Slashdot Mirror
NY Times: 'FBI Foils Its Own Terrorist Plots'
Fluffeh writes "Breaking up terrorist plots is one of the main goals of the FBI these days. If it can't do that, well, it seems making plots up and then valiantly stopping them is okay too — but the NY Times is calling them on it. 'The United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years — or so it has seemed. A would-be suicide bomber was intercepted on his way to the Capitol; a scheme to bomb synagogues and shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft was developed by men in Newburgh, N.Y.; and a fanciful idea to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol was hatched in Massachusetts. But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects naïvely played their parts until they were arrested.'"
It's encouragement.
Very different. For one thing, the movie stars Jessica Alba instead of Catherine Zeta-Jones.
There's a world of difference between initiating your own terrorist attack, vs infiltrating someone else's.
This would be a scandal if the FBI was making up its own attacks, recruiting people to join them, and then arresting those people.
But what it seems its doing is much more appropriate than that -- flooding the pools of potential recruits with undercover agents, flooding the supply chain for explosives etc with informers, etc so anyone who tries to get a major attack off the ground ends up running into one of the traps and ultimately arrested before the plot can come to fruition.
I'm glad they're doing it. I really hope they are doing even more along the same lines for anyone seeking experts or parts required for WMD. And shame on the NY Times for trying to make this out to be something its not.
It is much easier to create a problem and then solve it than it is to solve a real problem. If they don't catch terrorists, they will lose funding. Solution: Create a terrorist. Problem is, they arent able to create believable ones.
They kill you: http://tytruth.com/ -- Call it whatever buzzword you want (the C word), but there is some very dark stuff behind the FBI. And the footage from OKC has yet to be revealed to the public, despite numerous FOIA requests.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
--H.L. Menken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Darby
It happened in Dallas too, they gave a guy a truck and a fake bomb and a building to blow up. Then they celebrated when they caught the terrorist. I am not sure why his defense is not "I knew the bomb was fake".
Funny how it is. When a young-looking woman poses as an underage girl online and 40-year old men get arrested for trying to have sex with her, it's catching predators. But when the FBI pretends to be terrorists selling explosives, Stinger missiles or other such things, it's wrong. Ask yourself this: if a man offered you the materials and capabilities to (blow up/shoot down/shoot up) a (building/plane/event), what would you say? You'd freak out and say no at the very least, right? I know I would. I'd also call the authorities. These are people who did the opposite...who took them up on the offer. That isn't exactly the behavior of an innocent person. I don't see how it's any different from a 'young girl' who acts a little flirty in a chat room and then gets asked by a pedophile to meet for the purpose of having sex. If a young girl flirts with me, I'm going to pat her on the head kindly, and then keep walking. Her flirting isn't exactly all that tempting to me that I'm going to just casually follow her cues and commit a felony. Same thing here.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
There's a world of difference between initiating your own terrorist attack, vs infiltrating someone else's.
This would be a scandal if the FBI was making up its own attacks, recruiting people to join them, and then arresting those people.
But what it seems its doing is much more appropriate than that -- flooding the pools of potential recruits with undercover agents, flooding the supply chain for explosives etc with informers, etc so anyone who tries to get a major attack off the ground ends up running into one of the traps and ultimately arrested before the plot can come to fruition.
I'm glad they're doing it. I really hope they are doing even more along the same lines for anyone seeking experts or parts required for WMD. And shame on the NY Times for trying to make this out to be something its not.
(Reposted: wasn't logged in first time.)
At what point is the FBI to step in? Its not like they just randomly walked up to people and said, hey your participating, or forceing people. The people involved were willing participants. This is simply proactive policing by the FBI. Had these people not gotten involved they would not have been arrested. The FBI simply floats the idea around and snag the people that migrate to it and are willing to do the terrorist act giving them a reason for arrest and incarceration. I see nothing wrong with this.
I see nothing wrong with this.
Most of the civilized world does.
Of course, right now all we have is the NYTimes' opinion of what happened. Maybe it hasn't actually been as bad as it sounds.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Was when the FBI encouraged a young immigrant boy in Portland, OR to try and carry out an attack on a Christmas Tree lighting ceremony. The boy by all accounts had no prior involvement in anything radical beyond browsing the internet, and seemed more angry at his parents than the US or any 'infidels', was approached by undercover FBI agents and brought into this plan as the trigger man.
While that is interesting in itself, the really telling part comes from the fact that the City of Portland refused to cooperate with the FBI after 9/11, refusing to allow agents unfettered library access and other information into the citizens of Portland. Not only this, and while it may be conjecture, Portland has never seemed to be on the top of anyones attack list as far as foreign terrorists go... Needless to say Portland quickly subscribed to the FBI's intelligence program after the attempted attack and decreed that it would fully cooperate in the future with any investigations.
Apparently sophisticated international terrorism rings aren't as big of a threat as we've been led to believe, since the FBI seems to be more busy giving themselves congratulatory press conferences every few months for capturing the newest group of illiterate morons who've been convinced to plant fake bombs.
