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

13435363739

Posts

  • B_RB_R Registered User regular
    Well there has recently been a case of police agents helping someone smuggling drugs over the border.
    That has not been considered legal.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    B_R wrote: »
    Well there has recently been a case of police agents helping someone smuggling drugs over the border.
    That has not been considered legal.

    Do they ever sell drugs to people and then arrest them?

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Neofly 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 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.

    But that is the thing, they were these kind of people. Once they got their hands on the supposed bombs, they placed them at the bridge and input the code to make them explode.

    That is exactly the kind of people who actually want to blow things up! Waiting until they actually have real explosives[and are planting real explosives on bridges] is incredibly dangerous
    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.

    Sigh. No, there is a barrier in discovering how to get explosives, and there is a barrier in learning how to make effective explosives and we would rather not wait until they actually get there.

    Plotting to blow up a bridge does not become either a) less illegal, or b) less reprehensible because the FBI lowered the perceived bar to obtain the explosives

    These people plotted to blow up a bridge, they decided to get explosives and got the easiest explosives they could find. Which yes, did happen to be from the FBI, but that is a good thing, because if the FBI wasn't then they might have risked making their own bomb
    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.

    I am going to focus on McVeigh, because 9/11 was pretty special, and the underwear bomber didn't get his explosives inside the United States [so the FBI isn't really able to stop that either way].

    McVeigh is absolutely the type of attack that could be stopped by this method. Yes, they failed in that case, but if the FBI had gotten to McVeigh before he built his bomb and he had made it clear he wanted to do this. The FBI could have made it easy to "acquire" the bomb easier than making it and so McVeigh could have been given a fake bomb.

    The fact that the FBI failed in McVeigh does not indicate that McVeigh could not have been stopped.

    More importantly, lets suppose that McVeigh could not have been stopped. Well these guys, and people like them, who are just as dangerous if they actually get a bomb can be stopped

    Edit: I am going to make an analogy here.

    What you're proposing is like suggesting that someone who goes and looks for ways to kill someone should not be given the opportunity to "hire" an "assassin" because that indicates that they couldn't really do it. That we should wait until they actually attempt the act with a weapon that can kill their target before charging them. Well, how do you explain to the dead persons family "sorry, we could have set this person up to fail because we knew they had intention to kill, but we didn't because its not fair that we provide fake weapons" if things go wrong?

    I mean think for a second what happens if the FBI does not provide the weapons.

    One of two things happen

    A: They get the weapons
    B: They do not get the weapons

    Situation B we don't really care about, because plotting to bomb a bridge is still illegal[whether or not you go through with it]. Situation A we do care about though. If situation A occurs then people could die.

    Its better to provide the "support" and so get people who commit actual illegal acts in the planning of terrorist activities to be able to be arrested while also preventing the people who are both committing that illegal act and competent enough to pull it off from pulling it off.

    If you go talk to them as you suggested, that will simply make them harder to catch if they are competent and will simply deter the people who committed an actual illegal act in the planning of terrorist activities to not be prosecuted.

    I know which side I land on, its the side that has a lower chance of terrorists blowing up bridges and still only arrests people who do things that are and should be illegal thank you very much

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    I think the key is the informant. If he passively went along with the group and then handed them the rope to hang themselves with that's one thing. But if he steered their actions, and suggested that they go from smoke-bombs to military-grade explosives then it makes the case look bad.

    Also (and maybe I should put it in my sig at this point) that doesn't lessen the fact that when presented with the C4, they put it on the bridge. They're still guilty and should be punished accordingly.

    But to bring this around to the original spirit of the thread, anarchists like this are outliers, and with good reason, because blowing/wrecking shit up to bring down 'the state' is stupid. I saw videos of Seattle, and they were indiscriminate with their vandalism, attacking private citizens as well as corporations, and even the media who would also be documenting the instances of police overstepping their duties if they hadn't smashed their cameras. They were all waving the same flags, and I wouldn't want to live in a society where I'd have to worry about that happening all the time. Plus, they make it harder for people who just want to be heard to get their voice out or have their message respected. I'd hope both Chaos Theory and rayofash agree, and would condemn their actions.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    What about the value in the... don't know what to call it. Terrorizing terrorists? If the FBI is known to have agents out there seeded amonst the groups, every potential terrorist is going to be wary of anyone they work with. That extra distrust makes it harder for terrorist cells (or dumb kids) to coordinate, because that threat of FBI agents is there. That seems pretty valuable.

