Who said he needed to outdo them? He could have easily just bought a huge fuckoff knife and gone on a stabbing spree at the Christmas tree thing. Maybe he'd only get a few people. It still would have been awful and people would have said "where was law enforcement in this? Why did no one notice he was a nutter?"
Tofystedeth on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
Or he could've just plowed through them with a car.
Or he could've found someone actually willing to put the bomb together for him.
He had means, motive, and enough intelligence to know he didn't know how to build a bomb (which he probably learned from the Times Square thing). How you think this wasn't only a matter of time is astounding.
Or he could've just plowed through them with a car.
Or he could've found someone actually willing to put the bomb together for him.
He had means, motive, and enough intelligence to know he didn't know how to build a bomb (which he probably learned from the Times Square thing). How you think this wasn't only a matter of time is astounding.
I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt. But, it seems pretty clear that this guy really, really wanted to be a terrorist. He was ready to blow up a bunch of people, he just happened to have a fake bomb.
I'm really not getting where people are seeing the ambiguity in this situation. His actions go far beyond some guy ranting on about the evils of America on some website.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Is it true that, before the attempted bombing, he submitted at least four articles to an online magazine that pledged he would hurt America? I heard that on AM radio this morning but I wasn't listening closely.
He wasn't making bombs or even really doing any of the plotting, he was just handed a fake detonator to push.
This is 100% false. He was plotted the attack, picked the location, and supplied the components for the bomb.
The fact that he was (currently) unable to build it himself is of negligible consequence. He was still a danger to society.
The people acting like this kid was a victim of the FBI making him a terrorist are astounding me.
I am not sure of the part you are saying isn't correct.
Of all the parts of a terrorist plot, this dude certainly accomplished some of them, as you say, picking the location and obtaining the materials. What bothers me about the case is that certain core components (assembly, delivery, other preparation) were only able to happen because the FBI supplied the know-how and motivation.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
And recognizing that he didn't know how to do those particular things, he had been attempting to contact folks who could, and who would certainly not have given him a fake bomb. Still a matter of time if the FBI hadn't stepped in.
He wasn't making bombs or even really doing any of the plotting, he was just handed a fake detonator to push.
This is 100% false. He was plotted the attack, picked the location, and supplied the components for the bomb.
The fact that he was (currently) unable to build it himself is of negligible consequence. He was still a danger to society.
The people acting like this kid was a victim of the FBI making him a terrorist are astounding me.
I am not sure of the part you are saying isn't correct.
Of all the parts of a terrorist plot, this dude certainly accomplished some of them, as you say, picking the location and obtaining the materials. What bothers me about the case is that certain core components (assembly, delivery, other preparation) were only able to happen because the FBI supplied the know-how and motivation.
It seems like the kid already had the motivation. Which is a real significant part of the issue.
He wasn't making bombs or even really doing any of the plotting, he was just handed a fake detonator to push.
This is 100% false. He was plotted the attack, picked the location, and supplied the components for the bomb.
The fact that he was (currently) unable to build it himself is of negligible consequence. He was still a danger to society.
The people acting like this kid was a victim of the FBI making him a terrorist are astounding me.
I am not sure of the part you are saying isn't correct.
Of all the parts of a terrorist plot, this dude certainly accomplished some of them, as you say, picking the location and obtaining the materials. What bothers me about the case is that certain core components (assembly, delivery, other preparation) were only able to happen because the FBI supplied the know-how and motivation.
Where do people get the idea that the FBI motivated him to do it? Because everything I've read says they did quite the opposite.
Where do people get the idea that the FBI motivated him to do it? Because everything I've read says they did quite the opposite.
I know right? One, if they did motivate him to do it, it would be entrapment and not enticement. Two, unless it comes out otherwise at trial, it appears that the FBI took great care to actively discourage him from doing so. Admittedly, perhaps they could have done more to discourage him, such as telling Mohamud that they were undercover FBI agents and that he would find himself in Federal Prison for the rest of his life if he went through with his plan, but I don't know if that qualifies as good police work.
The FBI did not "prod" him into setting off a bomb. He already wanted to set off a bomb. He only lacked a completed bomb, so they provided a fake one to see if he'd set it off. He did.
The FBI did not "prod" him into setting off a bomb. He already wanted to set off a bomb. He only lacked a completed bomb, so they provided a fake one to see if he'd set it off. He did.
Exactly what here do you disapprove of Styrofoam?