Ok then I have a question.
If they were "just playing their parts", I wonder what exactly it would take the author to "play his part" in similar situation.
Any type of statement along the lines of, "Oh hey, I have this suicide vest, do you want to blow up some buildings and die in the process?" should not convince ANYONE to just play along.
You already have to have an idology that says that doing something like that is "good" or "Righteous" for an "offer" to "play a part" in something like this generates any sort of compliant response.
This is an opinion piece in the New York Times. The views are those of David K. Shipler and not the New York Times. The NYT often runs opinion pieces that their editors do not personally agree with.
Anybody willing to be sucked into such a scheme is a traitorous maggot, who deserves to have their heads flushed in Club Gitmo.
Absolutely no sympathy here. None whatsoever.
I think the FBI should be commended for taking out the trash, and deterring other wannabe jihadi shitbags from biting the hand that feeds them.
What if you don't trust the cops?
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
:-)
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I am not sure about you guys, but it seems our government and its agencies are all failing us by the minute. I can't keep track of this crap, let's pick up our pitch forks already.
They take some people off the street who, at the very least, have an abnormally high interest in making war against the U.S. within our borders. More important, it makes terrorists wary of trusting one another, thus disrupting their operations.
At the time of 9/11, people criticized the FBI for sitting on its ass and letting Bin Laden get away with it. Call me crazy, but I'm all for jailing and killing people who want to destroy the U.S.
There's a fragrance in the air /. reports are bad
You can smell it everywhere
Propaganda, propaganda
It flows through like a breeze
Boils your blood but never sneeze
Propaganda, propaganda
When the 60's were in bloom
The smell filled every classroom
Propaganda, propaganda
Then you'd see it on TV
Now they monitor your screen
Propaganda, propaganda
As their odors fill the air
Most people do not care
Propaganda, propaganda
Today's
That makes everybody sad
Propaganda, propaganda
Seems the mood is turning blue
There is nothing you can do
About propaganda
Focusing away from the legality and what is or is not entrapment there are two obviously fucked up things about this.
1. Searching for mental midgets who could be lead into confessing or going along with LEA invented schemes because they are easily manipulated.
2. Inventing schemes designed to capture headlines and instill more terror in terrorist fearing public....stinger missles..WTF.....
Government pissing away their legitimacy on crack shit like this has consequences for society. For godsakes look at the polling on 9/11 showing more than 1/5th of US population believe it was an Inside or Isreali job.
Thanks to the Internet and media we never forget anymore... What happens when the majority assume the next attack was an inside job?
Wow, what's up with all these terrorism related articles showing up on slashdot lately?
And even more bizarrely, here's one that isn't fear-mongering pro war-on-terror drum beating propaganda like all the others,
but actually takes a nuanced view and comes close to elucidating the incestuous links between 3-letter agencies and
terrorist groups that is rife in the security/intelligence industry.
Furthermore I've seen a few posts in articles that take the alternative view on the possibility of controlled black-ops
and false flag/propaganda operations etc, that *didn't* immediately get modded down as -1 troll/flamebait/tinfoil-hat etc!
And it's not just slashdot either, the issue seems to be heating up in the media as though a 2006-2008 style struggle
over war-policy were going on behind the scenes and being played out in the media, (though this is just best-guess
speculation on my part of course)...
"Interesting times"
What people don't understand these days is the importance of enhanced interrogation techniques to winning our war on terror. It's not enough to take low-level fanatics out of commission. The masterminds and planners will always find another volunteer with promises and guarantees. $250000 is a lot of money to most people, and the organization has significant financial resources to expend. But identifying the threat can be difficult due to their secretive nature. It would be negligent for us to withhold any tools at our disposal, including waterboarding, to get Mr. Cromitie to tell us WHO HE IS WORKING FOR. We have to strike at the head of the organization; only then can we win the war on terror.
The FBI thwarting their own terrorist plots would be akin to a major newspaper creating their own news stories to report.
Which has what to do with the U.S. Government?
Liberty in your lifetime
yeah, it's a honeypot operation. and better the fbi catch the witless pansies before someone hardened and malintentioned puts them to bad use
who do you think puts a bomb in their underwear or in their shoes? who flies airplanes into buildings?
witless pansies do
people who do very horrible things, by order of truly evil people, without any complaint: witless pansies
that's not entrapment. anyone with a functioning cerebellum who can tell the difference between simple right and wrong does not get into this situation
so we agree: we both see witless pansies. but where we disagree is exactly what kind of threat these witless pansies hold. you see entrapment. i see a honeypot
as far as i am concerned, carry on FBI, good job
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Here is another article from last year that's more in depth: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/fbi-terrorist-informants
That has always been the risk when the police take a more pro-active approach. There is a famous story (real or not) about a US fire chief who managed to create laws in his city that forced the installation of sprinkler installations in residential homes. It worked and it made the fire service pro-active rather then re-active. They prevented fires, rather then fighting fires. Since a fire is a bad thing, this is desirable.
