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.
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
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.
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.
What if you don't trust the cops?
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Or you are a moron that is cajoled by professional government con men for a year and then offered a big payout?
These people may (and likely are) be shitbags, but we pay the FBI to stop crime not create it.
:-)
"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?
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
Yeah, torture (your stupid euphemisms don't change what it actually is) doesn't actually work. As has been explained to your ilk ad nauseam, people will tell their torturers what they want to hear in order to end the torture, even if it's entirely untrue.
Isn't that News of the world was doing??
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
Here is another article from last year that's more in depth: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/fbi-terrorist-informants
Just in case anyone takes you seriously: The argument for torture would be a lot stronger if it had a track record of actually *working*. Unlike in the movies, in real life the evidence is that the reliability of information gathered using torture is actually very low. While being tortured people will say whatever they think you want to hear, and a lie will likely work better than the truth, without requiring them to betray their colleagues.
And lets drop this "enhanced interrogation techniques" BS and call it what it is - just because the torture is mostly psychological instead of pulling fingernails or crushing bones doesn't fundamentally change anything. All suffering is ultimately psychological, pain is just an electrochemical signal indistinguishable from any other until it gets interpreted by the brain.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
So your saying it's SOP.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Shit happens. The question is, what do you do about it when you find out. If Jayson Blair worked for the FBI, he'd be Director by now.
we pay the FBI to stop crime not create it
That's convenient, then. Because they FBI encounters these guys while they are out shopping around for support, supplies, financing, and moral support for what they want to do. They encounter people who have come out saying they want to kill people, they've picked a target, etc. In a recent case, the clown had already cased his targets, shot all sorts of photographs, formed a plan, picked a likely date, etc. We have hours of recordings of agents telling him it's a really bad idea, and him insisting that he wants to do it, and will. That's not the FBI creating a crime.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Yeah, torture (your stupid euphemisms don't change what it actually is) doesn't actually work. As has been explained to your ilk ad nauseam, people will tell their torturers what they want to hear in order to end the torture, even if it's entirely untrue.
That is true, unless the person legitimately has something to hide. And even then torture does not work.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no1/article06.html
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."
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.
There would have been zero terrorist plots. Who's side are they on anyway?
The point of some coverups is to make it unprovable, no matter how likely it sounds. The point of other cover-ups is to make it like it never happened, those are the ones you want the least suspicion for.
Learn to love Alaska
"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.
It's an election year. Nobody wants to get caught looking like they're 'soft on terrorism', it could cost them votes.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
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!
Young men have been talked into such things for most of written history. Admittedly, usually not for certain death, but often for most likely death. Sometimes for better purposes, sometimes for worse. These days you can see commercials for it on TV.
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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment
It's a long-established point of law.
Just in case anyone takes you seriously: The argument for torture would be a lot stronger if it had a track record of actually *working*. Unlike in the movies, in real life the evidence is that the reliability of information gathered using torture is actually very low. While being tortured people will say whatever they think you want to hear, and a lie will likely work better than the truth, without requiring them to betray their colleagues.
I was always amused by the "ticking bomb" argument for torture. That's the situation that's *easiest* for the (presumed) culprit. Just say the wrong town, wrong address, wrong floor, wrong combination, whatever, and the ticking runs out while they're chasing wild geese.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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
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?
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!
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.
Hahahahahaha.
It could have been a good troll, but you messed it up.
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 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.
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.
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."
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"?
So if I promised an uneducated man $120k a year for monitoring safety on an oil rig, get him used to the lifestyle of that kind of income in Alabama. Then tell him that he needs to ignore an anomaly in a well cap - that it's probably okay anyway. Oh, and if he flags the problem, he might lose his $120k/yr. He know he'll be blackballed and and have to go back to digging ditches for $27k a year.
That well head bursts and sends millions of gallons of crude into the Gulf of Mexico.
If the enticers are corporations, who's responsible for the failure?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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.
you do realize saying this only reveals uncritical and simpleminded your thought processes are?
