Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited November 2010
The question in the title of the thread is: Is this entrapment. The answer is unequivocally, yes.
For it to not be entrapment, they have to at some point give him a legal option out/an alternative. Like hey kid, we were thinking about not doing this, lets write a bunch of angry editorial letters and start a political action committee. Thats all they legally had to do and the recording of such a thing is mysteriously missing.
The question is in the title of the thread is: Is this entrapment. The answer is unequivocally, yes.
For it to not be entrapment, they have to at some point give him a legal option out/an alternative. Like hey kid, we were thinking about not doing this, lets write a bunch of angry editorial letters and start a political action committee. Thats all they legally had to do and the recording of such a thing is mysteriously missing.
You are horribly wrong about the definition of emtrapment.
As long as they did not solicit the act, it is not entrapment.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I wonder how many Americans we could arrest in similar situations if instead of bombing Americans it was a fake bomb plot to blow up Afghans, Iranians or Iraqis.
The number of "bomb them all"/"glass the desert" calls I heard from people a few years ago makes me wonder how many would have done it if they had been given the means.
Probably quite a few, I agree. That's also a pretty fucked-up thing to do to foreign civilians as a response to a terrorist attack on our civilians, which is why I wouldn't hold a lot of sympathy for those folks if a similar sting operation caught them red-handed in a similar act.
The question in the title of the thread is: Is this entrapment. The answer is unequivocally, yes.
For it to not be entrapment, they have to at some point give him a legal option out/an alternative. Like hey kid, we were thinking about not doing this, lets write a bunch of angry editorial letters and start a political action committee. Thats all they legally had to do and the recording of such a thing is mysteriously missing.
They did do that. They said that he could go into prayer, do peaceful things, etc. But he said "No I want to blow up people." So even by your wrong definition it's not entrapment!
The question in the title of the thread is: Is this entrapment. The answer is unequivocally, yes.
For it to not be entrapment, they have to at some point give him a legal option out/an alternative. Like hey kid, we were thinking about not doing this, lets write a bunch of angry editorial letters and start a political action committee. Thats all they legally had to do and the recording of such a thing is mysteriously missing.
I can't stop thinking of all the undercover stings on cops having this exchange added to them:
man: Hey how much for a BJ?
UC-Cop: $50
man: get in.
UC-Cop: Are you sure you wouldn't rather play scrabble?
The question in the title of the thread is: Is this entrapment. The answer is unequivocally, yes.
For it to not be entrapment, they have to at some point give him a legal option out/an alternative. Like hey kid, we were thinking about not doing this, lets write a bunch of angry editorial letters and start a political action committee. Thats all they legally had to do and the recording of such a thing is mysteriously missing.
Well, you're wrong about what defines entrapment, but even if you weren't wrong, you're still wrong about what they did. They gave him several options to back out, or try non-violent non-illegal means. When he said he wanted to bomb the tree-lighting, they told him children would be there, and they would be hurt.
The question in the title of the thread is: Is this entrapment. The answer is unequivocally, yes.
For it to not be entrapment, they have to at some point give him a legal option out/an alternative. Like hey kid, we were thinking about not doing this, lets write a bunch of angry editorial letters and start a political action committee. Thats all they legally had to do and the recording of such a thing is mysteriously missing.
They did do that. They said that he could go into prayer, do peaceful things, etc. But he said "No I want to blow up people." So even by your wrong definition it's not entrapment!
Even if they didn't do that, it's not entrapment. It would be entrapment if they put an message online saying "Hey contact us if you want to kill Americans!" The seed of the idea has to be planted by the suspect and there needs to be evidence of that.
But of course, if people politically inclined to shit on counter-terrorism need something be outraged by, they can make up the meaning of entrapment and just go with it. Entrapment is the FBI not dressing as circus clowns. Were they dressed as circus clowns? No? ENTRAPMENT!
I honestly can't decide if this is entrapment(I do not see why it would be), but it's retarded police work to earn some brownie points by media coverage at best.