    What is this I don't even.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    What about the value in the... don't know what to call it. Terrorizing terrorists? If the FBI is known to have agents out there seeded amonst the groups, every potential terrorist is going to be wary of anyone they work with. That extra distrust makes it harder for terrorist cells (or dumb kids) to coordinate, because that threat of FBI agents is there. That seems pretty valuable.

    This is also another reason stings like this happen.

    Much better for everyone if the crazies think anyone that can help them is a spook.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    emp123 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.

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

    Yeah... Isn't it illegal to look up that stuff?

  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    God, this happens in all militant activist circles, ever. I don't know why activists haven't caught on yet that the people suggesting you escalate your tactics to blowing shit up are always cops.

    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    Malkor wrote: »
    flamebroiledchicken said that only a few of his anarchist friends were the burn everything type. If there are other like-minded individuals or groups that can tolerate existing within the system, then why hasn't any anarchist group establish something that represents what they believe more than an OWS encampment or squatting in an empty building? They could sell all their shit buy a huge plot of land somewhere, and as long as they aren't doing anything too crazy, they'll pretty much be left alone. Yes, they'll still have to pay taxes or keep things at code, but that's still better than what many of them have demonstrated so far.

    My point with the monks and even Waco is that they had their beliefs and lived as separate as you can be from the state without becoming their own state. Instead of firebombing things the anarchists can just gather up some money then live as horizontally and consenting as they want to amongst themselves.

    There are plenty of examples of anarchist communes living as autonomously as they can. However, not all anarchists are interested in removing themselves from society. This approach to anarchism often gets criticized as "lifestyle anarchism" i.e. you're interested in living the anarchist lifestyle, but not in changing larger society. If you're not one for blowing shit up, this is where projects like OWS come from- an interest in creating something autonomous and commune-esque, but not somewhere away from everyone else, but the opposite- right up in everyone's face.

    Like I said earlier, I don't consider myself an anarchist, but I think it's a bit unfair to claim that anarchism has no ideas besides throwing molotovs and squatting abandoned buildings. There are a wide range of diverse approaches to the philosophy.

    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Casual wrote: »
    emp123 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.

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

    Yeah... Isn't it illegal to look up that stuff?

    No. Free speech protections.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    I don't think it's entrapment, but you'll notice you never hear about it the other way around - where someone poses as a shithead and actually gets into position bring down the competent groups who actually might be able to blow something up.

    I mean hell, if those radical hippy environmentalists can make a firebomb you're really only going after the low hanging fruit with this strategy; I'm not terribly worried about terrorists who are too lazy or too stupid to even google 'how to make a bomb'.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    A lot of the time what law enforcement actually does in cases like that (or the one out of portland at the moment) doesn't rise to the actual legal level of entrapment, but it still doesn't seem like something we should broadly want law enforcement to do.

    I mean, there are probably a lot of people out there in shitty situations who, with enough enabling/normalizing from seemingly reasonable/trustworthy people, could be induced to be the triggerman in a terrorist "plot." I'm not sure whether law enforcement seeking them out and creating circumstances that lead to their arrest is really a great use of resources, though.

    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    Speaking of anarchists and bombs, tomorrow is the anniversary of the Haymarket Affair, when someone at a labor rally threw dynamite at a line of cops and 7 anarchists, none of whom could possibly have been the bomb-thrower (5 of them weren't even there!), were sentenced to death. And then, to "counterbalance" May Day, which is intended as a commemoration of said Affair, the government declared May 1st to be Loyalty Day! Yay America!

    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    ed: oh huh, I guess loyalty day has been around a lot longer, nevermind

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    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.