No, but I can see how much of a coward you are. You're so scared of terrorists and criminals that you're prepared to think it's acceptable for law enforcement to lie just to solve a case or catch a criminal.
I speak of how likely it is that you'll die in a terrorist attack; that should have been obvious.
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*
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.
Did people not get that I was joking?
you're not convincing anyone of anything on this topic except how clueless you are
Clueless of what? I haven't enough energy to play insulting matches for extended periods of time. So you, who apparently understands these issues, please enlighten me.
But, okay, I'll just state something: I don't care how likely it is that I'll die in a terrorist attack; I don't want to allow law enforcement or the government to law and entrap people to "catch the criminals" or "catch the terrorist" (same retarded mentality that allows for the TSA, Patriot Act, etc).
to law
Again? lie*
well i do. it's a honeypot. if you are inclined to mass murder civilians, that's the only way you will ever get wrapped up in this sort of thing. better an FBI fake front than genuinely malintentioned groups putting you to "use"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
that's the only way you will ever get wrapped up in this sort of thing.
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" comes to mind. Same attitude used to justify the Patriot Act and the TSA. "Why would the government ever be investigating you for wrongdoing if you aren't a criminal?"
If law enforcement is given the ability to lie without repercussion, it will inevitably be done to innocent civilians. We've seen this countless times, and in countless forms of government all throughout history. The scope of this is smaller, but the potential for abuse of authority (typical human nature) is all the same.
that was an interesting post, and bears absolutely nothing to what i was talking about: a honeypot operation, where your own intent is the only thing that gets you involved
plus, there is always an abuse of authority. in every country, in ever period. this is an argument for maintaining discipline and cracking down on rotten apples, not a valid argument against a valid government function that is supported by the people
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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!
a honeypot operation, where your own intent is the only thing that gets you involved
Or an innocent person. A honeypot is deception. We are giving law enforcement the ability to lie as they please. They can do whatever they want to catch these supposed criminals, and since there is no real oversight here, they can deceive and threaten as much as they please. There are very few people on this planet that would not submit to authority if they were under pressure (especially if they were threatened and lied to).
plus, there is always an abuse of authority.
Right. That's why authority figures must be limited in power.
This is like saying, "We'll give the government the ability to execute people on a whim without any oversight, and if they execute innocents, we'll just crack down on the rotten apples!"
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?
yes, power can be abused. power can be abused at a traffic stop too. so we should let people speed. power can be abused by the TSA. so let people bring anything on airplanes. power can be abused by any government entity with any authority. so we should have no government at all
pffffffffft
i'm not asking you to trust anyone. i'm asking you to see that discipline and rooting out bad apples is a separate issue that doesn't have any impact on the rationale for honeypots
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
yes, power can be abused. power can be abused at a traffic stop too. so we should let people speed. power can be abused by the TSA. so let people bring anything on airplanes. power can be abused by any government entity with any authority. so we should have no government at all
That's a very interesting set of straw men there. Government is a necessary evil, but its power must be limited in scope (and what powers it does have must be subject to checks and balances). Lying, warrantless wiretapping, random searches, random seizures, and other such nonsense are not things that it should be given the ability to do.
"Well, we let the government do X, so it should be able to do Y, too! What, you don't trust the government with the power to do Y? But you trust it to do X! Why not Y!?" It's a slippery slope.
so we should let people speed. power can be abused by the TSA. so let people bring anything on airplanes.
