Because the harder it is to get a conviction[of a legitimate crime] the more time and resources they have to use, and the less likely they're going to get criminals off the street.
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.
By all accounts decided to. Why? Do you have actual proof of it being otherwise? And by proof not speculation on your part?
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?
it makes the conspiring charge rock solid, it takes away the "it was just talk defense", because it makes their intent to follow thru with it a sure thing. they pushed the button they believed would set off the bomb, that's not something someone who is just bullshitting would do.
Iirc, its not even conspiracy until they take a concrete step towards executing it. Like buying the fake c4, and that's the bare minimum.
So why not let them commit the mock bombing, and seal the conspiracy charge air tight?
There are two This American Lifes that deal with entrapment. One of which I believe the person was railroaded and the other where they clearly had the chance to get out but couldn't see it.
The reason I bring it up in this thread in particular? The informant in the one where I don't think they were railroaded is an anarchist.
If you're approaching this from a humanist perspective. Then you might consider that the more chances a group has to back out before they get arrested, the better, so long as they're not actually terrorists.
Like, if they were all "hey lets get a bomb" and then bought the bomb and then were like "you know what this is stupid, lets not do this because commiting terrorism is totally uncool" you wouldn't have to arrest them for trying to blow stuff up.
So, speaking of terrorism, freedom, and liberty. The TSA is back in the (semi) news. Long story short they've been squatting on their complaints for up to 4 years to keep everything that can be confirmed or reported investigatively buried.
Which brings to mind the fact that most libertarians laud and promote the "dollar vote" but so few of them will do like me and choose to not fly. In a few months I will be road-tripping largely because I don't want to deal with airline BS, but no airline has yet complained that the TSA is causing a loss of business.
0
Options
AlectharAlan ShoreWe're not territorial about that sort of thing, are we?Registered Userregular
So, speaking of terrorism, freedom, and liberty. The TSA is back in the (semi) news. Long story short they've been squatting on their complaints for up to 4 years to keep everything that can be confirmed or reported investigatively buried.
Which brings to mind the fact that most libertarians laud and promote the "dollar vote" but so few of them will do like me and choose to not fly. In a few months I will be road-tripping largely because I don't want to deal with airline BS, but no airline has yet complained that the TSA is causing a loss of business.
Well, unless we're going to start operating ocean-liners again, air travel is the only efficient way to travel internationally, be it for business or pleasure. As for travel strictly within US borders, our country's train system is a pretty lackluster affair, relatively speaking, so that's pretty much out. Car travel works, but still entails significant expense (gas ain't cheap) significant discomfort, and much more focus out of the traveller(s), at least those that are driving. So as a practical consideration, voting with your dollar is inconvenient and time-consuming.
Besides, "voting with your dollars" and not flying won't make the TSA go away, or get less stupid and/or insane. Hypothetically speaking, if most people stopped traveling by air, then the TSA would, at best, get smaller. It wouldn't necessarily be less invasive, the size of operations would simply match the market for air transportation. The only way voting with your dollars would affect the TSA would be if you stopped paying your taxes, which, if you want to get the attention of a governmental body, is a solid strategy.
So maybe the Libertarians understand that voting with your dollar only matters if the person you're voting for or against is actually getting that dollar.
As for the possibility of the airlines lobbying for a reduction in TSA invasiveness, good luck with that. What every airline wants is to be associated with an effort that could be perceived as making our country less secure. I'm sure they're especially excited about the possibility that another incident of plane-related terrorism will result in finger-pointing in their direction, were they to make such an effort against the TSA.
If the airlines and airports had any reason to believe the TSA was costing them business (as opposed to making them money like the 3-ounce rule) you can bet the corporations->lobbyists->politicians would change things pretty quickly.
The only reason it keeps expanding is because people are making money off of the scanners, the rules, the thefts, the checked baggage fees, the x-ray scanners. You know who hawks backscatter x-ray machines the most? The Chertoff group, as in Michael Chertoff former head of Homeland Security.
But no, those poor airliners and other folk are abused by the big, bad government and the principio libertarian answer to everything just won't work, not this time.
0
Options
AlectharAlan ShoreWe're not territorial about that sort of thing, are we?Registered Userregular
If the airlines and airports had any reason to believe the TSA was costing them business (as opposed to making them money like the 3-ounce rule) you can bet the corporations->lobbyists->politicians would change things pretty quickly.
The only reason it keeps expanding is because people are making money off of the scanners, the rules, the thefts, the checked baggage fees, the x-ray scanners. You know who hawks backscatter x-ray machines the most? The Chertoff group, as in Michael Chertoff former head of Homeland Security.
But no, those poor airliners and other folk are abused by the big, bad government and the principio libertarian answer to everything just won't work, not this time.
