As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Libertarianism, Anarchism, and Society with Voluntary Self Governance

13435363840

Posts

  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    Malkor wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Wait.

    You want the FBI to only pursue individuals who they consider to be competent?


    You really want someone at the FBI to say, "Yeah, that guy wants to blow up a bridge, but he's obviously not capable of it. We'll let him go."

    Really?

    I'd prefer it if federal agencies didn't entrap people who are very unlikely to ever get their hands on real explosives / real guns / real minors / etc.

    That being said, these gentlemen sound like they were inevitably going to maim themselves and/or someone else by trying to cook-up a bomb in their kitchen, so this particular case seems more reasonable.

    This is the US you are talking about. Getting a real gun is so easy, the I don't think it can even be considered a barrier to entry the terrorism lotto.

    The real key in this case, and the Seattle(iirc) one, is that these people put what they believed to be real explosives somewhere, and then entered the code to set off those 'explosives'.

    From what I gathered it started out as smoke bombs and toppling over signs, then the informant got more involved then all of a sudden they wanted to blow up the bridge with his C4.

    Again, I think these dudes are douches and should have the book thrown at them, but it seems like a hollow victory when the FBI's guy was so involved.

    Why? Because it was a whole lot of effort and work to arrest morons who were likely too stupid to amount to anything beyond public nuisances? Maybe so, maybe no, in practice most troublemakers who WANT to make big-time trouble will eventually Magoo their way into it, like the group that burned down my school. (Okay one school building on the campus but still) On the other hand you don't work a gang of morons like that unless you've got a lot of free time or you're trying to scare-up some good PR.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Huh? even morons can get explosives and guns if they have google or craigslist given enough time

    You don't have to be a genius to cause damage

    Yes, which is why I think this case is acceptable; these guys pretty clearly were going to do some damage and, at the very least, were an incredible hazard to themselves.

    But as a general rule I don't like it when a state's law enforcement starts baiting people to commit crime, because many cases are not as clear-cut as this one.


    EDIT: If the FBI had, instead of baiting the group with fake C4, approached them and said, "We heard that you are planning to use a bomb to blow-up a piece of government property. We are watching you. Don't fuck around," I think that would've been a more appropriate response, and may have dissuaded them from doing anything.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    The Ender wrote: »
    From the story it sounds like the police began to monitor these guys after observing their behavior / hearing them talk at OWS rallies. The guys talk about bombing something, so the FBI gets called. The FBI sends-in an undercover agent posing as an arms dealer to entice the guys into buying (fake) explosives.

    IANAL and all that stuff, so perhaps that doesn't meet the legal definition of entrapment, but it certainly is baiting them into doing something that they may not have proactively pursued.

    For entrapment the FBI (or their agent) would have had to suggest the plot.

    But that might not even matter. Because they actually planted the fake explosives and i am willing to be a judge is going to say "you had every chance to not do this, its not like the govt tricked you into sleeping with a hooker"

    The reason they do this instead of arresting them right then and there is that its a lot easier to ensure that these people both

    a) don't harm anyone

    and

    b) are locked up

    If they ensure the stuff they acquire is fake and then video tape them attempting to blow a bridge up.

    If they go and talk to them and say "we're watching you" then the perps will redouble their security and may shut the thing down but may not. It probably increases the liklihood that something will happen and since the FBI is no longer in control of the weapons there isn't as much of a liklihood that no one gets hurt. Its also harder to prosecute them because they'll cover their tracks.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Sure, but by arresting them and charging them, they get to send that message to anyone else thinking of doing something, and don't have to watch these five idiots forever.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against Russian warships) Registered User regular
    Yeah, that is nothing but a godawful bad idea. There's a reason why just planning to kill someone is a crime you arrest people for, and not just tell them, 'hey we're on to you.'

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    The FBI sends-in an undercover agent posing as an arms dealer to entice the guys into buying (fake) explosives.

    Whoa now.

    The bolded is an important word. Where did they do more than offer?

  • NeoflyNeofly Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    Actual successful terrorist plans have someone competent providing the materials, and these potential providers are the ones the FBI should try to capture.

    Wait.

    You want the FBI to only pursue individuals who they consider to be competent?


    You really want someone at the FBI to say, "Yeah, that guy wants to blow up a bridge, but he's obviously not capable of it. We'll let him go."