I honestly can't decide if this is entrapment(I do not see why it would be), but it's retarded police work to earn some brownie points by media coverage at best.
Thing is by the point they could be clear he was just some loaner, they had already sunk tons of time and money into him. 1 idiot with some cash and an internet connection can kill hundred of people. And while the 19 kid may have grown out of his diseffected nature, monitorring him till you're satisfied of that is a worse waste of police time.
He's basically a Islamic McVeigh in the making, waiting to arrest him 10 years down the line when he actually does something is a terrible option.
tinwhiskers on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited November 2010
Actually, it's keeping someone that tried his good goddamnedest to murder a bunch of people off the fucking streets at best.
I think the distinction is that they want to claim they 'stopped a terrorist' when in reality they stopped an angry kid from ever becoming a terrorist, which he may or may not have ultimately done without operational assistance that nobody but apparently the FBI was actually willing to give him.
It's already been mentioned that one of the greatest tangential benefits to this being played up in the media is that every wannabe terrorist is going to look at this and say "Oh my God, am I talking to an undercover FBI operative now?"
Yes, that is definitely the real question here. We shall have to settle for "Yes" as an answer, and look no deeper into this for fear of contradicting our assumption.
I think the distinction is that they want to claim they 'stopped a terrorist' when in reality they stopped an angry kid from ever becoming a terrorist, which he may or may not have ultimately done without operational assistance that nobody but apparently the FBI was actually willing to give him.
In that sense yeah, it's media sensationalism.
I cannot understand why people think this guy was "just an angry kid." The plot was his idea. The target was his idea. The bomb parts were his. He was the one who was looking for accomplices. The FBI tried to talk him out of it several times and he was determined to go through with it. He pulled the trigger twice.
The only thing that separates him from a mass murderer is the fact that the FBI gave him a fake bomb.
It's already been mentioned that one of the greatest tangential benefits to this being played up in the media is that every wannabe terrorist is going to look at this and say "Oh my God, am I talking to an undercover FBI operative now?"
These wackos are willing to die in a fiery explosion for Allah. I don't think they are all that concerned about the FBI.
It's already been mentioned that one of the greatest tangential benefits to this being played up in the media is that every wannabe terrorist is going to look at this and say "Oh my God, am I talking to an undercover FBI operative now?"
These wackos are willing to die in a fiery explosion for Allah. I don't think they are all that concerned about the FBI.
A charmingly simplistic way of looking at complex issues.
It's already been mentioned that one of the greatest tangential benefits to this being played up in the media is that every wannabe terrorist is going to look at this and say "Oh my God, am I talking to an undercover FBI operative now?"
These wackos are willing to die in a fiery explosion for Allah. I don't think they are all that concerned about the FBI.
This guy wasn't. The Times Square bomber wasn't. Our homegrown terrorists seem to value their lives just as much as the rest of us Americans they want to kill.
It's already been mentioned that one of the greatest tangential benefits to this being played up in the media is that every wannabe terrorist is going to look at this and say "Oh my God, am I talking to an undercover FBI operative now?"
These wackos are willing to die in a fiery explosion for Allah. I don't think they are all that concerned about the FBI.
A charmingly simplistic way of looking at complex issues.
I'm posting on a message board. You want a fucking dissertation?
It's already been mentioned that one of the greatest tangential benefits to this being played up in the media is that every wannabe terrorist is going to look at this and say "Oh my God, am I talking to an undercover FBI operative now?"
These wackos are willing to die in a fiery explosion for Allah. I don't think they are all that concerned about the FBI.
A charmingly simplistic way of looking at complex issues.
I'm posting on a message board. You want a fucking dissertation?
It's already been mentioned that one of the greatest tangential benefits to this being played up in the media is that every wannabe terrorist is going to look at this and say "Oh my God, am I talking to an undercover FBI operative now?"
These wackos are willing to die in a fiery explosion for Allah. I don't think they are all that concerned about the FBI.
A charmingly simplistic way of looking at complex issues.
I'm posting on a message board. You want a fucking dissertation?