That part.
Providing the bomb did not occur in a vacuum. They did not walk up to a random person on the street, give them a fake bomb and say "Here you go, do with it what you will," and then arrest the guy if he tried to set it off.
The FBI did not "prod" him into setting off a bomb. He already wanted to set off a bomb. He only lacked a completed bomb, so they provided a fake one to see if he'd set it off. He did.
Exactly what here do you disapprove of Styrofoam?
That part.
Providing the bomb did not occur in a vacuum. They did not walk up to a random person on the street, give them a fake bomb and say "Here you go, do with it what you will," and then arrest the guy if he tried to set it off.
Which in itself would be a pretty serious indictment, although obviously illegal police work. The fact that they went through these further hoops and only did it when someone was actively seeking help in committing such a crime should make this a pretty clear case, assuming the article isn't missing anything really important.
The FBI did not "prod" him into setting off a bomb. He already wanted to set off a bomb. He only lacked a completed bomb, so they provided a fake one to see if he'd set it off. He did.
Exactly what here do you disapprove of Styrofoam?
That part.
Why do you disapprove? Your argument seems to be that without the assistance of the FBI at this point, he wouldn't have done anything, when the past two decades have been chock full of examples to the contrary.
The FBI did not "prod" him into setting off a bomb. He already wanted to set off a bomb. He only lacked a completed bomb, so they provided a fake one to see if he'd set it off. He did.
Exactly what here do you disapprove of Styrofoam?
That part.
Providing the bomb did not occur in a vacuum. They did not walk up to a random person on the street, give them a fake bomb and say "Here you go, do with it what you will," and then arrest the guy if he tried to set it off.
The FBI did not "prod" him into setting off a bomb. He already wanted to set off a bomb. He only lacked a completed bomb, so they provided a fake one to see if he'd set it off. He did.
Exactly what here do you disapprove of Styrofoam?
That part.
Why do you disapprove? Your argument seems to be that without the assistance of the FBI at this point, he wouldn't have done anything, when the past two decades have been chock full of examples to the contrary.
My disapproval, as I've stated before in here, comes from the level of FBI involvement with the suspect prior to the arrest. It really seems like they waited around and pushed for this guy to commit a crime so they could get him on flashier charges.
He was a bad guy without a bomb. Minor Charges. They gave him a fake bomb to blow up. Serious Charges.
The serious charges came about as a result of FBI involvement, to my mind whether he would have anyway is irrelevant, I don't want the FBI getting involved to escalate a crime for the sake of flashier charges that are easier to stick.
It's like asking someone if they want to get something to eat and they responded "I want to go to a restaurant that costs $100 bucks."
The tendency was there, the question brings it out, but it is hardly motivation. So far, it appears that everything the FBI did was in response to Mohamud's directives.
So if I hand you a handgun, am I pushing or motivating you to shoot someone with it? Or am I just making it easier for you to do so?
I think you need to reiterate just when you're fine with enticement for convicting criminals (you said you'd stated it previously but I sure can't find it,) because if you aren't fine with it in the case where a guy wants to blow up a bunch of families, I really can't imagine a case where you ARE fine with it.
pushed for this guy to commit a crime so they could get him on flashier charges.
Where do you get this idea? 'Pushed' is just another way of saying 'motivated.' Could someone cite something that actually indicates this?
He was provided with a bomb he did not have.
He was provided with a bomb that he wanted to build, desired to build, acquired the parts to build, yet, at this moment in time, did not have the requisite know-how to build. Not to mention that his stated and actual course of action with said bomb was to detonate it in a place for maximum damage/loss of life.
pushed for this guy to commit a crime so they could get him on flashier charges.
Where do you get this idea? 'Pushed' is just another way of saying 'motivated.' Could someone cite something that actually indicates this?
He was provided with a bomb he did not have.
He was provided with a bomb that he wanted to build, desired to build, acquired the parts to build, yet, at this moment in time, did not have the requisite know-how to build. Not to mention that his stated and actual course of action with said bomb was to detonate it in a place for maximum damage/loss of life.
And then he was told repeatedly that he shouldn't do it. And still did it.
And then he was told repeatedly that he shouldn't do it. And still did it.
I'm aware of this and is why I have said multiple times he's as guilt as fuck. I just don't like how the FBI went about it.
Not to mention that his stated and actual course of action with said bomb was to detonate it in a place for maximum damage/loss of life.
