Slashdot Mirror

So when the FBI uses stings to catch international arms traffickers, organized crime figures, corrupt public officials, and embezzlers, are they "morons" too, or just would-be terrorists? Your post is nonsense.

The examples you cite are generally not entrapment because the persons they catch were already doing these things before they met the FBI agents. The difference between the terrorism stings and a traditional sting can be illustrated thus:

Traditional sting: send out agents to places where drugs are sold and arrest those who mistake them for drug dealers and try to buy.

New-style sting: send agents into the community to make friends and introduce them to weed. When they convince someone to try it, they will take him to a "drug dealer" who is really a cop.

The parallel is not perfect, but I think it is close enough to show that these stings are different and the concerns some have are not nonsense.

Not to mention you'll at most catch absolute morons who at their best would simply win a Darwin Award because the kind of bozos these "stings" catch are frankly the same gullible dipshits that fall for 419 scams and other stupidity.

So when the FBI uses stings to catch international arms traffickers, organized crime figures, corrupt public officials, and embezzlers, are they "morons" too, or just would-be terrorists? Your post is nonsense.

Anyone with a brain is immune to this nonsense.

Anyone with a brain and a passing familiarity with the news knows your post is nonsense. Three weeks ago a notorious Russian arms dealer was convicted in US Federal court. Guess how they got him? If stings are good enough to take down experienced international arms traffickers, and organized crime figures, public officials, embezzlers, and others, they are good enough to take down potential terrorists. If you don't think so, please tell us why? And please, please tell us that you really believe that everyone taken down in a sting is no brighter than a hick good 'ole boy complaining about the "gubermint" and that it never works on anyone more sophisticated, and what your "reasoning" is?

Russian arms dealer sentenced to 25 years in prison

Viktor Bout, a Russian arms dealer* caught in an undercover sting by U.S. agents posing as Colombian guerrillas seeking weapons, was sentenced to 25 years in prison on Thursday by a U.S. judge in New York. . . .

Two DEA informants who posed as FARC leaders testified for the prosecution at Bout's trial. A former Bout business associate, Andrew Smulian, also testified for the government after pleading guilty to participating in the FARC deal.

  According to prosecutors, in a meeting at a Bangkok hotel with the supposed FARC representatives, Bout agreed to sell the 100 advanced man-portable surface-to-air missiles or the approximately 5,000 AK-47 assault rifles that were discussed.

  Bout was charged only in connection with the suspected arms deal, but U.S. authorities have said he has been involved in trafficking arms since the 1990s to dictators and conflict zones in Africa, South America and the Middle East.

Said to be the inspiration for one of the chief bad guys in Act of Valor

Devices (perhaps less energy efficient and certainly not as automated) like this already exist and were available during the oil spill crisis. The Dutch offered to loan some of their skimmer boats to the US early in the crisis. The US turned them down as not being efficient enough (<sarcasm>obviously, it's better to let the spill keep growing rather than skim out a mere 98% of the oil</sarcasm>). Once the spill had already spread, the US government then granted a waiver to allow the Dutch ships to be used.

The article doesn't touch on the question of whether or not these particular devices would meet US environmental requirements. Even if they existed, it's not clear that the US government would have allowed them to be used in the early days of the crisis.

Note that the delay made the existing devices less effective in a couple ways. First, they reduced the amount of time the skimmers could be used before the oil became too diffuse. Second, they would have been most effective at the beginning of the crisis when the oil was at its most localized. When working in an area that is 50% oil, it doesn't matter as much that they leave 2% contamination (or whatever the actual number is; I can't find a citation for the actual efficiency at the moment). That's still a removal of 96% of the oil. However, if there is only 4% oil, then leaving 2% is leaving 50% of the oil that was present.

Example citation for the refusal of the Dutch help (based on a Google search): http://www.eagleworldnews.com/2010/06/15/obama-refuses-dutch-help-for-gulf-oil-crisis/

I don't know, perhaps he could have suspended the Jones act and accepted the offer from the Dutch to provide us with cleanup ships that were offered 3 days after the spill started. http://www.eagleworldnews.com/2010/06/15/obama-refuses-dutch-help-for-gulf-oil-crisis/

Instead the government sat on their collective political butts and pointed fingers trying to score political points for the next election.

The Jones act doesn't even apply in this situation.

I don't know, perhaps he could have suspended the Jones act and accepted the offer from the Dutch to provide us with cleanup ships that were offered 3 days after the spill started. http://www.eagleworldnews.com/2010/06/15/obama-refuses-dutch-help-for-gulf-oil-crisis/

Instead the government sat on their collective political butts and pointed fingers trying to score political points for the next election.

Is it not the Republicans that have told us time and time again that the government should stay out of the way of industry because they know how best to do their jobs? BP is responsible for the disaster and is also responsible for the cleanup, as they have the expertise to know how to do it, the money to buy any and all aid needed for it, and the incentive to do so as quickly as possible for their own financial sake. If we start bringing in others to start doing things without the approval of BP, they'll just blame any failure on the government for interfering, and I think it's rather obvious that Republicans would be all over that, talking about how the incompetent government just had to try to run the cleanup and of course screwed it all up. If BP wanted the aid, they could have had it at any time.

I don't know, perhaps he could have suspended the Jones act and accepted the offer from the Dutch to provide us with cleanup ships that were offered 3 days after the spill started. http://www.eagleworldnews.com/2010/06/15/obama-refuses-dutch-help-for-gulf-oil-crisis/

Instead the government sat on their collective political butts and pointed fingers trying to score political points for the next election.