A well formed idea will suffice.
I don't think the posit that this helps thwart terrorism is valid anymore or less than the notion that the FBI is paying attention to terrorist activity in an effort to stop it.
Track the kid and stop him from doing the crime? Great idea. Enable him to do it? Not so great.
It's already been mentioned that one of the greatest tangential benefits to this being played up in the media is that every wannabe terrorist is going to look at this and say "Oh my God, am I talking to an undercover FBI operative now?"
These wackos are willing to die in a fiery explosion for Allah. I don't think they are all that concerned about the FBI.
This guy wasn't. The Times Square bomber wasn't. Our homegrown terrorists seem to value their lives just as much as the rest of us Americans they want to kill.
And there's evidence that a lot of the 9/11 hijackers didn't know they were signing on for a suicide mission- they thought it was a standard hijacking. Finding suicide bombers isn't all that easy, even in places like Afghanistan or Iraq. A lot of these guys actually need to be forced into it.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
It's already been mentioned that one of the greatest tangential benefits to this being played up in the media is that every wannabe terrorist is going to look at this and say "Oh my God, am I talking to an undercover FBI operative now?"
These wackos are willing to die in a fiery explosion for Allah. I don't think they are all that concerned about the FBI.
A charmingly simplistic way of looking at complex issues.
I'm posting on a message board. You want a fucking dissertation?
A well formed idea will suffice.
I don't think the posit that this helps thwart terrorism is valid anymore or less than the notion that the FBI is paying attention to terrorist activity in an effort to stop it.
Track the kid and stop him from doing the crime? Great idea. Enable him to do it? Not so great.
That's exactly what the FBI did. They gave him a fake bomb so that he couldn't commit a real crime. Then busted him for the attempt so he can never do it for real. The public was never in any danger this way.
I am very thankful the FBI intercepted this guy before he got in contact with someone who could give him a real bomb.
Also, this guy wasn't a suicide bomber. He made plans to escape the country.
It's already been mentioned that one of the greatest tangential benefits to this being played up in the media is that every wannabe terrorist is going to look at this and say "Oh my God, am I talking to an undercover FBI operative now?"
These wackos are willing to die in a fiery explosion for Allah. I don't think they are all that concerned about the FBI.
A charmingly simplistic way of looking at complex issues.
I'm posting on a message board. You want a fucking dissertation?
A well formed idea will suffice.
I don't think the posit that this helps thwart terrorism is valid anymore or less than the notion that the FBI is paying attention to terrorist activity in an effort to stop it.
Track the kid and stop him from doing the crime? Great idea. Enable him to do it? Not so great.
That's exactly what the FBI did. They gave him a fake bomb so that he couldn't commit a real crime. Then busted him for the attempt so he can never do it for real. The public was never in any danger this way.
I am very thankful the FBI intercepted this guy before he got in contact with someone who could give him a real bomb.
Also, this guy wasn't a suicide bomber. He made plans to escape the country.
Why not track him in an effort to see if he brings in more actual bad guys? Instead we caught a guy who probably couldn't have pulled this off without the governments help in the first place.
The guy is obviously a douche and clearly unstable, but this is more about making noise than it is about fighting crime. If the FBI doesn't help him then the result is probably the same: nothing happens.
I think the distinction is that they want to claim they 'stopped a terrorist' when in reality they stopped an angry kid from ever becoming a terrorist, which he may or may not have ultimately done without operational assistance that nobody but apparently the FBI was actually willing to give him.
In that sense yeah, it's media sensationalism.
He pushed the button that would have detonated the bomb, were it real. As far as I'm concerned, he was a terrorist. Just because he wasn't successful doesn't negate that fact.
I think the distinction is that they want to claim they 'stopped a terrorist' when in reality they stopped an angry kid from ever becoming a terrorist, which he may or may not have ultimately done without operational assistance that nobody but apparently the FBI was actually willing to give him.
In that sense yeah, it's media sensationalism.
He pushed the button that would have detonated the bomb, were it real. As far as I'm concerned, he was a terrorist. Just because he wasn't successful doesn't negate that fact.