Would you want the army to focus on fighting wars or on preventing wars?
What about the cops, should they just look away UNTIL a crime has happened or act to prevent one if they can?
Holland recently had Queens day, the day we prove we are even below Americans in our reference for a whore who doesn't pay taxes on a million Euro income and still claims every benefit intended for poor people. But that aside, the Mayor of Amsterdam decided that no large parties would be allowed in the city center, instead they would be held on the outskirts of the city. It worked, it was a peaceful day. The police (Mayor is head of the police) acted to prevent crime, rather then wait until the shit hit the fan.
BUT in doing so, it labelled EVERY single attendee as a hooligan bound to cause trouble and in need of police control to keep things inline. Silly? Yes, but that is one side of the coin of police acting to prevent things.
Entrapment is the other. We want the police to do the "good" preventing not the bad but where the line is drawn, that is hard to say.
A repeating story is that of the would be murderer by proxy trying to hire a killer, the police being tipped off and posing as a hired killer and the person being arrested. IF the police had ignored it, nothing might have happened. No killer might have shown up and it might have all blown over. On the other hand, something might have happened and would the police then be called out on not having done anything?
You betcha! Often by the same people screaming entrapment.
It is rather well known that the 9/11 attackers were known about but the FBI ignored the warnings. Would the same people screaming conspiracy scream entrapment if the FBI had acted and setup up a trap to capture them? You betcha. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Part of the failing of democracy is that it is power without responsibility. Not of the politicians but of the voters. The average voter thinks nothing (doesn't think at all in many cases) of demanding completely opposite things,at the same time. Having your cake and eat it doesn't even begin to describe not just bankers who want low taxes, no government oversight, strict laws on competitors and welfare for needy banks. You can't have it all except when it comes to voting in a democracy. And it ain't just the super rich.
"The FBI should have acted on warnings before 9/11 and stopped it"
"The FBI shouldn't act on warnings of people planning attacks and stopping them".
Politics ain't a division between left and right, between bleeding hearts and hard-liners, between capitalists and socialists. It is a melting pot of multi-personality disorders were the same voters votes multiple ways on the same issue and expects all of them to heard.
Want to prove me wrong? Prove how a fire-chief insisting on sprinklers to be installed in private homes had saved any lives over a fire-chief who has bravely rescued a single person in the last decade alive while hundreds died in flames? None of the people in private homes with sprinklers needed a daring rescue. The man is a coward! Somewhere a tax payer is arguing just this. For real.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
gawker: The ever skeptical [Norman] Mailer knew more about what was going on than he let on, saying in 1964's The Presidential Papers that: "At bottom, I mean profoundly at bottom, the FBI has nothing to do with Communism, it has nothing to do with catching criminals, it has nothing to do with the Mafia, the syndicate, it has nothing to do with trust-busting, it has nothing to do with interstate commerce, it has nothing to do with anything but serving as a church for the mediocre. A high church for the true mediocre."
Reading the linked article, I have to say that the case mentioned sounds like it's more at the fault of the informant than the FBI, leading the person in like that, but I still think I'd rather have the guy off the streets. I've always seen preventative measures to be preferable, and the general idea the FBI is going with honestly sounds pretty good with me. Seems like there are likely to be a few cases where things get a bit overly-pushy, but bear in mind that some of them are informants that are doing this to have a reduced sentence. They're probably going to try to speed up the process... might be a bit of a bad idea there on the FBI's part. Either way, I can't imagine these people being any more encouraging than, say, actual extremists, so I'd generally say the idea of entrapment is rather debunked... The idea of the FBI claiming that they just randomly caught the guy before he did it though? That's a bit silly. Then again, if they say what actually happened, then every other extremist will be more careful and avoid all this. Then again, isn't that a good thing?
My post is from "Anonymous Coward"? How nice. Poking fun at new members does not seem like a good way to gain a mature audience. This post should at least have my user name attached.
http://publicintelligence.net/fbi-suspicious-activity-reporting-flyers/ shows you the "Communities Against Terrorism" suspicious activity reporting flyers that were distributed by the FBI.
I don't know about the Ron Paul bumper sticker, but they clearly do include actions such as paying with cash on the lists of reportable suspicious activity. IIRC, the FBI back walked on those after they got news attention.
At first, they were criticized for arresting people with no reason whatsoever, and put them on gitmo. Now they just simply "create" that reason. Bravo :)
FBI: Guys, we did it, we stopped a terrorist plot and caught the terrorist! Another success in the War on Terror!
Citizens: Great! So what terrorist network is the perp part of?
FBI: Well, none, but the plot is foiled!
Citizens: So, who put him up to it, aided and abetted him?
FBI: Uh, our guys...it was kind of a sting thing.
Citizens: Wait, so...the plot was hatched by...whom, exactly?
FBI: Actually it was Larry right here, come up with the whole "gonna blow up the office building" thing. But hey, we caught the guy who was going to do it!