    "Hey guys, don't commit acts of treason, murder or terrorism, mmmkay?" is kind of implicit in the social contract. A stern warning is not the appropriate response to conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    I don't think it's entrapment, but you'll notice you never hear about it the other way around - where someone poses as a shithead and actually gets into position bring down the competent groups who actually might be able to blow something up.

    I mean hell, if those radical hippy environmentalists can make a firebomb you're really only going after the low hanging fruit with this strategy; I'm not terribly worried about terrorists who are too lazy or too stupid to even google 'how to make a bomb'.

    That's because any group that gets infiltrated is categorized as a "incompetent group." A group incapable of actually doing anything that is never discovered you never hear about. A group that is infiltrated you hear about and categorize as incapable. A group that is capable that is not infiltrated or discovered....

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • NeoflyNeofly Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Neofly 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 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.

    But that is the thing, they were these kind of people. Once they got their hands on the supposed bombs, they placed them at the bridge and input the code to make them explode.

    That is exactly the kind of people who actually want to blow things up! Waiting until they actually have real explosives[and are planting real explosives on bridges] is incredibly dangerous
    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.

    Sigh. No, there is a barrier in discovering how to get explosives, and there is a barrier in learning how to make effective explosives and we would rather not wait until they actually get there.

    Plotting to blow up a bridge does not become either a) less illegal, or b) less reprehensible because the FBI lowered the perceived bar to obtain the explosives

    These people plotted to blow up a bridge, they decided to get explosives and got the easiest explosives they could find. Which yes, did happen to be from the FBI, but that is a good thing, because if the FBI wasn't then they might have risked making their own bomb
    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.

    I am going to focus on McVeigh, because 9/11 was pretty special, and the underwear bomber didn't get his explosives inside the United States [so the FBI isn't really able to stop that either way].

    McVeigh is absolutely the type of attack that could be stopped by this method. Yes, they failed in that case, but if the FBI had gotten to McVeigh before he built his bomb and he had made it clear he wanted to do this. The FBI could have made it easy to "acquire" the bomb easier than making it and so McVeigh could have been given a fake bomb.

    The fact that the FBI failed in McVeigh does not indicate that McVeigh could not have been stopped.

    More importantly, lets suppose that McVeigh could not have been stopped. Well these guys, and people like them, who are just as dangerous if they actually get a bomb can be stopped

    Edit: I am going to make an analogy here.

    What you're proposing is like suggesting that someone who goes and looks for ways to kill someone should not be given the opportunity to "hire" an "assassin" because that indicates that they couldn't really do it. That we should wait until they actually attempt the act with a weapon that can kill their target before charging them. Well, how do you explain to the dead persons family "sorry, we could have set this person up to fail because we knew they had intention to kill, but we didn't because its not fair that we provide fake weapons" if things go wrong?

    I mean think for a second what happens if the FBI does not provide the weapons.

    One of two things happen

    A: They get the weapons
    B: They do not get the weapons

    Situation B we don't really care about, because plotting to bomb a bridge is still illegal[whether or not you go through with it]. Situation A we do care about though. If situation A occurs then people could die.

    Its better to provide the "support" and so get people who commit actual illegal acts in the planning of terrorist activities to be able to be arrested while also preventing the people who are both committing that illegal act and competent enough to pull it off from pulling it off.

    If you go talk to them as you suggested, that will simply make them harder to catch if they are competent and will simply deter the people who committed an actual illegal act in the planning of terrorist activities to not be prosecuted.

    I know which side I land on, its the side that has a lower chance of terrorists blowing up bridges and still only arrests people who do things that are and should be illegal thank you very much

    You don't want to arrest the people who wants to blow up something. There are far too many of them. You want to arrest the ones that can blow up something.

    You really have some balls to try and use McVeigh as proof that this works WHEN MCVEIGH SLIPPED THROUGH A STING LIKE THIS.

    The people who you want to capture are the ones that have the resources to buy bombs and have the know how to use them.