I didn't debate that.
This guys wrong doing doesn't validate the FBIs methods though.
Why not track him in an effort to see if he brings in more actual bad guys? Instead we caught a guy who probably couldn't have pulled this off without the governments help in the first place.
To repeat, it was his idea. He had the materials to make a bomb, if the FBI hadn't stepped in there's a good chance he would have put one together himself and killed people. And then everybody would be dogpiling on the FBI for not stopping him.
For fuck's sake, KevinNash, why don't you read the actual god damned news article already. Every single "why didn't they do this?" you keep bring up is what they're reporting they actually did.
Bionic, what's been the water-cooler chatter about this in Newberg? Having moved down to Eugene and with my head buried in school, I seem to be the only one around here who has wanted to talk about this.
Why not track him in an effort to see if he brings in more actual bad guys? Instead we caught a guy who probably couldn't have pulled this off without the governments help in the first place.
To repeat, it was his idea. He had the materials to make a bomb, if the FBI hadn't stepped in there's a good chance he would have put one together himself and killed people. And then everybody would be dogpiling on the FBI for not stopping him.
See I don't necessarily believe the bold. And even if it were true. Why not do a wait and see? Instead they got involved and actually helped him accomplish the task.
For fuck's sake, KevinNash, why don't you read the actual god damned news article already. Every single "why didn't they do this?" you keep bring up is what they're reporting they actually did.
Being lazy and ignorant isn't a point.
They engaged the guy and built the bomb for him. How the fuck does he build the bomb without the FBI's help?
No real talk of this at work for me, but we discussed it a good bit in my EMT class last night, and we largely covered a lot of topics that are being brought up here. IE, the PR win for the FBI is nothing to scoff at, the kid was giving several chances to back out/choose a peaceful route, etc.
For fuck's sake, KevinNash, why don't you read the actual god damned news article already. Every single "why didn't they do this?" you keep bring up is what they're reporting they actually did.
Being lazy and ignorant isn't a point.
They engaged the guy and built the bomb for him. How the fuck does he build the bomb without the FBI's help?
He manages some success at finding an actual terrorist to help him. Or he just skips the whole bomb thing and does something else.
This guys wrong doing doesn't validate the FBIs methods though.
I fail to see any other alternative the FBI could have done that wasn't "wishin and hopin'" something bad would not happen. Say the FBI got the tip on this kid and decided to just monitor him. Perhaps he would never do anything. Or perhaps the fact that he intentionally contacted a known terrorist recruiter suggests that he at least harbors those thoughts. Perhaps he moves around the country, the FBI tracking him, until he leaves the country. Then what?
Maybe he would never come back. But then again maybe he would, this time with the know-how and connections to successfully make a bomb. What if he then sets it up in a populated area and detonates it, killing hundreds? Well, then the FBI finds itself in a total shitstorm of "why didn't you do anything earlier when you knew that he was looking into it?" Not to mention, now we have actual casualties as a result of the kid's actions.
I understand your objections, but considering that the FBI caught this guy using old-fashioned police work instead of throwing civil liberties out the window like other terrorist cases have done, I think, showing that they followed the rules, should be applauded. I think any other method you would have the FBI use would be not only woefully inadequate, but unrealistic to boot.
For fuck's sake, KevinNash, why don't you read the actual god damned news article already. Every single "why didn't they do this?" you keep bring up is what they're reporting they actually did.
Being lazy and ignorant isn't a point.
They engaged the guy and built the bomb for him. How the fuck does he build the bomb without the FBI's help?
He supplied the components, which means he had at least a passing familiarity with bomb construction. With enough time and dedication, he could have possibly built it himself if he was unable to find someone.
Also, he was willing to kill children and families. Even if he never built the bomb, it's very likely he would have just found some other way to harm people.
Why not track him in an effort to see if he brings in more actual bad guys? Instead we caught a guy who probably couldn't have pulled this off without the governments help in the first place.
