awesome terrorist and feeling ashamed of how much of a failure he was, just like the gun nuts who sit around fantasizing about stopping a terrorist attack with their $999999999 AR-15 full of "tactical" attachments.

As Freud might have said, "Sometimes a flashlight with a picatinny mount is just a flashlight with a picatinny mount".

Of course, he never said that (or the other aphorism commonly attributed to him)l but I'd like to imagine he would have said so; probably while sitting at his desk in front of a comically giant pile of cocaine.

And sometimes that cocaine is just a giant pile of cocaine...

 Peregrine wrote:
And, again, wanting to commit a crime is not a crime. It only becomes a crime once you turn thought into action.

You keep saying that, but I'm failing to understand why it's relevant. Trying to bomb an airport terminal is very much a crime. This guy didn't just want to do it, he tried to do it.

Which, again, is why I have to ask what crimes you'd be willing to commit if you had someone egging you on. I think the idea that everybody's one step away from trying to murder dozens of people and simply needs an FBI agent around telling them to do it in order to finally take the reins is pretty pernicious stuff.

 Seaward wrote:
You keep saying that, but I'm failing to understand why it's relevant. Trying to bomb an airport terminal is very much a crime. This guy didn't just want to do it, he tried to do it.

I'm talking about his state before the FBI got involved. Without the FBI helping him and potentially persuading him would he ever have crossed the line from fantasy to action? How much of his ridiculous "plot" is his own eagerness to kill people and how much is the FBI providing him with a plan and a bomb and supporting his initial desire?

Which, again, is why I have to ask what crimes you'd be willing to commit if you had someone egging you on. I think the idea that everybody's one step away from trying to murder dozens of people and simply needs an FBI agent around telling them to do it in order to finally take the reins is pretty pernicious stuff.

I didn't say everyone was, but not everyone's situation is equal. I'm in a fairly comfortable situation right now so the FBI probably isn't going to be able to convince me to participate in a drug deal. But what if I was living in poverty and desperately trying to get enough money to eat tonight? In that situation I could pretty easily imagine taking the bait when that FBI agent says "I'll give you $100 to deliver this package of drugs". Same thing with terrorism. Obviously I'm not going to have any interest in a terrorist attack short of something like someone holding my family hostage and demanding that I help with it. But now consider someone who hates the US (and there are plenty of good reasons to) and believes in a religious duty to fight their religion's enemies, but isn't yet willing to go beyond dreaming about it. It's a lot easier to imagine the FBI pushing that person over the line and convincing them to act on their desires instead of just being an angry old man who celebrates every time they hear news of US troops dying in the war.

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And, again, wanting to commit a crime is not a crime. It only becomes a crime once you turn thought into action.

You keep saying that, but I'm failing to understand why it's relevant. Trying to bomb an airport terminal is very much a crime. This guy didn't just want to do it, he tried to do it.

Talking someone into trying to bomb an airport terminal is also a crime. Your government has murdered people for less. Is it really so hard to understand that we don't want to reward police for doing this?

Life is just so much simpler when you can just pretend that everything is black and white and grey areas don't exist.

 AlexHolker wrote:
Talking someone into trying to bomb an airport terminal is also a crime. Your government has murdered people for less. Is it really so hard to understand that we don't want to reward police for doing this?

It's worth noting, as djones already has, that no one's actually proved that the FBI talked anyone into doing anything. I'm playing along with the assumption made by the usual suspects simply because a thread that went, "The FBI's talking people into becoming terrorists who otherwise wouldn't have!" "Prove it." "I can't, but I'm suspicious," wouldn't be any fun or terribly thought-provoking. But the reality is that making claims about the FBI's modus operandi in these cases is suspect at best, unless someone here's a CTO.

If all you've got is a fake bomb, how can you "attempt to use a weapon of mass destruction, or attempt to damage property by means of an explosive"? In other words, will those charges stick?

 Minx wrote:
If all you've got is a fake bomb, how can you "attempt to use a weapon of mass destruction, or attempt to damage property by means of an explosive"? In other words, will those charges stick?

Because you thought that it was a real bomb. It's well established that failing to execute a crime because you didn't know that your bomb was fake/the box of "drugs" was fake/etc doesn't prevent you from being guilty. The fact that the attempt failed doesn't make it less of an attempt.

 djones520 wrote:
Now the regular folks.... I could buy it. One would just have to try to get to a flight at Chicago-O'hare on time, and it could probably drive anyone to acts of terrorism.

I fly out of O'Hare once a month, and I've never had any sort of problems.

 Peregrine wrote:

And this is the key question: are these people eager to commit a crime and the FBI just provides them with the "opportunity" that they ask for, or does the FBI attempt to persuade them from thought to action, confirm their beliefs that the crime is really the command of god and not a crime at all, help them go from "it would be cool to kill people" to actually forming a viable plot, etc? I have no problem with the FBI running www.cheapbombs.com and arresting anyone who tries to buy one, but I'm not convinced that the government isn't crossing that line into active persuasion for the sake of "stopping" a more impressive plot.

Are you under the impression that entrapment is something that is illegal?

 Ouze wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Ahem, as I was saying, if you could just disappear him off of the street...why go to the trouble of setting him up?

You appear to have remarkable flexibility when it comes to your love of the constitution; comparing this thread with that shooting one. You know, there's more stuff in it than the second amendment.

Oh make no mistake, I think it would be very unconstitutional to "disappear" him off of the street.

That said, the abortion of liberty which is the "Patriot Act", could have been used in this instance.

jamesk1973 wrote:

That said, the abortion of liberty which is the "Patriot Act", could have been used in this instance.

Please explain.

 dogma wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:

That said, the abortion of liberty which is the "Patriot Act", could have been used in this instance.

Please explain.

Which part?

The abortion of liberty? I feel that the Patriot Act is violating the Bill of Rights.

Or that it could have been used in this instance? A strong belief that you a terrorist can get you renditioned under the Patriot Act.

I don't believe there is any legislation passed that authorizes rendition (even the patriot act). I believe it is completely extrajudicial.

But know knows? The Bush administration successfully argued that the government can pass secret laws the public can't see. So we can't say anything with authority.

Yeah. Bush lost major points when he came up with that bs Patriot Act.

jamesk1973 wrote:
Yeah. Bush lost major points when he came up with that bs Patriot Act.

And yet years after he left office we still have it, along with Guantanamo.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but crazy thought... what if 9-11 and other successful attacks were attempts by the FBI or whatever alphabet agency to stop an attack in the making, but it got out of hand and they succeeded? Not quite an inside job, but not entirely guilt-free either...

I say that mostly tongue in cheek, but you have to wonder, if something like that did occur (an undercover probe/sting gone awry), would the agency in question fess up to it?

Truther Alert!

Code: Yellow!

Alex Jones, is that you?