    If you have to

    -Give the guys the money to buy the bombs.
    -Give the guys the contact to buy the bombs.
    -Give the guys the training to arm the bombs.
    -Probably guide them through selecting a suitable target cause the guys wanted to attack a federal bank.

    You are not dealing with potential terrorists. You are dealing with regular idiots. They would have never ever gotten the bombs UNLESS THEY GOT IN CONTACT WITH A REAL TERRORIST GROUP.

    But the real terrorist group is the one you want to capture. And the FBI is aiming their sights on the complete opposite direction.

    Neofly on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Neofly wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Neofly 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 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.

    But that is the thing, they were these kind of people. Once they got their hands on the supposed bombs, they placed them at the bridge and input the code to make them explode.

    That is exactly the kind of people who actually want to blow things up! Waiting until they actually have real explosives[and are planting real explosives on bridges] is incredibly dangerous
    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.

    Sigh. No, there is a barrier in discovering how to get explosives, and there is a barrier in learning how to make effective explosives and we would rather not wait until they actually get there.

    Plotting to blow up a bridge does not become either a) less illegal, or b) less reprehensible because the FBI lowered the perceived bar to obtain the explosives

    These people plotted to blow up a bridge, they decided to get explosives and got the easiest explosives they could find. Which yes, did happen to be from the FBI, but that is a good thing, because if the FBI wasn't then they might have risked making their own bomb
    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.

    I am going to focus on McVeigh, because 9/11 was pretty special, and the underwear bomber didn't get his explosives inside the United States [so the FBI isn't really able to stop that either way].

    McVeigh is absolutely the type of attack that could be stopped by this method. Yes, they failed in that case, but if the FBI had gotten to McVeigh before he built his bomb and he had made it clear he wanted to do this. The FBI could have made it easy to "acquire" the bomb easier than making it and so McVeigh could have been given a fake bomb.

    The fact that the FBI failed in McVeigh does not indicate that McVeigh could not have been stopped.

    More importantly, lets suppose that McVeigh could not have been stopped. Well these guys, and people like them, who are just as dangerous if they actually get a bomb can be stopped

    Edit: I am going to make an analogy here.

    What you're proposing is like suggesting that someone who goes and looks for ways to kill someone should not be given the opportunity to "hire" an "assassin" because that indicates that they couldn't really do it. That we should wait until they actually attempt the act with a weapon that can kill their target before charging them. Well, how do you explain to the dead persons family "sorry, we could have set this person up to fail because we knew they had intention to kill, but we didn't because its not fair that we provide fake weapons" if things go wrong?

    I mean think for a second what happens if the FBI does not provide the weapons.

    One of two things happen

    A: They get the weapons
    B: They do not get the weapons

    Situation B we don't really care about, because plotting to bomb a bridge is still illegal[whether or not you go through with it]. Situation A we do care about though. If situation A occurs then people could die.

    Its better to provide the "support" and so get people who commit actual illegal acts in the planning of terrorist activities to be able to be arrested while also preventing the people who are both committing that illegal act and competent enough to pull it off from pulling it off.

    If you go talk to them as you suggested, that will simply make them harder to catch if they are competent and will simply deter the people who committed an actual illegal act in the planning of terrorist activities to not be prosecuted.

    I know which side I land on, its the side that has a lower chance of terrorists blowing up bridges and still only arrests people who do things that are and should be illegal thank you very much

    You don't want to arrest the people who wants to blow up something. There are far too many of them. You want to arrest the ones that can blow up something.

    You really have some balls to try and use McVeigh as proof that this works WHEN MCVEIGH SLIPPED THROUGH A STING LIKE THIS.

    The people who you want to capture are the ones that have the resources to buy bombs and have the know how to use them.

    If you have to

    -Give the guys the money to buy the bombs.
    -Give the guys the contact to buy the bombs.
    -Give the guys the training to arm the bombs.
    -Probably guide them through selecting a suitable target cause the guys wanted to attack a federal bank.

    You are not dealing with potential terrorists. You are dealing with regular idiots. They would have never ever gotten the bombs UNLESS THEY GOT IN CONTACT WITH A REAL TERRORIST GROUP.