To repeat, it was his idea. He had the materials to make a bomb, if the FBI hadn't stepped in there's a good chance he would have put one together himself and killed people. And then everybody would be dogpiling on the FBI for not stopping him.
See I don't necessarily believe the bold. And even if it were true. Why not do a wait and see? Instead they got involved and actually helped him accomplish the task.
Do I even need to address why this is bad bad bad?
Why not wait and see if this guy actually goes through with his assassination attempt?
Why not wait and see if this guy actually beats his wife to death after all?
This guys wrong doing doesn't validate the FBIs methods though.
I fail to see any other alternative the FBI could have done that wasn't "wishin and hopin'" something bad would not happen. Say the FBI got the tip on this kid and decided to just monitor him. Perhaps he would never do anything. Or perhaps the fact that he intentionally contacted a known terrorist recruiter suggests that he at least harbors those thoughts. Perhaps he moves around the country, the FBI tracking him, until he leaves the country. Then what?
Maybe he would never come back. But then again maybe he would, this time with the know-how and connections to successfully make a bomb. What if he then sets it up in a populated area and detonates it, killing hundreds? Well, then the FBI finds itself in a total shitstorm of "why didn't you do anything earlier when you knew that he was looking into it?" Not to mention, now we have actual casualties as a result of the kid's actions.
I understand your objections, but considering that the FBI caught this guy using old-fashioned police work instead of throwing civil liberties out the window like other terrorist cases have done, I think, showing that they followed the rules, should be applauded. I think any other method you would have the FBI use would be not only woefully inadequate, but unrealistic to boot.
How about continued surveillance until he actually tries to commit a crime rather than goading and nudging him into one?
Why not track him in an effort to see if he brings in more actual bad guys? Instead we caught a guy who probably couldn't have pulled this off without the governments help in the first place.
To repeat, it was his idea. He had the materials to make a bomb, if the FBI hadn't stepped in there's a good chance he would have put one together himself and killed people. And then everybody would be dogpiling on the FBI for not stopping him.
See I don't necessarily believe the bold. And even if it were true. Why not do a wait and see? Instead they got involved and actually helped him accomplish the task.
how long do you wait? 6 months? A year? 10 years? What if he changes plans to: buy a few guns and go shoot up a mall?
Posts
For it to not be entrapment, they have to at some point give him a legal option out/an alternative. Like hey kid, we were thinking about not doing this, lets write a bunch of angry editorial letters and start a political action committee. Thats all they legally had to do and the recording of such a thing is mysteriously missing.
You are horribly wrong about the definition of emtrapment.
As long as they did not solicit the act, it is not entrapment.
They did do that. They said that he could go into prayer, do peaceful things, etc. But he said "No I want to blow up people." So even by your wrong definition it's not entrapment!
I can't stop thinking of all the undercover stings on cops having this exchange added to them:
man: Hey how much for a BJ?
UC-Cop: $50
man: get in.
UC-Cop: Are you sure you wouldn't rather play scrabble?
Well, you're wrong about what defines entrapment, but even if you weren't wrong, you're still wrong about what they did. They gave him several options to back out, or try non-violent non-illegal means. When he said he wanted to bomb the tree-lighting, they told him children would be there, and they would be hurt.
He said that's what he was going for.
But of course, if people politically inclined to shit on counter-terrorism need something be outraged by, they can make up the meaning of entrapment and just go with it. Entrapment is the FBI not dressing as circus clowns. Were they dressed as circus clowns? No? ENTRAPMENT!
Thing is by the point they could be clear he was just some loaner, they had already sunk tons of time and money into him. 1 idiot with some cash and an internet connection can kill hundred of people. And while the 19 kid may have grown out of his diseffected nature, monitorring him till you're satisfied of that is a worse waste of police time.
He's basically a Islamic McVeigh in the making, waiting to arrest him 10 years down the line when he actually does something is a terrible option.
In that sense yeah, it's media sensationalism.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
I cannot understand why people think this guy was "just an angry kid." The plot was his idea. The target was his idea. The bomb parts were his. He was the one who was looking for accomplices. The FBI tried to talk him out of it several times and he was determined to go through with it. He pulled the trigger twice.