Citizens: But you made the plot.
FBI: But we foiled the plot! Another victory in the War on Terror!
Citizens: So the mastermind of the terrorist plots that we're fighting the war against is...the FBI? Couldn't you just stop plotting?
FBI: But then we wouldn't be foiling terrorist plots! We'd lose the War on Terror! Is that what you want, the terrorists to win?!
Citizens: No, no of course not!
FBI: All right then! Hey, Larry, make us another plot, and be quick about it! We gots some foilin' to do!
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
If it encourages anyone, it's to not trust anyone outside their circle or vet them closer.
It's good to see someone else notice this and write and article about it. Especially considering the loser kids
in Ohio just today. THey don't even look like they could wire batteries in a series let alone make something blow up.
There would have been zero terrorist plots. Who's side are they on anyway?
"You're not going to be able to go to a street corner and find somebody who's already blown something up," he said. Therefore, the usual goal is not "to find somebody who's already engaged in terrorism but find somebody who would jump at the opportunity if a real terrorist showed up in town." - David Raskin, federal prosecutor.
So they admit that procedure is manufacturing terrorists out of otherwise innocent (albeit disenfranchised) people.
Amoungst the US Federal Government that is not elected, rather ... hired, the FBI is the Glee'ist of them all. Then, after all, the FBI had a gay homophobic homocidal director in the one Mr. J. Edger Hoover, beloved by the then GOP and several Presidents.
In the day, many GOP and Democratic Representatives wanted J.E.H.'s baby, and these letters of love and affection were from men.
Those days are gone. Well, er, not so fast.
LoL
Have gnu, will travel.
And then the undercover FBI agent says, "Hey buddy. I know where you can get a hold of a bomb."
And then I say, "Citizens arrest, asshole! I'm just sitting here grumbling. You're offering to sell me contraband."
Have gnu, will travel.
Wow, I'm almost as shocked that you have to ask if it's wrong! : (
Let's sing a song together.
"Old USA Had some towns. EIEIO. And in those towns were some terrorists. EIEIO! Here's a terrorist, there's a terrorist, everywhere there's a terrorist, terrorist. Won't somebody think of the kids? EIEIO!
Let's pass new laws like Cyber CISPA. EIEIO. And with those laws we can arrest you if you "look like a threat". EIEIO."
Oops - we made up the threats. Isn't that the entire concept of False Flags?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
You seriously haven't heard of that? Assuming you're not a troll:
http://rt.com/news/fbi-terrorists-guide-security-171/
http://www.constitution.org/abus/terror/constitutional_terrorists.htm
http://welfarestate.com/pamphlet/
Terrorists include those who:
-Defend the constitution
-Attempt to police the police (taping the police?)
-Lone individuals
-Non-lone individuals (members of groups)
-Rightists
-Leftists
-Pay in cash
-Attempt to hide passwords
-Nervous
-Take pictures
-Stare
This basically just confirms what has been the philosophy of the FBI for a long time (since its founding), including harassment of MLK and the civil rights movement.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
No, but they did engage in a few many months long recruiting efforts that were probably more convincing than the actual terrorists manage. Then they provided the weapons and the financial backing.
In other words there about as innocent as someone who pulled the trigger on a gun while it was aimed at someone's head. The FBI just makes sure there's no bullet in the chamber.
That's a good thing.
And it doesn't catch innocents, they even let people go who buy the stuff and then chicken out.
Here's the concrete cases they're worried about :
1) guy buys bomb vest, which he thinks works. He gets arrested just before he's about to enter a crowded public area intending to detonate it.
2) guy buys planes and explosives. Builds the actual "bombs", and goes off to actually launch them. Gets arrested while unloading the flying bombs.
3) guy buys a missile, gets arrested after he's pushed the "fire" button which did not work
Which exactly is the innocent here ? Just wondering.
This is not all the FBI is doing though. The "suspect" not presented with a plot on day one and then ignored forever if they say no thanks. These guys are softened up first and encouraged to become more radical. Then maybe a plot is suggested, and suggested over and over until their resistance is worn down. The FBI is not infiltrating existing terrorist cells or finding existing terrorists.
The real problem with this, isn't the entrapment angle. Yeah, they are finding dumb people who don't make good life choices and push them in the wrong direction, and that isn't really right. The real problem with this though, is they are wasting time and money doing this shit when they could be doing better things like building legitimate human Intel in places where the professionals might show up. But this is hard and tedious work that may or may not ever pay off, so they waste time and tax payer dollars running these sort of dog and pony show stings that they can put people in front of a federal DA and say, 'Look we are being effective.'
Quit fucking around with these dime store idiots, FBI, and get to work in preventing damage the pros will inflict. They will be much harder to catch than losers who hand around cargo vans behind the local mosque that have signs saying, 'Free Stingers'.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
The FBI does have to justify its existence doesn't it? Which is why they nurture terrorism. And if people think this only started happening after 9/11/2001 they really need to look further back in time. The FBI has always run such shenanigans.
and the government is meddling and attempting to twist the culture and activities of POLITICAL groups.