    Really?
    notdroid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    I fully support the FBI egging on retards

    they're far better at law enforcement via trolling than anything else


    This kind of thing doesn't make america any safer, though.

    Actual successful terrorist plans have someone competent providing the materials, and these potential providers are the ones the FBI should try to capture.

    Stupid kids that can be manipulated into terrorism are easy to come by.

    One does not exclude the other.

    Both are fair points but this is clearly just for show and not making america a lot safer.

  • NeoflyNeofly Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    The FBI sends-in an undercover agent posing as an arms dealer to entice the guys into buying (fake) explosives.

    Whoa now.

    The bolded is an important word. Where did they do more than offer?

    I don't know the specifics of this case, but in other similar stings, the fbi has supplied money to the """"terrorists"""" to buy arms from another fbi agent.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Neofly wrote: »
    Both are fair points but this is clearly just for show and not making america a lot safer.

    The FBI does not have the resources to watch every single person on the internet threatening to blow something up. However there's an easy test to figure it out. Offer them the tools to do so before someone else does. Should they take the bait and run with it, they would in fact probably be a danger to society the moment someone who doesn't care if five dumb asses do blow something up makes a few bucks off them.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    The FBI sends-in an undercover agent posing as an arms dealer to entice the guys into buying (fake) explosives.

    Whoa now.

    The bolded is an important word. Where did they do more than offer?

    I don't know the specifics of this case, but in other similar stings, the fbi has supplied money to the """"terrorists"""" to buy arms from another fbi agent.

    Far more sketchy but also still context dependent. Regardless, not this case.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    The FBI sends-in an undercover agent posing as an arms dealer to entice the guys into buying (fake) explosives.

    Whoa now.

    The bolded is an important word. Where did they do more than offer?

    I don't know the specifics of this case, but in other similar stings, the fbi has supplied money to the """"terrorists"""" to buy arms from another fbi agent.

    So long as they don't actually concoct the plot there is no problem. So say that the perps don't have the money to buy explosives and so instead of buying explosives they make their own?

    Now that is a lot harder to track and a lot harder to stop. So the perps say "we need to get a bomb" and one guy says "how about we make a fertilizer bomb it would not be expensive" and the FBI guy says "naw, i know a dude who will give us the money for C4 that is easier to work with" and they all say "ok".

    The key is not how much support they're providing, the key is if the perpetrators come up with the idea of the terrorist act.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    The FBI sends-in an undercover agent posing as an arms dealer to entice the guys into buying (fake) explosives.

    Whoa now.

    The bolded is an important word. Where did they do more than offer?

    I don't know the specifics of this case, but in other similar stings, the fbi has supplied money to the """"terrorists"""" to buy arms from another fbi agent.

    So long as they don't actually concoct the plot there is no problem. So say that the perps don't have the money to buy explosives and so instead of buying explosives they make their own?

    Now that is a lot harder to track and a lot harder to stop. So the perps say "we need to get a bomb" and one guy says "how about we make a fertilizer bomb it would not be expensive" and the FBI guy says "naw, i know a dude who will give us the money for C4 that is easier to work with" and they all say "ok".

    The key is not how much support they're providing, the key is if the perpetrators come up with the idea of the terrorist act.

    Ding!

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Quid wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    The FBI sends-in an undercover agent posing as an arms dealer to entice the guys into buying (fake) explosives.

    Whoa now.

    The bolded is an important word. Where did they do more than offer?

    According to the reports thus far, the group was immediately suspicious of the contact and tried to distance themselves from him - but one of the anarchists, Wright, was called by the contact and taken for breakfast to butter him up. It was here that the suggestion for buying some C4 was really planted, and then Wright went back to convince the rest of the group that everything was cool.

    Then the FBI paid the informant $6,000 for the con job.


    The anarchists are violent idiots, but that method of law enforcement isn't one I'll endorse. I mean, presumably the informant is only paid-out like that if they succeed in baiting-out criminal behavior, which seems to be contrary to the goal that the FBI is supposed to have (preventing crime from happening in the first place).

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    The FBI sends-in an undercover agent posing as an arms dealer to entice the guys into buying (fake) explosives.

    Whoa now.

    The bolded is an important word. Where did they do more than offer?

    According to the reports thus far, the group was immediately suspicious of the contact and tried to distance themselves from him - but one of the anarchists, Wright, was called by the contact and taken for breakfast to butter him up. It was here that the suggestion for buying some C4 was really planted, and then Wright went back to convince the rest of the group that everything was cool.