    But the real terrorist group is the one you want to capture. And the FBI is aiming their sights on the complete opposite direction.

    And the FBI failed in it's various mafia stings because GOTTI GOT OFF SO MANY TIMES THEY NICKNAMED HIM TEFLON. Clearly if something fails once it never works.

    And how does one determine if any of those 4 listed conditions change? By monitoring these 5 idiots for the rest of their lives? It's not like you need a "real" terrorist group to satisfy them. All you really need is 1 guy who knows how to do it, and one of the 5 idiots to meet him at some point in the future.

    More over there's no way to know if all of the conditions are not met, until you've completed the investigation.

    You can't know 1, unless you offer them 2 and they can't afford it
    You can't know 2, until they ask if you know anyone who can hook them up.
    You can't know 3, until they finish 1 and 2.
    You can't know if they'd actually do it, until you meet the first 3 and they try to set one off.

    So if you've already went through the work of the investigation, in order to know ~1, ~2, ~3, why not arrest them and charge them, at the very least you may dissuade another group of idiots from thinking about bombing something, which is 1 less investigation you need to run in the future.


    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Neofly wrote: »
    You really have some balls to try and use McVeigh as proof that this works WHEN MCVEIGH SLIPPED THROUGH A STING LIKE THIS.

    The realization of a random variable does not indicate the distribution of that variable except insomuch as it indicates a particular point on the distribution.

    The fact that you seem to think "McVeigh was not caught" means "McVeigh could not have been caught" or that "Criminals who have a positive chance of blowing up buildings cannot be caught" indicates to me that you don't know what you're talking about.

    Police sometimes catch criminals. Police also sometimes miss criminals.

    edit: These people are real terrorist groups. That is what terrorists groups do, they plot to blow up things. That the FBI steered them to a different target rather than a Federal Bank is something you're concerned about? That is actually something i want the FBI to be doing, i want them, in the process of catching these criminals to make the operate as safe for the general public as possible. I do not want people who think they're planting bombs to do it at a federal bank where guns may start getting fired because of the people placing suspicious packages[and if its anything like the Federal Banks i know, they would have to do a LOT more than simply place some packages to make it work, they would have to kill people in order to get to the building]

    I don't want that shit to happen. I want the FBI to give them fake bombs and direct them to safe "targets" and not risk them making their own truck bomb and driving it into a federal building!

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    You really have some balls to try and use McVeigh as proof that this works WHEN MCVEIGH SLIPPED THROUGH A STING LIKE THIS.

    The realization of a random variable does not indicate the distribution of that variable except insomuch as it indicates a particular point on the distribution.

    The fact that you seem to think "McVeigh was not caught" means "McVeigh could not have been caught" or that "Criminals who have a positive chance of blowing up buildings cannot be caught" indicates to me that you don't know what you're talking about.

    Police sometimes catch criminals. Police also sometimes miss criminals.

    edit: These people are real terrorist groups. That is what terrorists groups do, they plot to blow up things. That the FBI steered them to a different target rather than a Federal Bank is something you're concerned about? That is actually something i want the FBI to be doing, i want them, in the process of catching these criminals to make the operate as safe for the general public as possible. I do not want people who think they're planting bombs to do it at a federal bank where guns may start getting fired because of the people placing suspicious packages[and if its anything like the Federal Banks i know, they would have to do a LOT more than simply place some packages to make it work, they would have to kill people in order to get to the building]

    I don't want that shit to happen. I want the FBI to give them fake bombs and direct them to safe "targets" and not risk them making their own truck bomb and driving it into a federal building!

    They steered the to a different target, and possibly different means of sending across their message. If they originally wanted to smoke bomb the bridge, and only ended up using "C4" because the informant brought up using "C4" and then said that he had the "C4" then the FBI/informant turned them into terrorists instead of vandals.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    It said in the article it was one of the members who came up with the idea to use a bomb.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    "Hey guys, don't commit acts of treason, murder or terrorism, mmmkay?" is kind of implicit in the social contract. A stern warning is not the appropriate response to conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism.