This is akin to a psychiatric association that specializes in pedophile rehab purchasing computers and internet connections for their targets and teaching them how to use chat rooms and how to find the ones with the most flirty youngsters.
It's been one year. Do you think Osama bin Laden was really killed, or was it just a way to slow down the war on terrorism? Although, faking his death, if that is what happened, may have a positive rather than negative effect. Although I say killing someone outright like that lacks the justice I'd expect from America.
They are innocent because the before the FBI came along, gave them the means and manipulated their delusions, these people were not terrorists.
The FBI didn't just make sure there was no bullets, that was exactly what the article debunks by contrasting sting operations designed to catch actual known drug dealers. The prosecutor admits there are no actual known terrorists. So security theatre demands they find a mentally unstable "suspect", gave them a gun and convince them to pull the trigger. Creating a terrorist out of thin air.
you do realize saying this only reveals uncritical and simpleminded your thought processes are?
i've seen this useless observation a lot on this site. for you and all the other idiots who continue to think this is wisdom you are imparting here: it adds nothing to a conversation. no one doesn't understand the idea. the only purpose of saying it is to to announce yourself as a simpleton
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment
It's a long-established point of law.
This terrorist talk here is scary and should be restricted to MiRC or Usernet, not here where everyone can see it.
Smart people wear diapers when they read Slashdot, so they can just wet themselves when they learn about a scary terror plot or find out that BSD is dying.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Isn't that exactly what terroritsts organizations do all the time ?
Find some poor angry guy, focus his anger on the western world and tell him that if he goes over there and blows himself up, his familiy will be cared for and he'll go to [insert heaven definition here] for making God's work ?
I guess that is a valid reason to drone the FBI down by today's standards.
I always wondered how seven street-thugs from Miami were going to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and launch a 'full ground war' against the United States with their only contact being an FBI agent selling fantasies and firearms. It was such a slam-dunk case it only took THREE TRIALS to convict most them.
The offensive provision from the so-called Patriot Act that makes FBI entrapment legal. Bullshit.
Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
If they're not at street corners, you should be looking elsewhere if you want to find actual terrorists. Creating your own to glorify your existence should be punished by society. Come on, they just admitted they're not very good at their actual assignment so they make something up to look good. if you look long and hard enough, you'll find someone gullible and disgruntled enough to try and do something illegal. That's a fact of life. They weren't put in office to find those gullible people, but to prevent the real bad guys from finding them. No matter hard you try, the real bad guys will always find one, so you're not actually preventing anything, other than tax money being put to proper use. Stop doing the terrorists job and start doing your own, find the real criminals and terrorists. Oh what? There are so few terrorists, you can't really find any? Well maybe you should put an end to the whole charade and start working on the economy and the environment for a little while.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
This is basically thoughtcrime. We are arresting people based on what they WOULD do if they had the chance, and then we're giving them the chance. Except we're not even really giving them the chance because we're giving them fake stuff. These people probably weren't all the savory, but I think arresting people on crimes they didn't commit, and probably wouldn't have because they didn't have the resources or incentive is not a good path to be on.
Within the last 24 hours, if you didn't hear, the FBI announced that they had prevented 5 men from blowing up a bridge in Northeast Ohio. They had previously sold the men a phony bomb and a fake remote detonator, and then monitored the self-proclaimed anarchists as they placed their "bomb" at the base of a bridge and attempted to detonate it. Chalk up one in favor of the FBI, as the alleged, would-be bombers had surveyed several potential targets and planned to conduct further bombings. I doubt these "anarchists" really understand the concept of anarchy, and they are clearly not that bright, but they do appear to have been a legitimate threat, and I can't help but applaud the FBI on a great success. This is the "homegrown" terror threat that scares me much more than radical Islamist infiltrators, and I can't help but praise the FBI. Maybe this hits home hard, as I know the bridge that was threatened, but it isn't everyday you hear about a bunch of young, mid-western white boys trying to blow up something important. Usually they just blow up stupid shit in their back yards, not bridges! I'm not a big fan of law enforcement, especially the FBI, but this was a job well done.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
So the FBI makes its own terrorists just to imprison them afterwards... doesn't that sound a lot like how Al Quaeda (or however you write it these days) came to be? First you make them, then you fight them? With the little difference that this time, you shoot them down before they can get all independent and shit.
Frankly, measured to my, completely individual, moral compass, this behaviour lends more credibility to the idea that 9/11 could have been fabricated. Sure, it's on another scale but come on, if the FBI can bring some poor sod who is unhappy with the government to become a radical, what makes us believe that the government, unhappy with the amount of power it has, could NOT become radical?
I'm not saying it happened that way, but this is some food for thought.
Seems someone at the FBI has been reading Tom Sharp's Riotous Assembly..... now if ALL the threats are suddenly undercover FBI/CIA each not knowing each other actual status, and trying to outdo each other to gain credibility with the others you have the main plot line exactly!
more likely to die from unlawful conduct from law enforcement officers than you are of dying from a terrorist act. Yes, so far!