Which was all the criminal activity he had really engaged in as far as I can tell prior to FBI involvement.
why are you being such a dense goose about this?
I've been nice, I've stuck around and debated with 4+ people, which is never fun, return the favor.
So if I hand you a handgun, am I pushing or motivating you to shoot someone with it? Or am I just making it easier for you to do so?
You're taking the desire to commit a crime and giving someone the means to actually do it, which Im not comfortable with law enforcement doing.
I think you need to reiterate just when you're fine with enticement for convicting criminals (you said you'd stated it previously but I sure can't find it,) because if you aren't fine with it in the case where a guy wants to blow up a bunch of families, I really can't imagine a case where you ARE fine with it.
I believe what I said is I'm ok with enticement to catch people who have already committed similar or equally egregious acts. I believe the example I used was baiting a shoe thief with shoes.
Not to mention, I have difficulty seeing Styrofoam's point that enticement is not a good method for law enforcement. Enticement, when it's enticement and not entrapment, does not ensnare innocent people because it does not turn innocent people into criminals. It doesn't even turn people who harbor criminal thoughts into criminals. It only provides a method for the production of proof that these people who harbor criminal thoughts are not just willing to act on their thoughts, but actually act on their thoughts given the opportunity.
Not to mention, I have difficulty seeing Styrofoam's point that enticement is not a good method for law enforcement. Enticement, when it's enticement and not entrapment, does not ensnare innocent people because it does not turn innocent people into criminals. It doesn't even turn people who harbor criminal thoughts into criminals. It only provides a method for the production of proof that these people who harbor criminal thoughts are not just willing to act on their thoughts, but actually act on their thoughts given the opportunity.
It escalates the actions of a person to a more serious criminal charge just to see if they were serious about their thoughts.
It escalates the actions of a person to a more serious criminal charge just to see if they were serious about their thoughts.
If escalation is equal to opportunity, then you might have better ground to stand on, but escalation is not the same as opportunity. Both terrorist groups and the FBI gave the kid a similar opportunity to act out on his desires, and frankly, I would much rather it be the FBI giving the kid the opportunity than the terrorist groups. At least the chance of the FBI killing people is almost zero.
It escalates the actions of a person to a more serious criminal charge just to see if they were serious about their thoughts.
If escalation is equal to opportunity, then you might have better ground to stand on, but escalation is not the same as opportunity. Both terrorist groups and the FBI gave the kid a similar opportunity to act out on his desires, and frankly, I would much rather it be the FBI giving the kid the opportunity than the terrorist groups. At least the chance of the FBI killing people is almost zero.
I don't want the FBI giving people the opportunity to commit worse crimes than they already have, even when the risk to the public is zero.
So if I hand you a handgun, am I pushing or motivating you to shoot someone with it? Or am I just making it easier for you to do so?
Both? Handing an enraged person a loaded gun and hoping they aim it at someone is, to me, encouraging them because that mad dude is temporarily not in control of himself or his emotions. Murder might not have been on his racing mind until the firearm was introduced. I can agree with sammich in a heat of the moment case, but a bombing attempt doesn't fit that scenario.
I'm going to let this thread rest for a while, I've got some work I've got to catch up on and I can only have so many discussions on my plate at once while doing so.
I believe what I said is I'm ok with enticement to catch people who have already committed similar or equally egregious acts. I believe the example I used was baiting a shoe thief with shoes.
OK. That's about as close to 'I don't agree with enticement at all' as you can get while still saying that, in an infinitesimally small fashion, it's alright.
Can you explain why you feel this way? It just... doesn't make sense to me. It seems dangerous, and even impossible to implement: some cop working under cover against organized crime can't actually use enticement (read: pretending to be a criminal willing to help do criminal things) unless they know everyone they ever run into has been convicted of working with other criminals?
By your logic, this is how things should work:
Sex offender goes to jail. He gets out. Sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rates of all criminals (yep, everyone thinks otherwise, but overall it's under 3%.)
Meanwhile, predatory old man is looking for victims online.
You're not okay with enticement to catch the guy actively looking for victims online (read: FBI agents pretending to be 12 year olds.)
But you're okay with enticement tempting the already convicted and released sex offender to recommit?
Double you tee eff, mate?
You're not okay with enticement to catch people trying to buy enriched uranium? Unless they've already successfully bought enriched uranium?
Your position just makes no sense. It's like it's going actively against sense. I really wish you would elaborate further because from what you've said so far, there's no reason to feel the way you feel.