The only thing that separates him from a mass murderer is the fact that the FBI gave him a fake bomb.
These wackos are willing to die in a fiery explosion for Allah. I don't think they are all that concerned about the FBI.
A charmingly simplistic way of looking at complex issues.
This guy wasn't. The Times Square bomber wasn't. Our homegrown terrorists seem to value their lives just as much as the rest of us Americans they want to kill.
I'm posting on a message board. You want a fucking dissertation?
A well formed idea will suffice.
I don't think the posit that this helps thwart terrorism is valid anymore or less than the notion that the FBI is paying attention to terrorist activity in an effort to stop it.
Track the kid and stop him from doing the crime? Great idea. Enable him to do it? Not so great.
Rigorous Scholarship
That's exactly what the FBI did. They gave him a fake bomb so that he couldn't commit a real crime. Then busted him for the attempt so he can never do it for real. The public was never in any danger this way.
I am very thankful the FBI intercepted this guy before he got in contact with someone who could give him a real bomb.
Also, this guy wasn't a suicide bomber. He made plans to escape the country.
Why not track him in an effort to see if he brings in more actual bad guys? Instead we caught a guy who probably couldn't have pulled this off without the governments help in the first place.
The guy is obviously a douche and clearly unstable, but this is more about making noise than it is about fighting crime. If the FBI doesn't help him then the result is probably the same: nothing happens.
He pushed the button that would have detonated the bomb, were it real. As far as I'm concerned, he was a terrorist. Just because he wasn't successful doesn't negate that fact.
I didn't debate that.
This guys wrong doing doesn't validate the FBIs methods though.
To repeat, it was his idea. He had the materials to make a bomb, if the FBI hadn't stepped in there's a good chance he would have put one together himself and killed people. And then everybody would be dogpiling on the FBI for not stopping him.
Being lazy and ignorant isn't a point.
See I don't necessarily believe the bold. And even if it were true. Why not do a wait and see? Instead they got involved and actually helped him accomplish the task.
They engaged the guy and built the bomb for him. How the fuck does he build the bomb without the FBI's help?
He manages some success at finding an actual terrorist to help him. Or he just skips the whole bomb thing and does something else.
I fail to see any other alternative the FBI could have done that wasn't "wishin and hopin'" something bad would not happen. Say the FBI got the tip on this kid and decided to just monitor him. Perhaps he would never do anything. Or perhaps the fact that he intentionally contacted a known terrorist recruiter suggests that he at least harbors those thoughts. Perhaps he moves around the country, the FBI tracking him, until he leaves the country. Then what?
Maybe he would never come back. But then again maybe he would, this time with the know-how and connections to successfully make a bomb. What if he then sets it up in a populated area and detonates it, killing hundreds? Well, then the FBI finds itself in a total shitstorm of "why didn't you do anything earlier when you knew that he was looking into it?" Not to mention, now we have actual casualties as a result of the kid's actions.
I understand your objections, but considering that the FBI caught this guy using old-fashioned police work instead of throwing civil liberties out the window like other terrorist cases have done, I think, showing that they followed the rules, should be applauded. I think any other method you would have the FBI use would be not only woefully inadequate, but unrealistic to boot.
He supplied the components, which means he had at least a passing familiarity with bomb construction. With enough time and dedication, he could have possibly built it himself if he was unable to find someone.
Also, he was willing to kill children and families. Even if he never built the bomb, it's very likely he would have just found some other way to harm people.
Do I even need to address why this is bad bad bad?
Why not wait and see if this guy actually goes through with his assassination attempt?
Why not wait and see if this guy actually beats his wife to death after all?
How about continued surveillance until he actually tries to commit a crime rather than goading and nudging him into one?
how long do you wait? 6 months? A year? 10 years? What if he changes plans to: buy a few guns and go shoot up a mall?
The same way the Madrid bombers learned to make them; the internet.