Doubters? Sounds like someone doesn't read the news. Assassinations, traps and trumped charges happen all too frequently with the asset forfeiture laws over the last 2-3 decades. The "Waco massacre" appears to be an example of unlawful conduct covered up. Even before forfeiture there were simple rage and police malice. One of many old "cowboy" police news stories, kid caught speeding 90 - 100 on an urban interstate in wee hours am, frustrated cop puts his head on the pavement and pulls the trigger...a stink but nothing meaningful. Or corrupt cops in small bergs preying on through traffic, where things sometimes get way out of hand.
They are innocent because
The actions of the FBI do not absolve the individuals of guilt, it just makes the FBI accessories to the crime.
So security theatre demands they find a mentally unstable "suspect", gave them a gun and convince them to pull the trigger. Creating a terrorist out of thin air.
Exactly, and it's disgusting and there should be people at the FBI going to jail for doing it. But it does NOT excuse the person from the consequences of their actions unless they were forced to do so under duress. And even then it could be argued that's not an excuse- as we saw when it was used as a defense in the Nuremburg trials.
They imprison people who can be convinced to become terrorists. The test method is just very thorough.
There is certainly a wrongness to that, but IMHO it isn't a big one.
They probably aim to reach 3 things with it: the direct result of filtering the "proto terrorists" out, the indirect result of terrorists mistrusting each other and the indirect result of people who are approached for this may decide not to go that way, because the terrorist may be an FBI agent.
Both of the indirect results are achieved by making the tactic public.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
"you have to choose the correct answer EVERY SINGLE TIME. Forever."
"Peer pressure is no excuse"
"If.... blah blah blah.... you're everyone's rightful prey"
Sorry, but you are a sick fuck.
Is anyone seriously arguing that somebody spends a significant amount of their own money to buy a bomb with the stated intention to set it off ... won't actually set it off ?
I think I'm not the only one on this planet who is glad neither the Soviet Union nor the USA shared your point of view.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ok so what if you were an FBI agent and you found about a guy as described in the article. He is using hate speech frequently directed towards a particular group and you think he may be close to violence, but you don't know how close. He seems like an idiot ... just like the vast majority of the criminals you have thus far encountered in your career so you know stupid does not equate with harmless. His speech itself is protected but you fear what he may do in the future has you worried.
You keep watch on him for a year at a certain cost of resources both human and financial. The watch ends concluding he is no threat at that time. Of course then just three months after the surveillance ends his long time girl friend leaves him for a member of the very minority group he already hates, driving him in to a rage that spurs him to action. He detonates several homemade explosives leading to the deaths of 48 people.
Then the media quickly finds out the FBI had him under surveillance "just months before his heinous crime" and the agency and you the agent are responsible for this "monumental" blunder. In time you can look back at what happened and reflect on what you could have done differently were you to do it all over again.
These agents are trained in psychology and shit like that. Given time, they will find your weakness and wear you down.
You, of course, are unbreakable. And I bet you'd always fight an armed mugger too, anywhere except in real life. Black belt in Keyboardarate.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You're main concern is that the FBI is wasting YOUR money. The main concern of people who get thrown in prison for several decades because they fell into one of these scams might be somewhat different.
Self supported dependencies are clear signs of addiction. They are creating the situations in which they try to justify what they do, And with an organization that does that, and their are a lot of them (far more than you'd believe) they all need recovery help. Be it Alcoholics Anonymous, Overeaters Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Psychopaths Anonymous, Arms Anonymous, etc... For the Secret Intelligence industry it seems we have simply Anonymous. But will we need an Anonymous Anonymous someday?
If i google for "moron" site:slashdot.org there are only 27000 hits. Is this a bug or is google filtering it out , together with "the" and "and"?
This is no different then a UC prostitute standing out on the corner, if the prostitute was not there then the John would not break the law. All the FBI is doing is giving the means to commit the crime not enticing people to commit them.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Of the 80s.
Ah the 80s. More specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_DeLorean#Arrest_and_trial
The FBI set DeLorean up for drugs, the crime menace dejour in the 80s. When he found out he was in the middle of a drug dealer, the FBI "informant" threatened to kill him and his family unless he went through. Then the public arrest.
Nothing new here, folks. Same stuff, different day.
Quit fucking around with these dime store idiots, FBI, and get to work in preventing damage the pros will inflict. They will be much harder to catch than losers who hand around cargo vans behind the local mosque that have signs saying, 'Free Stingers'.
I suggest that your premise, successful terrorists are not "dime store idiots" is flawed. First of all, anyone who would blow himself up, to "help out" his chosen all-powerful deity is a madman or a fool, or both. Sure, even a fool gets lucky once in a while, but by their motivations alone, the are well within the set "dime store idiots". And yes, their may well be a handful of world class "pro's" out there, but they don't seem to have had much to do with anything that has threatened or actually taken American lives.