Ego on
Erik
0
Options
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
My only problem with this is that the FBI could have potentially used this guy to crack a hole into the wider world of terrorism and get bigger fish
But oh well, at least it is one less potential bomber running about. I'm reasonably convinced that given that the guy actually went through with it, he would have eventually cobbled together a bomb from some printout on the internet.
You think they don't already have undercover agents spread throughout the various cells not only in the US, but in other countries as well? You really think this 19-year-old kid was their chance to blow the whole thing wide open?
My only problem with this is that the FBI could have potentially used this guy to crack a hole into the wider world of terrorism and get bigger fish
But oh well, at least it is one less potential bomber running about. I'm reasonably convinced that given that the guy actually went through with it, he would have eventually cobbled together a bomb from some printout on the internet.
I gather the kid tried to contact real terrorists first (which is what brought him to the attention of the FBI) and was ignored, so I imagine he wasn't actually much of a window into any terrorist networks.
You think they don't already have undercover agents spread throughout the various cells not only in the US, but in other countries as well? You really think this 19-year-old kid was their chance to blow the whole thing wide open?
"Whole thing" implies that there is a nation of terrorists or something out there
This 19 year old may have given them the opportunity to catch a dozen or so bombers instead of just one, yes, that is what I'm saying
My only problem with this is that the FBI could have potentially used this guy to crack a hole into the wider world of terrorism and get bigger fish
But oh well, at least it is one less potential bomber running about. I'm reasonably convinced that given that the guy actually went through with it, he would have eventually cobbled together a bomb from some printout on the internet.
I gather the kid tried to contact real terrorists first (which is what brought him to the attention of the FBI) and was ignored, so I imagine he wasn't actually much of a window into any terrorist networks.
If that's the case I'm not sure what the problem was. Should they have waited until he had a real bomb before doing anything, and then him maybe getting off because he hadn't actually set it off and they fail to prove intent?
Posts
But I'm sure the unemployed 20 year old college dropout can out-do every other anti-American terrorist combined by himself.
Or he could've found someone actually willing to put the bomb together for him.
He had means, motive, and enough intelligence to know he didn't know how to build a bomb (which he probably learned from the Times Square thing). How you think this wasn't only a matter of time is astounding.
I'm really not getting where people are seeing the ambiguity in this situation. His actions go far beyond some guy ranting on about the evils of America on some website.
Rigorous Scholarship
I am not sure of the part you are saying isn't correct.
Of all the parts of a terrorist plot, this dude certainly accomplished some of them, as you say, picking the location and obtaining the materials. What bothers me about the case is that certain core components (assembly, delivery, other preparation) were only able to happen because the FBI supplied the know-how and motivation.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
It seems like the kid already had the motivation. Which is a real significant part of the issue.
Where do people get the idea that the FBI motivated him to do it? Because everything I've read says they did quite the opposite.
I know right? One, if they did motivate him to do it, it would be entrapment and not enticement. Two, unless it comes out otherwise at trial, it appears that the FBI took great care to actively discourage him from doing so. Admittedly, perhaps they could have done more to discourage him, such as telling Mohamud that they were undercover FBI agents and that he would find himself in Federal Prison for the rest of his life if he went through with his plan, but I don't know if that qualifies as good police work.
That part.
Providing the bomb did not occur in a vacuum. They did not walk up to a random person on the street, give them a fake bomb and say "Here you go, do with it what you will," and then arrest the guy if he tried to set it off.
Which in itself would be a pretty serious indictment, although obviously illegal police work. The fact that they went through these further hoops and only did it when someone was actively seeking help in committing such a crime should make this a pretty clear case, assuming the article isn't missing anything really important.
Why do you disapprove? Your argument seems to be that without the assistance of the FBI at this point, he wouldn't have done anything, when the past two decades have been chock full of examples to the contrary.
I know this.
My disapproval, as I've stated before in here, comes from the level of FBI involvement with the suspect prior to the arrest. It really seems like they waited around and pushed for this guy to commit a crime so they could get him on flashier charges.
He was a bad guy without a bomb. Minor Charges. They gave him a fake bomb to blow up. Serious Charges.
The serious charges came about as a result of FBI involvement, to my mind whether he would have anyway is irrelevant, I don't want the FBI getting involved to escalate a crime for the sake of flashier charges that are easier to stick.