    Then the FBI paid the informant $6,000 for the con job.


    The anarchists are violent idiots, but that method of law enforcement isn't one I'll endorse. I mean, presumably the informant is only paid-out like that if they succeed in baiting-out criminal behavior, which seems to be contrary to the goal that the FBI is supposed to have (preventing crime from happening in the first place).

    It'd be nice if you'd cite these reports.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    After exchanging a few emails with the FBI’s cooperating source, Wright explained to the cooperating source that the group had been discussing plans “involving violence and destruction in a variety of ways in order to send a message to corporations and the United States government.” In February, the source picked Wright up at a Walgreens and they went to breakfast at a Cleveland restaurant. Wright said that other members of the group were “unsure” about the cooperating source and Wright was annoyed “because he had already vouched” for the source.

    Soon the plot began to evolve. Someone suggested taking out mines or oil wells, Wright said they would attack the Federal Reserve Bank. They later discussed attacking the Fusion Center in Ohio, but eventually settled on the bridge plot.

    The group was suspicious of the undercover officer who would sell the C-4 to them and the cooperating informant. Baxter said he thought that they would go to Guantanamo Bay if they get caught.

    All five were arrested Monday night, but only Wright, Baxter and Hayne had been charged so far. Charges against Stevens and Stafford are pending.
    The confidential source who brought the suspects to the FBI’s attention had been working with federal agents since July 2011. The source has a conviction for possession of cocaine in 1990 and a robbery conviction in 1991 as well as four convictions for passing bad checks between 1991 and 2011. The source was paid about $5,750 for his services.

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/fbi_anarchists_may_day_bridge_bombing_occupy.php

    ....This is sort-of derailing the thread at this point, I think.

    But I guess ray abandoned the thread anyway, so... *shrug*

    With Love and Courage
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Like, dude suggested blowing-up the 'Fusion Center', which I assume is a tourist attraction or shopping mall with a lot of people around? So fuck him, bait or no bait.

    But the problem is that law enforcement tends to work in very broad strokes, and it's not always some guy with a bomb plot that gets hooked like this, and - most importantly - it doesn't seem to actually work towards the goal of reducing crime (which, I think, is what you'd want your law enforcement to do?)

    With Love and Courage
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    The Ender wrote: »
    According to the reports thus far, the group was immediately suspicious of the contact and tried to distance themselves from him - but one of the anarchists, Wright, was called by the contact and taken for breakfast to butter him up.
    No proof of this. Getting breakfast isn't buttering someone up.

    It was here that the suggestion for buying some C4 was really planted
    Or this. The report said someone suggested it, not the source nor Wright.
    I mean, presumably the informant is only paid-out like that if they succeed in baiting-out criminal behavior, which seems to be contrary to the goal that the FBI is supposed to have (preventing crime from happening in the first place).
    Or even this.

    Quid on
  • NeoflyNeofly Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    These guys were planning on attacking the federal reserve bank and when provided with C4 they settled on blowing up a small bridge.

    You may think whatever on whether the guys deserve jail or not or if the fbi commited entrapment, but I can see no argument towards america sleeping safer tonight thanks to this sting.

    e:best case they took out 5? potential terrorists off the streets. Bad news, there are tons of guys like that. Worst case they just taught actual potential terrorists that they have to check for informants that are trying to provide money and or weapons.

    And the burden of proof is on the side of whoever wants to say they could have done anything at all without the fbi.

    Neofly on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Neofly wrote: »
    These guys were planning on attacking the federal reserve bank and when provided with C4 they settled on blowing up a small bridge.

    You may think whatever on whether the guys deserve jail or not or if the fbi commited entrapment, but I can see no argument towards america sleeping safer tonight thanks to this sting.

    And the burden of proof is on the side of whoever wants to say they could have done anything at all without the fbi.

    It's fine to not like how this works, but this has been how law enforcement does things for decades. I don't really feel bad that the nutcases are in prison.

    It's not like the FBI is going to just grab a guy on the street and say "Hey, you want to blow up a bridge?" like some kind of deranged manatee.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Neofly wrote: »
    These guys were planning on attacking the federal reserve bank and when provided with C4 they settled on blowing up a small bridge.

    You may think whatever on whether the guys deserve jail or not or if the fbi commited entrapment, but I can see no argument towards america sleeping safer tonight thanks to this sting.