The TSA really is a piece of garbage that shouldn't exist in any form (unlike your example about how the government shouldn't exist). I certainly hope you're not defending it.
i'm asking you to see that discipline and rooting out bad apples is a separate issue that doesn't have any impact on the rationale for honeypots
It's not a separate issue, and I already explained why. Rooting out bad apples is extremely difficult when there is an absence of checks and balances (as there would be in a situation where law enforcement and government has the ability to lie to its targets on a whim). You can say you expect honeypots to work in a certain why, just like communism is often said to look good on paper, but in general, such powers will be abused.
there is no such thing as a slippery slope. you, who call me scared. it's like saying if we let gay people marry, then people will marry animals and dead people: slippery slope. or we can't legalize marijuana because then meth and crack will be legal: slippery slope. the slippery slope argument based on irrationality and fear
the idea of a slippery slope assumes that the people governed and the people power have no brains and can't tell different things apart. only someone who wishes to appeal to fear believes in slippery slope. you who cast accusations of fear, seem to have a belief system with fear as it's primary motivating thought
the government is not an alien entity out to abuse you just for lulz. it's made of people, just like you and me, given powers, by you and me, to only do certain things. where and when they screw up and abuse their powers, we reveal them and punish them
now go ahead, detract form the reasonable words i just wrote with an appeal to fear, that granting the government a little authority to make honeypots will inevitably lead to unfettered abuse. hypocrite
oh no! slippery slope! fear! hysteria!
here's another useless retarded argument for you: you're more likely to die in a car crash than get abused by the police, so you don't have to worry about getting abused by the police
LOL
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
it's like saying if we let gay people marry, then people will marry animals and dead people: slippery slope. or we can't legalize marijuana because then meth and crack will be legal: slippery slope. the slippery slope argument based on irrationality and fear
Way to fail to tell the difference between a fallacious slippery slope and a genuine slippery slope.
Do I need to explain such a simple concept to you? When I say, "Letting the government imprison citizens on a whim with no oversight if they believe them to be criminals is a slippery slope," it should be obvious as to why that is indeed a slippery slope. Humans in power (and humans in general) are extremely susceptible to corruption. All I'm say is: this power will be used for other purposes and eventually abused. My evidence? Human nature and history.
There is a difference between a slippery slope and the slippery slope fallacy. One is generally accompanied by no evidence or reason to believe that (like your examples). I thought you'd be a bit more informed than this.
the idea of a slippery slope assumes that the people governed and the people power have no brains and can't tell different things apart.
That is a very real possibility.
only someone who wishes to appeal to fear believes in slippery slope.
Only someone who denies the existence of corrupt governments (China, USSR, Nazi Germany, etc) would say that. Few expect or want their government to become corrupt, but it happens anyway. Giving too much power to a government is a slippery slope indeed.
the government is not an alien entity out to abuse you just for lulz. it's made of people
It's made of people. That is exactly the problem. That is why we must be ever vigilant. People can be corrupt, ignorant, and can make mistakes. The chance of the first increases the more power someone has.
where and when they screw up and abuse their powers, we reveal them and punish them
Difficult when there's no oversight. Difficult when the population at large is ignorant ("Nothing to hide, nothing to fear").
here's another useless retarded argument for you: you're more likely to die in a car crash than get abused by the police, so you don't have to worry about getting abused by the police
That wasn't the original argument to begin with. You seem to be fond of straw men. The point was this: why are people so hysterically afraid of terrorists and criminals when other tragic events are more likely to happen to them?
Though I fear I'm just wasting my time. The fact that I had to explain the concept of a slippery slope indicates this.
a slippery slope is based on fear. in your second paragraph, you basically enunciate what i should be afraid of, so i stopped reading there. i'm sorry, i understand that the people governed and people who govern can tell the difference between right and wrong
if you give a cop a gun, he can shoot an innocent man, but that is not a reason not to give him a gun
good day, fear-addled hypocrite
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i'm sorry, i understand that the people governed and people who govern can tell the difference between right and wrong
North Korea, China, Nazi Germany, ...
What were you saying, again? That corrupt governments don't exist? I"m beginning to think you're trolling. And I really hope you are. You're denying history and basic human nature here.
if you give a cop a gun, he can shoot an innocent man, but that is not a reason not to give him a gun
I've already replied to something similar. You're simply repeating your points ad nauseam.
good day, fear-addled hypocrite
You said that, for you, it wasn't about fear. But then you assume that for me, it is? And I certainly hope you're not resorting to the tu quoque fallacy there.
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.
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."