    Well, it is the appropriate response if you don't want a crime rate that is as hilariously terrible as the America's. But I guess if you just want to get a hard on while watching criminals fry, sure, that's the appropriate law enforcement approach.

    With Love and Courage
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Wright_complaint_affadavit_050112.pdf

    And in the affadavit it also says he wanted to use stink-bombs and paint guns.Then making smoke-bombs, plastic explosives, and picking locks, but luckily the informant heroically saved the day by asking him about making the plastic explosives instead.

    That was Wright's first opportunity to say, 'No bro. We just want to smoke bomb places, not explode them'. And he didn't, so he's a douche-bag. Would they have ended up blowing themselves up trying to make explosives, by accidentally making meth, or paint-balling a post-office? We'll never know, because the informant made the decision that much easier for them. So now they're terrorists through their own actions of placing the bricks, but also with that little push the FBI's CHS gave them. If he never brought up C4 and let them come to their own decision without being involved I'd be less critical.

    ~47 seconds.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcky9kZPdAs&feature=player_detailpage#t=47s
    This isn't the FBI being vigilant against criminals, it's them taking advantage of idiots.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    "Hey guys, don't commit acts of treason, murder or terrorism, mmmkay?" is kind of implicit in the social contract. A stern warning is not the appropriate response to conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism.

    Well, it is the appropriate response if you don't want a crime rate that is as hilariously terrible as the America's. But I guess if you just want to get a hard on while watching criminals fry, sure, that's the appropriate law enforcement approach.

    The crime rate that's lowered over the last few decades?

  • NeoflyNeofly Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Neofly wrote: »
    You really have some balls to try and use McVeigh as proof that this works WHEN MCVEIGH SLIPPED THROUGH A STING LIKE THIS.

    The realization of a random variable does not indicate the distribution of that variable except insomuch as it indicates a particular point on the distribution.

    The fact that you seem to think "McVeigh was not caught" means "McVeigh could not have been caught" or that "Criminals who have a positive chance of blowing up buildings cannot be caught" indicates to me that you don't know what you're talking about.

    Police sometimes catch criminals. Police also sometimes miss criminals.

    edit: These people are real terrorist groups. That is what terrorists groups do, they plot to blow up things. That the FBI steered them to a different target rather than a Federal Bank is something you're concerned about? That is actually something i want the FBI to be doing, i want them, in the process of catching these criminals to make the operate as safe for the general public as possible. I do not want people who think they're planting bombs to do it at a federal bank where guns may start getting fired because of the people placing suspicious packages[and if its anything like the Federal Banks i know, they would have to do a LOT more than simply place some packages to make it work, they would have to kill people in order to get to the building]

    I don't want that shit to happen. I want the FBI to give them fake bombs and direct them to safe "targets" and not risk them making their own truck bomb and driving it into a federal building!

    You are the guy who took a counterexample to something and then said THAT ONLY STRENGTHENS MY ARGUMENT. So you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about .
    Goumindong wrote: »
    The fact that you seem to think "McVeigh was not caught" means "McVeigh could not have been caught" or that "Criminals who have a positive chance of blowing up buildings cannot be caught" indicates to me that you don't know what you're talking about.

    I didn't say "Criminals who have a positive chance of blowing up buildings cannot be caught". I said "This method of entramping people for terrorism has no chance of catching real terrorists". Slightly different but I guess some people just have poor reading comprehension or just want to strawman their way through arguments because their positions are idiotic.

    Neofly on
  • NeoflyNeofly Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    "Hey guys, don't commit acts of treason, murder or terrorism, mmmkay?" is kind of implicit in the social contract. A stern warning is not the appropriate response to conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism.

    Well, it is the appropriate response if you don't want a crime rate that is as hilariously terrible as the America's. But I guess if you just want to get a hard on while watching criminals fry, sure, that's the appropriate law enforcement approach.

    The crime rate that's lowered over the last few decades?

    There's the suspicion that the crime has been moved inside the prisons, but it's hard to get numbers on it.