    Do you trust them to safely handle explosives, to include blowing up a major bridge, with no casualties?

  • NeoflyNeofly Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    These guys were planning on attacking the federal reserve bank and when provided with C4 they settled on blowing up a small bridge.

    You may think whatever on whether the guys deserve jail or not or if the fbi commited entrapment, but I can see no argument towards america sleeping safer tonight thanks to this sting.

    Do you trust them to safely handle explosives, to include blowing up a major bridge, with no casualties?

    What explosives?
    Neofly wrote: »
    These guys were planning on attacking the federal reserve bank and when provided with C4 they settled on blowing up a small bridge.

    You may think whatever on whether the guys deserve jail or not or if the fbi commited entrapment, but I can see no argument towards america sleeping safer tonight thanks to this sting.

    And the burden of proof is on the side of whoever wants to say they could have done anything at all without the fbi.

    It's fine to not like how this works, but this has been how law enforcement does things for decades. I don't really feel bad that the nutcases are in prison.

    It's not like the FBI is going to just grab a guy on the street and say "Hey, you want to blow up a bridge?" like some kind of deranged manatee.

    Status quo is not a good reason for this senseless waste of resources.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    These guys were planning on attacking the federal reserve bank and when provided with C4 they settled on blowing up a small bridge.

    You may think whatever on whether the guys deserve jail or not or if the fbi commited entrapment, but I can see no argument towards america sleeping safer tonight thanks to this sting.

    Do you trust them to safely handle explosives, to include blowing up a major bridge, with no casualties?

    What explosives?

    The ones they thought they had and were going to use on the bridge. The ones they made it clear they were willing to buy illegally and then use in a horrendously dangerous way.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    These guys were planning on attacking the federal reserve bank and when provided with C4 they settled on blowing up a small bridge.

    You may think whatever on whether the guys deserve jail or not or if the fbi commited entrapment, but I can see no argument towards america sleeping safer tonight thanks to this sting.

    Do you trust them to safely handle explosives, to include blowing up a major bridge, with no casualties?

    What explosives?
    Neofly wrote: »
    These guys were planning on attacking the federal reserve bank and when provided with C4 they settled on blowing up a small bridge.

    You may think whatever on whether the guys deserve jail or not or if the fbi commited entrapment, but I can see no argument towards america sleeping safer tonight thanks to this sting.

    And the burden of proof is on the side of whoever wants to say they could have done anything at all without the fbi.

    It's fine to not like how this works, but this has been how law enforcement does things for decades. I don't really feel bad that the nutcases are in prison.

    It's not like the FBI is going to just grab a guy on the street and say "Hey, you want to blow up a bridge?" like some kind of deranged manatee.

    Status quo is not a good reason for this senseless waste of resources.

    I'm just saying, this is how the FBI busts these people. Always has been. It's really the only way to bust them. You find some people who are more than willing to do horrible things, you enable them a little to gain their trust, then you can bust them.

    Even if "there are plenty of other terrorists out there" removing five is still a step forward imo.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • NeoflyNeofly Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    These guys were planning on attacking the federal reserve bank and when provided with C4 they settled on blowing up a small bridge.

    You may think whatever on whether the guys deserve jail or not or if the fbi commited entrapment, but I can see no argument towards america sleeping safer tonight thanks to this sting.

    Do you trust them to safely handle explosives, to include blowing up a major bridge, with no casualties?

    What explosives?

    The ones they thought they had and were going to use on the bridge. The ones they made it clear they were willing to buy illegally and then use in a horrendously dangerous way.

    The ones that wouldn't have made into their hands without the involvement of the FBI and that they wouldn't have know how to get otherwise?

    Neofly on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    These guys were planning on attacking the federal reserve bank and when provided with C4 they settled on blowing up a small bridge.

    You may think whatever on whether the guys deserve jail or not or if the fbi commited entrapment, but I can see no argument towards america sleeping safer tonight thanks to this sting.

    Do you trust them to safely handle explosives, to include blowing up a major bridge, with no casualties?

    What explosives?

    The ones they thought they had and were going to use on the bridge. The ones they made it clear they were willing to buy illegally and then use in a horrendously dangerous way.

    The ones that wouldn't have made into their hands without the involvement of the FBI and that they wouldn't have know how to get otherwise?

    For determined people it's super easy to get your hands on things that go boom. You cannot be this naive about the world.