Where do you get this idea? 'Pushed' is just another way of saying 'motivated.' Could someone cite something that actually indicates this?
He was provided with a bomb he did not have.
The tendency was there, the question brings it out, but it is hardly motivation. So far, it appears that everything the FBI did was in response to Mohamud's directives.
So if I hand you a handgun, am I pushing or motivating you to shoot someone with it? Or am I just making it easier for you to do so?
I think you need to reiterate just when you're fine with enticement for convicting criminals (you said you'd stated it previously but I sure can't find it,) because if you aren't fine with it in the case where a guy wants to blow up a bunch of families, I really can't imagine a case where you ARE fine with it.
but was actively seeking. God, why are you being such a dense goose about this?
He was provided with a bomb that he wanted to build, desired to build, acquired the parts to build, yet, at this moment in time, did not have the requisite know-how to build. Not to mention that his stated and actual course of action with said bomb was to detonate it in a place for maximum damage/loss of life.
And then he was told repeatedly that he shouldn't do it. And still did it.
Maybe the FBI are just really bad at motivational speeches.
Like "living in a van down by the river" bad?
I had to look that up to understand it, haha.
I'm aware of this and is why I have said multiple times he's as guilt as fuck. I just don't like how the FBI went about it.
Which was all the criminal activity he had really engaged in as far as I can tell prior to FBI involvement.
I've been nice, I've stuck around and debated with 4+ people, which is never fun, return the favor.
You're taking the desire to commit a crime and giving someone the means to actually do it, which Im not comfortable with law enforcement doing.
I believe what I said is I'm ok with enticement to catch people who have already committed similar or equally egregious acts. I believe the example I used was baiting a shoe thief with shoes.
It escalates the actions of a person to a more serious criminal charge just to see if they were serious about their thoughts.
If escalation is equal to opportunity, then you might have better ground to stand on, but escalation is not the same as opportunity. Both terrorist groups and the FBI gave the kid a similar opportunity to act out on his desires, and frankly, I would much rather it be the FBI giving the kid the opportunity than the terrorist groups. At least the chance of the FBI killing people is almost zero.
I don't want the FBI giving people the opportunity to commit worse crimes than they already have, even when the risk to the public is zero.
Both? Handing an enraged person a loaded gun and hoping they aim it at someone is, to me, encouraging them because that mad dude is temporarily not in control of himself or his emotions. Murder might not have been on his racing mind until the firearm was introduced. I can agree with sammich in a heat of the moment case, but a bombing attempt doesn't fit that scenario.
OK. That's about as close to 'I don't agree with enticement at all' as you can get while still saying that, in an infinitesimally small fashion, it's alright.
Can you explain why you feel this way? It just... doesn't make sense to me. It seems dangerous, and even impossible to implement: some cop working under cover against organized crime can't actually use enticement (read: pretending to be a criminal willing to help do criminal things) unless they know everyone they ever run into has been convicted of working with other criminals?
By your logic, this is how things should work:
Sex offender goes to jail. He gets out. Sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rates of all criminals (yep, everyone thinks otherwise, but overall it's under 3%.)
Meanwhile, predatory old man is looking for victims online.
You're not okay with enticement to catch the guy actively looking for victims online (read: FBI agents pretending to be 12 year olds.)
But you're okay with enticement tempting the already convicted and released sex offender to recommit?
Double you tee eff, mate?
You're not okay with enticement to catch people trying to buy enriched uranium? Unless they've already successfully bought enriched uranium?
Your position just makes no sense. It's like it's going actively against sense. I really wish you would elaborate further because from what you've said so far, there's no reason to feel the way you feel.
What the fuck
So the risk is zero and the reward is one less fuckhead with designs on mass-murder
I'm failing to see how the reward is not worth the risk
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
But oh well, at least it is one less potential bomber running about. I'm reasonably convinced that given that the guy actually went through with it, he would have eventually cobbled together a bomb from some printout on the internet.
I gather the kid tried to contact real terrorists first (which is what brought him to the attention of the FBI) and was ignored, so I imagine he wasn't actually much of a window into any terrorist networks.
"Whole thing" implies that there is a nation of terrorists or something out there
This 19 year old may have given them the opportunity to catch a dozen or so bombers instead of just one, yes, that is what I'm saying
If that's the case I'm not sure what the problem was. Should they have waited until he had a real bomb before doing anything, and then him maybe getting off because he hadn't actually set it off and they fail to prove intent?