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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The guy might be a , but being a and dreaming about killing people isn't a crime.

That is true, but they aren't arrested for dreaming about it. They are only arrested after they have tried to actually follow through on it. Whether or not they were unduly coerced into doing something they may not have done without FBI involvement is certainly an interesting topic and worth discussing, but they aren't arrested for dreaming; in the end they still tried to kill people before being arrested.

And the FBI encourages them, trains them, and supplies them with everything they think they need to kill people, so that they can justify arresting them.

Of course maybe it is just a giant PR program for the FBI, saying "we stopped somebody from blowing up a building" sounds better than "we stopped somebody who was thinking about blowing up a building".

 d-usa wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The guy might be a , but being a and dreaming about killing people isn't a crime.

That is true, but they aren't arrested for dreaming about it. They are only arrested after they have tried to actually follow through on it. Whether or not they were unduly coerced into doing something they may not have done without FBI involvement is certainly an interesting topic and worth discussing, but they aren't arrested for dreaming; in the end they still tried to kill people before being arrested.

And the FBI encourages them, trains them, and supplies them with everything they think they need to kill people, so that they can justify arresting them.

Which is why it is an issue worth discussing, but pretending that the person also didn't attempt to go through with the act is a bit silly. I think there are probably instances where the FBI probably pushed someone into doing something they may not have done if not encouraged. There are also times, like the one in the article at the start of the thread where the guy was going to do it no matter what, and we got ahead of him and just let him hang himself. I don't think the options are just that the FBI is forcing people against there will to commit terrorist acts just to arrest them and the FBI just accidentally stopping a terrorist act. The FBI probably has crossed the line on occasion and I think they should be called out on it, but just don't see it as completely one sided. I see both being wrong.

Reminds me of a story. A guy I knew wanted to buy some marijuana so called a dealer, only instead of 123-4567 he put in the number 123-4576, which happened to be a Sheriff's number. When the sheriff answered the guy asked for 'Alex' or whatever the guys name was, and the Sheriff said that Alex wasn't there and wanted to know what he wanted, to which this person said he needed to procure said weed. Well, obliviously the meet up at the convenience store did not work out quite as well as the fellow had hoped, but it gave the LEO, and me, a pretty funny story.

 Ahtman wrote:
That is true, but they aren't arrested for dreaming about it. They are only arrested after they have tried to actually follow through on it. Whether or not they were unduly coerced into doing something they may not have done without FBI involvement is certainly an interesting topic and worth discussing, but they aren't arrested for dreaming; in the end they still tried to kill people before being arrested.

The point is that without the FBI's involvement they may very well have stayed at the "just dreaming about it" stage. Instead of just leaving them to dream the FBI pushes them into doing something criminal, and then punishes them to convince everyone that Something Is Being Done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
Reminds me of a story. A guy I knew wanted to buy some marijuana so called a dealer, only instead of 123-4567 he put in the number 123-4576, which happened to be a Sheriff's number. When the sheriff answered the guy asked for 'Alex' or whatever the guys name was, and the Sheriff said that Alex wasn't there and wanted to know what he wanted, to which this person said he needed to procure said weed. Well, obliviously the meet up at the convenience store did not work out quite as well as the fellow had hoped, but it gave the LEO, and me, a pretty funny story.

Except that's not what the FBI is doing. The more accurate story is that some guy posts once on a forum saying "hey, weed sounds kind of fun", the sheriff reads it and calls the guy offering some, spends an hour arguing with him telling him how awesome it is and how he should do it and not worry about being caught (because hey, police ignore that stuff all the time), offers a free sample, and when the guy finally gives in and agrees to give it a try the cops show up and arrest him.

 Peregrine wrote:
The point is that without the FBI's involvement they may very well have stayed at the "just dreaming about it" stage.

Or, they may have gone through with it anyway; we don't have a magic globe to show us the future that never was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Except that's not what the FBI is doing.

Which is why I just said it reminded me of a story and not 'this is the same thing that happened to someone I knew'.

 Ahtman wrote:
Or, they may have gone through with it anyway; we don't have a magic globe to show us the future that never was.

You're right, but the FBI's case for that isn't exactly convincing. It looks a lot more like an effort to ensure a steady supply of "plots" to defeat loudly in public (and therefore lots of funding to the FBI and more pro-"security" laws), and less like a case of getting lucky and spotting real threats before they get far enough to kill anyone.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Entrapment requires thye urging and providing means to commit a crime. Merely selling an item does not constitute entrapment. If the FBI said, "Here's this stuff go blow up a building," there wouldn't be a case.

Except we've seen with these cases that the FBI does more than just provide a fake bomb when the "terrorist" asks for it, they actively aid in planning and encourage the "terrorist" to move forward with the plot. Essentially they're manufacturing a "crime" which only exists because the FBI created it.

And if that is so, the defense simply has to demonstrate the entrapment and he walks. You will not likely get a conviction from a manufactured crime.

 Surtur wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Entrapment requires thye urging and providing means to commit a crime. Merely selling an item does not constitute entrapment. If the FBI said, "Here's this stuff go blow up a building," there wouldn't be a case.

Except we've seen with these cases that the FBI does more than just provide a fake bomb when the "terrorist" asks for it, they actively aid in planning and encourage the "terrorist" to move forward with the plot. Essentially they're manufacturing a "crime" which only exists because the FBI created it.

And if that is so, the defense simply has to demonstrate the entrapment and he walks. You will not likely get a conviction from a manufactured crime.

The guy with the Judge Dredd Avatar said this?

Yeah, no one has ever been wrongly convicted or set-up by the FBI.

Evidently they've just arrested a second person in San Diego related to this.

 Frazzled wrote:
Evidently they've just arrested a second person in San Diego related to this.

Which sounds like it's NOT entrapment.

 Ouze wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
[There's a fundamental difference between baiting a trap, and going out to the pet store buying a mouse and throwing it at the trap until it snaps.

That's a great turn of phrase.

It was unusually good, probably proving that more than one of me live in this brain.

That being said, although I think these things are kinda dumb and am very dubious about their effectiveness; I'm not sure the FBI should stop doing it either. Which I know sounds super hypocritical. But I think there is something to the deterrence argument as well. While I'm sure would-be terrorists probably know blowing stuff up is unlawful, I wonder how many plots might have been foiled by actual terror dudes who became shy of their contacts possibly being G-men. But it's probably a bad idea to run dubious law enforcement strategies based upon unknowable hypothetical numbers.

So, I guess what I'm saying is while I think this is kinda a dumb idea, I don't really have a better one either.

Here's the thing. I want the FBI to be out there finding people who solicit recruits, and look for suppliers, to fulfill their own plans. That's their fething job. I don't want the FBI to be paying informants (who are criminals themselves) to recruit agitators and promote them from the farm leagues of facebook to the majors.

In this case it appears that the dude came up with his own plan and went out to recruit people and thats how the FBI met him: perfect. But it makes the FBI characterizing him as a lone wolf terrorist contradictory. Even when they win they find out a way to feth it up for me, and I'm sure that more details will come out that makes it apparent the only way he could have gotten the bomb to the building is with FBI help. Somehow I think the Fed has a decent security presence.