    Look at the thing you're using, if you really wanted to, you could find how to get/how to make explosive in less than a minute.

    Keeping five people with the will to blow up a bridge out on the street isn't a good thing. That's the point of these stings.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    These guys were planning on attacking the federal reserve bank and when provided with C4 they settled on blowing up a small bridge.

    You may think whatever on whether the guys deserve jail or not or if the fbi commited entrapment, but I can see no argument towards america sleeping safer tonight thanks to this sting.

    Do you trust them to safely handle explosives, to include blowing up a major bridge, with no casualties?

    What explosives?

    The ones they thought they had and were going to use on the bridge. The ones they made it clear they were willing to buy illegally and then use in a horrendously dangerous way.

    The ones that wouldn't have made into their hands without the involvement of the FBI and that they wouldn't have know how to get?

    I just gave this a try. Took under two minutes on Google to find out how to make one. I have no problem assuming that wouldn't prove a barrier to them.

    And that's assuming they couldn't find someone to just sell them some.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    I'm just saying, this is how the FBI busts these people. Always has been. It's really the only way to bust them. You find some people who are more than willing to do horrible things, you enable them a little to gain their trust, then you can bust them.

    Um, no, it's not the only way to arrest these types of people. And yes, it's been done for quite a while in America - and the resulting crime statistics speak to it's effectiveness.

    With Love and Courage
  • NeoflyNeofly Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    These guys were planning on attacking the federal reserve bank and when provided with C4 they settled on blowing up a small bridge.

    You may think whatever on whether the guys deserve jail or not or if the fbi commited entrapment, but I can see no argument towards america sleeping safer tonight thanks to this sting.

    Do you trust them to safely handle explosives, to include blowing up a major bridge, with no casualties?

    What explosives?
    Neofly wrote: »
    These guys were planning on attacking the federal reserve bank and when provided with C4 they settled on blowing up a small bridge.

    You may think whatever on whether the guys deserve jail or not or if the fbi commited entrapment, but I can see no argument towards america sleeping safer tonight thanks to this sting.

    And the burden of proof is on the side of whoever wants to say they could have done anything at all without the fbi.

    It's fine to not like how this works, but this has been how law enforcement does things for decades. I don't really feel bad that the nutcases are in prison.

    It's not like the FBI is going to just grab a guy on the street and say "Hey, you want to blow up a bridge?" like some kind of deranged manatee.

    Status quo is not a good reason for this senseless waste of resources.

    I'm just saying, this is how the FBI busts these people. Always has been. It's really the only way to bust them. You find some people who are more than willing to do horrible things, you enable them a little to gain their trust, then you can bust them.

    Even if "there are plenty of other terrorists out there" removing five is still a step forward imo.

    It's hard to measure whether the step forward is meaningful or not, though.

    But what we do know is that this kind of operation couldn't have stopped 9/11, couldn't have stopped McVeigh, or the shoe bomber cause in two of these cases, the perpetrator was contacted by someone with real resources, or in the mcveigh case, the perpetrator knew how to make a bomb. McVeigh is particularly funny cause just a couple of years before his attack, the fbi was investigating a lot of people that had contact with mcveigh, during this very same kind of operation where they tried to supply resources to potential terrorists (an operation that actually didn't even end with anyone prosecuted), and McVeigh completely flew under the noses of the fbi.

    The operation should be from the other side. To try and infiltrate a terrorist operation by hijacking the "getting idiots to perpetrate the plan" process, not the other way around.

    Neofly on
  • NeoflyNeofly Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    These guys were planning on attacking the federal reserve bank and when provided with C4 they settled on blowing up a small bridge.

    You may think whatever on whether the guys deserve jail or not or if the fbi commited entrapment, but I can see no argument towards america sleeping safer tonight thanks to this sting.

    Do you trust them to safely handle explosives, to include blowing up a major bridge, with no casualties?

    What explosives?

    The ones they thought they had and were going to use on the bridge. The ones they made it clear they were willing to buy illegally and then use in a horrendously dangerous way.

    The ones that wouldn't have made into their hands without the involvement of the FBI and that they wouldn't have know how to get?

    I just gave this a try. Took under two minutes on Google to find out how to make one. I have no problem assuming that wouldn't prove a barrier to them.

    And that's assuming they couldn't find someone to just sell them some.