Given that, I'd say rounding up the idiots is time well spent.
Step1) Announce loudly and on the internet that you're going to blow up a (bridge. building, airplane, whatever)
Step2) Wait for "terrorist group" (which is actually the FBI) to contact you.
Step3) Tell them you need a bomb/truck/airplane/money, whatever...
Step4) Wait for them to deliver items.
Step5) Sell bomb/truck/airplane on eBay and/or keep the money.
Step6) Profit! Then of course, call "60 Minutes" and report the FBI as a terrorist organization that YOU foiled.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Yes. As opposed to actual terrorist groups manufacturing terrorists out of otherwise innocent (albeit disenfranchised) people.
These "otherwise innocent" people would have caused mayhem anyway. They would have been manipulated the same way regardless of whether it had been the FBI or an actual terrorist group.
The only (but critical) difference is that in the end there's an arrest instead of a body count.
The only issue I could raise about this is if they are unfairly targetting people who follow Islam. I'd like to see them do the same thing with Christians, Hindus, etc, or tea-partyers and see what happens.
"AmErIcAaaaaa Fuck Yeah!"
In other words, make everyone afraid to talk to anyone about anything, as they might be government informants?
Hey, why not? Worked for Hitler*...
*No, this isn't a Godwin, it's a historical reference.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Let me introduce you to the Republican party...
This is no different then a UC prostitute standing out on the corner, if the prostitute was not there then the John would not break the law. All the FBI is doing is giving the means to commit the crime not enticing people to commit them.
I don't think most people have a problem with the kind of sting operation you describe. But would you feel the same if 90% of the prostitues were police officers and they would stalk a John for a year?The NYT article claims similiar levels of persuasion.
Yes. As opposed to actual terrorist groups manufacturing terrorists out of otherwise innocent (albeit disenfranchised) people.
These "otherwise innocent" people would have caused mayhem anyway. They would have been manipulated the same way regardless of whether it had been the FBI or an actual terrorist group.
This is an interesting argument. It is probably the justification the FBI is using. However, it contains untested assertions. I would like to know:
* How many persons out there are suceptible to this kind of manipulation?
* What is the likelyhood that a real terrorist group would manipulate any particular one of them?
* Are these FBI operations significatly depleting the supply of easily manipulated disenfrancised persons?
Those are fantastic questions, and I have absolutely no idea as to the answers. But it's probably sufficient to say that if we assume that there is (for all intents and purposes) an unlimited supply of such people, then the exercise the FBI is performing is a waste of time and money. The real terrorists would always be able to find more.
Darn it, I had a perfectly well made knee-jerk opinion until you came along! *shakes fist*
Except that, in these cases, the FBI *does* appear to have not only provided the means by which to commit the crime, but *also* convinced the suspect to commit the crime, taking nearly a year in one case to do so. At *best*, that makes the FBI an accessory to the 'terror plot', because it was their idea, and they provided the motive, opportunity, and (fake) means to follow through.
The 1993 WTC bombing was an FBI plot, which they allowed to explode. Front page of the NYTimes, October 18, 1993. Article by Ralph Blumenthal.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/28/nyregion/tapes-depict-proposal-to-thwart-bomb-used-in-trade-center-blast.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
The FBI's agent provacateur was Emad Salem, who recorded his conversations with his FBI handlers. These were discovered by Kunstler and put into the trial record. As there are no books on the subject, that trial record must have been sealed.
Salem made statements such as "I can replace the explosives with inert substances". FBI said 'No, don't do that." The FBI knew everything, the bomb went off, 4 people killed, $500M damage, 1000 people hurt and the NYTimes can't even remember the incident.
The OKC bombing was almost certainly an FBI plot, perhaps ATF, perhaps both. Agent provacateur was Andreas Strassmeier, who didn't have the brains to record his conversations with his handlers. Or, maybe he did, as he got back to Germany, has never been interviewed by any law enforcement. One of the British papers interviewed him by phone, Strassmeier didn't exactly confess, but part way there.
There is a ton of evidence that the Feds knew that bombing was going to happen, allowed it to happen. NYTimes doesn't remember any of that either.
After each of these incidents, Congress passed laws benefiting the FBI.
The FBI is the only remaining terrorist organization in the US, goes on issuing its yearly report on terrorism without mentioning that fact.
What ever happened to considering the source of a piece like this before swallowing every word it sells? I wonder when the last time was that the NY Times ran a story about the FBI that wasn't an attack piece. It's easy to criticize the FBI if all you know is what you read in the NYT Times, but did it ever occur to you that they have absolutely no clue what they are talking about when it comes to running a counterterrorism operation? How about you try basing your opinions on an unbiased source. Might I suggest the proverbial scoreboard, which, as we all know, is incapable of lying? How many terrorist plots have been successfully carried out on US soil in the last decade? Now compare that with the decades prior. Now consider revising your opinion on the effectiveness of the FBI's current tactics.
We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated).
It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.
reichstag fire, anyone?