    Besides there's other explanations other than "the police locking up everyone for whatever reason is good".

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Good thing I never contended that was the reason.

    Also, this method does stop terrorists. We have an instance right here of it doing so.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Neofly wrote: »
    You are the guy who took a counterexample to something and then said THAT ONLY STRENGTHENS MY ARGUMENT. So you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about .

    No. I explained how your "counter example" isn't a counter example. Do you do NOT get to say that "this method of entraping people for terrorism has no real chance of catching real terrorists" because a single real terrorist [that it is possible to catch with this method] was not caught.

    You can say that, if "real terrorists" go through different methods to do real terrorist things. Like, they always use airplanes, or they always build their bombs outside of the United States. This method of catching terrorists indeed cannot catch people who want to run a plane into a building and do the majority of their planning overseas. It cannot because you don't need a bomb to hijack a plane and the FBI does not have jurisdiction overseas. Similarly you can't catch underwear bombers who plan and build their bomb overseas for similar reasons.

    BUT you can catch terrorists who plan and acquire their explosives in the United States. That is something that this method can do. Its not perfect, no. Because some people slip through the cracks. But the fact that its not perfect does not indicate that it cannot work!
    wrote:
    I didn't say "Criminals who have a positive chance of blowing up buildings cannot be caught". I said "This method of entramping people for terrorism has no chance of catching real terrorists". Slightly different but I guess some people just have poor reading comprehension or just want to strawman their way through arguments because their positions are idiotic.

    I bolded the things that are exactly the same. "Criminals who have a positive chance of blowing up buildings" are "real terrorists". And you said "This method cannot catch real terrorists"

    Well no, this method can catch real terrorists and look we have an example of this happening!

    wbBv3fj.png
  • NeoflyNeofly Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Yeah keep telling yourselves that these guys were real terrorists.

    Let's assume (this is a false proposition) that this method had caught McVeigh.

    You know what they'd have found?

    That McVeigh had the real means to build a bomb.

    Unlike these guys.

    Neofly on
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Let's assume (this is a false proposition) that this method had caught McVeigh.

    You know what they'd have found?

    That McVeigh had the real means to build a bomb.

    Unlike these guys.

    No, they would have caught McVeigh before he had a chance to build a bomb, and provided him with a fake bomb, so they could prove that he intended to commit an act of terrorism without him actually killing anyone.

    Then, if they'd had an internet then, people like you would have been posting about how they'd trapped an innocent incompetent who obviously would never have found out how to build a bomb on his own.

  • IskraIskra Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    I don't understand the argument that somehow these people were wronged and should've "gotten off with a warning" so to speak. These people are definitely real terrorists, and real threats to the life and well-being of citizens. It is absolutely the duty of the FBI and police agencies to get them off the streets, preferably before their plans are carried out. Them not having literally all the pieces in place for their scheme is no defense for their actions.

    Plotting to blow things up is definitely a criminal act. Its conspiring to commit mass murder. They most certainly should be arrested and charged before they have the weapons and before they commit the actions they were planning. A credible terrorist plot, and the intent to carry it out should be enough to prosecute. Adding additional bars of "well, they didn't know how to get the guns/explosives" is completely unnecessary because the act of plotting is a threat and a crime. When should they be arrested then? When they've finalized their plot, secured all the weapons, and are literally driving to the location to commit mass murder? In that ludicrously small window?

    Incompetence is no defense here. There's a reason why attempted murder and conspiracy are crimes. If they suck at carrying out their plots, do we just let them keep trying until finally through learning or blind luck they succeed? Maybe next time they won't get weapons from an informant, maybe next time they'll make their own, who knows? Their plans and actions would be literally identical, except this time instead of being surprised when their attempt to murder people fails unexpectedly, they'll get the bloodbath they wanted. The bloodbath shouldn't be required to get them off the streets. By the time the bloodbath happens the police have failed, and its too late