    Yet they had no explosives until the fbi got involved.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    I'm just saying, this is how the FBI busts these people. Always has been. It's really the only way to bust them. You find some people who are more than willing to do horrible things, you enable them a little to gain their trust, then you can bust them.

    Um, no, it's not the only way to arrest these types of people. And yes, it's been done for quite a while in America - and the resulting crime statistics speak to it's effectiveness.

    It's decreased over all over the last few decades?

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Neofly wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    These guys were planning on attacking the federal reserve bank and when provided with C4 they settled on blowing up a small bridge.

    You may think whatever on whether the guys deserve jail or not or if the fbi commited entrapment, but I can see no argument towards america sleeping safer tonight thanks to this sting.

    Do you trust them to safely handle explosives, to include blowing up a major bridge, with no casualties?

    What explosives?
    Neofly wrote: »
    These guys were planning on attacking the federal reserve bank and when provided with C4 they settled on blowing up a small bridge.

    You may think whatever on whether the guys deserve jail or not or if the fbi commited entrapment, but I can see no argument towards america sleeping safer tonight thanks to this sting.

    And the burden of proof is on the side of whoever wants to say they could have done anything at all without the fbi.

    It's fine to not like how this works, but this has been how law enforcement does things for decades. I don't really feel bad that the nutcases are in prison.

    It's not like the FBI is going to just grab a guy on the street and say "Hey, you want to blow up a bridge?" like some kind of deranged manatee.

    Status quo is not a good reason for this senseless waste of resources.

    I'm just saying, this is how the FBI busts these people. Always has been. It's really the only way to bust them. You find some people who are more than willing to do horrible things, you enable them a little to gain their trust, then you can bust them.

    Even if "there are plenty of other terrorists out there" removing five is still a step forward imo.

    It's hard to measure whether the step forward is meaningful or not, though.

    But what we do know is that this kind of operation couldn't have stopped 9/11, couldn't have stopped McVeigh, or the shoe bomber cause in two of these cases, the perpetrator was contacted by someone with real resources, or in the mcveigh case, the perpetrator knew how to make a bomb. McVeigh is particularly funny cause just a couple of years before his attack, the fbi was investigating a lot of people that had contact with mcveigh, during this very same kind of operation where they tried to supply resources to potential terrorists (an operation that actually didn't even end with anyone prosecuted), and McVeigh completely flew under the noses of the fbi.

    The operation should be from the other side. To try and infiltrate a terrorist operation by hijacking the "getting idiots to perpetrate the plan" process, not the other way around.

    Well, that's entrapment so no, they shouldn't. You can't convince people to go break the law and then arrest them. You have to get them after they decided to go out and do it and are trying.

    We could start hijacking that part, but we'd be living in a different country and I'd not be willing to do so.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • NeoflyNeofly Registered User regular
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    These guys were planning on attacking the federal reserve bank and when provided with C4 they settled on blowing up a small bridge.

    You may think whatever on whether the guys deserve jail or not or if the fbi commited entrapment, but I can see no argument towards america sleeping safer tonight thanks to this sting.

    Do you trust them to safely handle explosives, to include blowing up a major bridge, with no casualties?

    What explosives?

    The ones they thought they had and were going to use on the bridge. The ones they made it clear they were willing to buy illegally and then use in a horrendously dangerous way.

    The ones that wouldn't have made into their hands without the involvement of the FBI and that they wouldn't have know how to get otherwise?

    For determined people it's super easy to get your hands on things that go boom. You cannot be this naive about the world.

    Look at the thing you're using, if you really wanted to, you could find how to get/how to make explosive in less than a minute.

    Keeping five people with the will to blow up a bridge out on the street isn't a good thing. That's the point of these stings.

    I am not naive.

    The people that actually want to blow things up and shoot up other ones can actually get their hands on it.

    The people that the fbi arrested here were not this kind of people.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    These guys were planning on attacking the federal reserve bank and when provided with C4 they settled on blowing up a small bridge.

    You may think whatever on whether the guys deserve jail or not or if the fbi commited entrapment, but I can see no argument towards america sleeping safer tonight thanks to this sting.

    Do you trust them to safely handle explosives, to include blowing up a major bridge, with no casualties?

    What explosives?

    The ones they thought they had and were going to use on the bridge. The ones they made it clear they were willing to buy illegally and then use in a horrendously dangerous way.