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Eh?
From the article
"'Only the government could have made a 'terrorist' out of Mr. Cromitie, whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in its scope,' said Judge Colleen McMahon, sentencing him to 25 years. She branded it a "fantasy terror operation" but called his attempt "beyond despicable" and rejected his claim of entrapment."
So if she thinks it's a fantasy and buffoonery, why give him 25 years for it?
Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
The people blowing themselves up are not the problem. There are lots of people around who are emotionally vulnerable, depressed, or suicidal and can be persuaded to die for something that they are convinced is the greater good. There was a case near where I grew up a couple of years ago where a suicide bomber killed himself (and no one else, fortunately, although he did cause some serious damage to the toilet he blew up in and some moderate damage to the surrounding restaurant). He was mentally ill, and was undergoing treatment that was working right up until someone convinced him to stop taking his antipsychotics. The problem is the people who prey on people like him and are perfectly willing to let other people die for their cause.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
except if you read the article, the FBI is enticing people to comitt terrorism.
This is no different then a UC prostitute standing out on the corner, if the prostitute was not there then the John would not break the law.
Yeah, the FBI does look like a bunch of whores in this. At least it's not as bad as Ruby Ridge or Waco.
Free Martian Whores!
I hear "we need to cut spending" probably every day on talk radio. Obviously they're wasting money, so why don't we just tell the FBI to knock it off, fire all the senior staff, and cut their budget in half? It's not like they have a lobby. Do they?
The editorial forgot to mention the 93 WTC attack and claimed that the under wear bomber was an independent actor when the eye witness testimony of Kurt Haskell and Lori Haskell suggest that he had some one who appeared official assist him in gaining passage on his flight see http://www.ticklethewire.com/2009/12/29/atty-says-he-saw-man-try-to-help-nigerian-on-flight-without-a-passport/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu5l7a7dgP4#
Op Eds like this that are half true act as armor for an agency that is even worse than the editorial suggests. It also gives critics of the FBI fuel to burn the agency with since it seems like Home Land Security is the darling of TPTB and makes the FBI redundant. Perhaps TPTB see the FBI as being too much of a liability and not enough of an asset in the year 2012.
By providing sabotaged means to commit the crime ?
They only provided the means ... unless by providing the opportunity you mean not arresting them at the first sign of trouble.
And providing motive ? How do you even do that ? They weren't exactly brainwashing these people.
I'm questioning if the accused would have ever become violent or hurt people had the FBI not come knocking and given them the opportunity and means.
They're using their grammar skills there.
They only provided the means ... unless by providing the opportunity you mean not arresting them at the first sign of trouble.
And providing motive ? How do you even do that ? They weren't exactly brainwashing these people.
From TFA, emphasis mine:
A quarter million dollars is quite a bit of motivation. The way it's described here, it sounds an awful lot like Mr. Cromitie wouldn't have attempted this without the promise of the $250K. I.e., the FBI provided the motive.
And eleven months of continuous pressuring starts to look a bit like brainwashing, frankly. This is not a picture of "somebody who would jump at the opportunity if a real terrorist showed up in town," which is what former federal prosecutor Raskin claims the FBI is looking for.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I suggest that your premise, successful terrorists are not "dime store idiots" is flawed. First of all, anyone who would blow himself up, to "help out" his chosen all-powerful deity is a madman or a fool, or both.
Those aren't the people you want to catch. The real people you are after are the scouting teams and recruiters. The scouting teams are the educated people who plan terrorist ops (yes they are real, and the alphabet soup agencies know about them. I have a friend in security who was briefed about them by the feds) and recon potential attack locations. Putting these people away prevents well planned and coordinated attacks like 9-11 and the WTC bombing. Additionally, if you catch these people, you can probably get names of people they have recruited and names of financiers.
They are much more difficult to catch and charge, since they aren't really doing anything by gathering info, which isn't illegal in and of itself. Every agent working on busting dumb people is one not working on catching this much harder quarry. The deluded and confused don't generally plan things that kill and maim thousands by themselves.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Its been done before with drugs too. They have agents befriend someone in a bar, keep talking about having large amounts of drugs to sell, and ask the person if they know anyone. Then introduce another person to the victim who wants to buy large amounts of drugs. Keep on asking about the other and business. When the person finally introduces both agents they arrest him as a major drug dealer.
What did this person do? could have been an obnoxious critic, friends with the wrong, people, wrong place wrong time. By the time they get done ruining his reputation, he barely has any option than to plead for 20 years and is buried.
Why? Drum up statistics to show "enforcement" is working and needs more money and budget cannot be cut. Additionally its a great way to conviently get rid of mal-contents.
Dig a hole, fill it up?
I seriously don't see the problem. We as a society have laws that people cannot kill for money.
We also have laws that people cannot solicit other people to kill for money. From the US Code, Title 18, Section 2:
Additional resources: Wikipedia on "solicitation" in criminal law, Wikipedia on "aiding and abetting" in criminal law.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."