    Iskra on
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    It's not about a warning and they certainly weren't wronged, because they did set the fake charges. I'm saying that their crimes should have only be limited to what the original anarchists could come up with. They might have been vandals or blowhards, like the rest of the anarchists in the world, but with the FBI's intervention they became would-be terrorists. If they ended up with the C4 idea without the input of the paid FBI informant then send them to Guantanamo, put them in orange jumpsuits, and force them to listen to Black Sabbath or whatever. But if during the planning stages, and with the informant's involvement they went directly from Keystone Kops Mickey Mouse shit to whatever the informant was told and paid to look for then even though they're still terrorists, it's not a win for the FBI. But news-conferences and mugshots sure look like one.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • IskraIskra Registered User regular
    I definitely agree that the FBI talking them into a crime isn't a victory for anyone, but from the accounts posted earlier that wasn't what happened. I'm just saying that the defense some people are tossing around that "they're too incompetent to be real terrorists" is silly.

  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    edited May 2012
    It's unquestionably safer for the FBI to identify people who are not yet, but may later become, terrorists, and give them the opportunity to safely demonstrate their willingness to commit crimes. The question is whether or not that practice is just, given that it operates under Minority Report logic, where the people you're arresting may never have become criminals if you didn't give them the chance.

    And then I suppose how much you weigh the relative importance of safety versus civil liberties.

    Astaereth on
    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    It's unquestionably safer for the FBI to identify people who are not yet, but may later become, terrorists, and give them the opportunity to safely demonstrate their willingness to commit crimes. The question is whether or not that practice is just, given that it operates under Minority Report logic, where the people you're arresting may never have become criminals if you didn't give them the chance.

    And then I suppose how much you weigh the relative importance of safety versus civil liberties.

    Well, conspiring to blow up a building is a crime, but more importantly, these people were given a chance to see whether they would blow up a bridge and they decided to.

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    For all of twenty years and then the children of the founders ate stuck
    emp123 wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    It's unquestionably safer for the FBI to identify people who are not yet, but may later become, terrorists, and give them the opportunity to safely demonstrate their willingness to commit crimes. The question is whether or not that practice is just, given that it operates under Minority Report logic, where the people you're arresting may never have become criminals if you didn't give them the chance.

    And then I suppose how much you weigh the relative importance of safety versus civil liberties.

    Well, conspiring to blow up a building is a crime, but more importantly, these people were given a chance to see whether they would blow up a bridge and they decided to.

    Decided to, or were persuaded to.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    For all of twenty years and then the children of the founders ate stuck
    emp123 wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    It's unquestionably safer for the FBI to identify people who are not yet, but may later become, terrorists, and give them the opportunity to safely demonstrate their willingness to commit crimes. The question is whether or not that practice is just, given that it operates under Minority Report logic, where the people you're arresting may never have become criminals if you didn't give them the chance.

    And then I suppose how much you weigh the relative importance of safety versus civil liberties.

    Well, conspiring to blow up a building is a crime, but more importantly, these people were given a chance to see whether they would blow up a bridge and they decided to.

    Decided to, or were persuaded to.

    Decided to blow up a federal building, persuaded to blow up a bridge.

  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    It's unquestionably safer for the FBI to identify people who are not yet, but may later become, terrorists, and give them the opportunity to safely demonstrate their willingness to commit crimes. The question is whether or not that practice is just, given that it operates under Minority Report logic, where the people you're arresting may never have become criminals if you didn't give them the chance.

    And then I suppose how much you weigh the relative importance of safety versus civil liberties.

    Well, conspiring to blow up a building is a crime, but more importantly, these people were given a chance to see whether they would blow up a bridge and they decided to.

    If conspiring is a crime, why present them with the opportunity to commit a different, greater crime? Why not simply arrest, try, and convict them for conspiring?

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »

    If conspiring is a crime, why present them with the opportunity to commit a different, greater crime? Why not simply arrest, try, and convict them for conspiring?

    Because its a lot harder to do that than it is to convince them to to commit their crime in a safer location using bombs that do not explode.


    wbBv3fj.png
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Why should I give a flying fuck about what law enforcement finds harder? It's also harder for them to obtain warrants for evidence, or allow an accused to consult an attorney.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.