    The ones that wouldn't have made into their hands without the involvement of the FBI and that they wouldn't have know how to get?

    I just gave this a try. Took under two minutes on Google to find out how to make one. I have no problem assuming that wouldn't prove a barrier to them.

    And that's assuming they couldn't find someone to just sell them some.

    Yet they had no explosives until the fbi got involved.

    This doesn't disqualify my statement.

    Obtaining them is not difficult. So the FBI, rather than wasting resources waiting, gave them the option to endanger people. They decided to go for endangering people.

    Also, despite Republican's claims, 9/11 isn't the only threat to Americans.

  • NeoflyNeofly Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    These guys were planning on attacking the federal reserve bank and when provided with C4 they settled on blowing up a small bridge.

    You may think whatever on whether the guys deserve jail or not or if the fbi commited entrapment, but I can see no argument towards america sleeping safer tonight thanks to this sting.

    Do you trust them to safely handle explosives, to include blowing up a major bridge, with no casualties?

    What explosives?

    The ones they thought they had and were going to use on the bridge. The ones they made it clear they were willing to buy illegally and then use in a horrendously dangerous way.

    The ones that wouldn't have made into their hands without the involvement of the FBI and that they wouldn't have know how to get?

    I just gave this a try. Took under two minutes on Google to find out how to make one. I have no problem assuming that wouldn't prove a barrier to them.

    And that's assuming they couldn't find someone to just sell them some.

    Yet they had no explosives until the fbi got involved.

    This doesn't disqualify my statement.

    Obtaining them is not difficult. So the FBI, rather than wasting resources waiting, gave them the option to endanger people. They decided to go for endangering people.

    Also, despite Republican's claims, 9/11 isn't the only threat to Americans.

    It does because you claim that there's no barrier in discovering how to get explosives, so basically from the moment they started to talk about "hey, let's terrorize america" until the point the fbi got involved they could have done so.

    Yet nothing of the kind happened without the feds.

    I am not invoking 9/11 because I think only islam is a threat to america. I am invoking 9/11, McVeigh, that sniper guy that shoot from his car trunk, and the shoe bomber as four different examples of terrorist attacks that, not only were completely ignored by the government (which is understandable because of limited resources) but that are 100% impossible to stop using this entrapment method.

    And IIRC these entrapment cases always end up with the fbi providing 100% of the dangerous materials (except maybe guns which are trivial to get), which proves that the "terrorists" couldn't have gotten them themselves.

    Neofly on
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    These guys were planning on attacking the federal reserve bank and when provided with C4 they settled on blowing up a small bridge.

    You may think whatever on whether the guys deserve jail or not or if the fbi commited entrapment, but I can see no argument towards america sleeping safer tonight thanks to this sting.

    Do you trust them to safely handle explosives, to include blowing up a major bridge, with no casualties?

    What explosives?

    The ones they thought they had and were going to use on the bridge. The ones they made it clear they were willing to buy illegally and then use in a horrendously dangerous way.

    The ones that wouldn't have made into their hands without the involvement of the FBI and that they wouldn't have know how to get?

    I just gave this a try. Took under two minutes on Google to find out how to make one. I have no problem assuming that wouldn't prove a barrier to them.

    And that's assuming they couldn't find someone to just sell them some.

    Youre so on a watchlist now. Beware of people trying to sell you C4.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Neofly wrote: »
    It does because you claim that there's no barrier in discovering how to get explosives, so basically from the moment they started to talk about "hey, let's terrorize america" until the point the fbi got involved they could have done so.

    The FBI did not offer until it was suggested they get some. Their idea, not the FBI's.

  • B_RB_R Registered User regular
    You know that supporting criminals to commit their acts just to arrest them is not compatible to your laws?

    It's like giving an crazy person in a mental institution a gun. After he lived out his dream of purifying everyone, you are going to kill them.
    Is this your understanding of justice? Should there be an organisation that supports crime just to punish those who fell for their tricks?

    Comminting crimes is much easier if you have the means to do them, this has alot to do with basics of human nature.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    B_R wrote: »
    You know that supporting criminals to commit their acts just to arrest them is not compatible to your laws?

    Are you aware of what entrapment actually involves?

  • B_RB_R Registered User regular
    Well maybe thats a cultural difference.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    This also isn't just a lolamerica thing, btw.

    If your country has law enforcement, this happens.

    Lh96QHG.png
Sign In or Register to comment.