I'm just not convinced that taking on a regulatory agency in charge of airline security is a political feasibility in a post-9/11 world. I mean, sure, maybe you get something done, but then the next time someone tries to light their shoe on fire in a bathroom stall some of that shit's gonna roll back downhill, and no one wants "enabled terrorists" as part of their PR campaign. I'm not saying that libertarians who believe in voting with one's dollar aren't hypocritical on this, but I'm also not sure that there's a good argument for voting with your dollar.
Honestly after securing the cockpit doors all you really need for airport/airplane security is a good metal and explosives detection system. Everything else is a bit excessive.
I still can't believe after the spate of hijackings in the 70's that they didn't just secure the cockpits back then. It's such a simple procedure.
Honestly after securing the cockpit doors all you really need for airport/airplane security is a good metal and explosives detection system. Everything else is a bit excessive.
I still can't believe after the spate of hijackings in the 70's that they didn't just secure the cockpits back then. It's such a simple procedure.
I don't know airline security history, but I'd wager they used to, then they stopped because reinforced or even locking doors was more expensive.
Regardless of TSA's incompetence, i'd say you'd have to be crazy to think it would be easier to convince all of America to give up government than it would be to convince enough congressman that the TSA needed some serious house cleaning
If anything approaching a majority of Americans actually really cared about the TSA being too intrusive and in violation of liberties, they wouldn't be. The same for legalizing pot, most people just don't care.
Posts
By all accounts decided to. Why? Do you have actual proof of it being otherwise? And by proof not speculation on your part?
Iirc, its not even conspiracy until they take a concrete step towards executing it. Like buying the fake c4, and that's the bare minimum.
So why not let them commit the mock bombing, and seal the conspiracy charge air tight?
The reason I bring it up in this thread in particular? The informant in the one where I don't think they were railroaded is an anarchist.
Like, if they were all "hey lets get a bomb" and then bought the bomb and then were like "you know what this is stupid, lets not do this because commiting terrorism is totally uncool" you wouldn't have to arrest them for trying to blow stuff up.
Which brings to mind the fact that most libertarians laud and promote the "dollar vote" but so few of them will do like me and choose to not fly. In a few months I will be road-tripping largely because I don't want to deal with airline BS, but no airline has yet complained that the TSA is causing a loss of business.
Well, unless we're going to start operating ocean-liners again, air travel is the only efficient way to travel internationally, be it for business or pleasure. As for travel strictly within US borders, our country's train system is a pretty lackluster affair, relatively speaking, so that's pretty much out. Car travel works, but still entails significant expense (gas ain't cheap) significant discomfort, and much more focus out of the traveller(s), at least those that are driving. So as a practical consideration, voting with your dollar is inconvenient and time-consuming.
Besides, "voting with your dollars" and not flying won't make the TSA go away, or get less stupid and/or insane. Hypothetically speaking, if most people stopped traveling by air, then the TSA would, at best, get smaller. It wouldn't necessarily be less invasive, the size of operations would simply match the market for air transportation. The only way voting with your dollars would affect the TSA would be if you stopped paying your taxes, which, if you want to get the attention of a governmental body, is a solid strategy.
So maybe the Libertarians understand that voting with your dollar only matters if the person you're voting for or against is actually getting that dollar.
As for the possibility of the airlines lobbying for a reduction in TSA invasiveness, good luck with that. What every airline wants is to be associated with an effort that could be perceived as making our country less secure. I'm sure they're especially excited about the possibility that another incident of plane-related terrorism will result in finger-pointing in their direction, were they to make such an effort against the TSA.
Battle.net
The only reason it keeps expanding is because people are making money off of the scanners, the rules, the thefts, the checked baggage fees, the x-ray scanners. You know who hawks backscatter x-ray machines the most? The Chertoff group, as in Michael Chertoff former head of Homeland Security.
But no, those poor airliners and other folk are abused by the big, bad government and the principio libertarian answer to everything just won't work, not this time.
I'm just not convinced that taking on a regulatory agency in charge of airline security is a political feasibility in a post-9/11 world. I mean, sure, maybe you get something done, but then the next time someone tries to light their shoe on fire in a bathroom stall some of that shit's gonna roll back downhill, and no one wants "enabled terrorists" as part of their PR campaign. I'm not saying that libertarians who believe in voting with one's dollar aren't hypocritical on this, but I'm also not sure that there's a good argument for voting with your dollar.
Battle.net
I still can't believe after the spate of hijackings in the 70's that they didn't just secure the cockpits back then. It's such a simple procedure.
I don't know airline security history, but I'd wager they used to, then they stopped because reinforced or even locking doors was more expensive.
If anything approaching a majority of Americans actually really cared about the TSA being too intrusive and in violation of liberties, they wouldn't be. The same for legalizing pot, most people just don't care.
That's the downside of democracy