I don't see anyone commenting on a specific part of the article where basic it implies that white-supremacy groups are basically flying under the FBI radar.
Isn't that quite the bothersome perspective? It's to me in the same level of awe as the part of hand-leading people into terrorist acts. Probably even related, as a police state can make use of home-grown hooligans that are just waiting for the oportunity to put their 'peers' in line through violence.
How much further along is there before the US turns into a full-blown totalitarian regime?
Except for the fact that the bulk of the arrests on terrorism-related charges in the past year have been white supremacists and "militiamen" who share your apparent fantasies regarding an oncoming fascist state I guess you would have a point...
Your phrase "source for this claim" implies to me that you didn't read the Rolling Stone article under discussion. It is a "source for this claim."
Quoting from the article: "But don't worry your pretty little heads over the epidemic of far-right insurrectionism that followed the election of Barack Obama: all told, according to a forthcoming data analysis by Neiwert, there have been 55 cases of right-wing extremists being arrested for plotting or committing alleged terrorists acts compared to 26 by Islamic militants during the same period. The right-wing plots include the bombing of a 2011 Martin Luther King Day parade in Spokane and the assassination of abortion doctor George Tiller in 2009."
It links to http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-... which includes a list of "incidents of insurrectionist violence". It also links to a book, "Over the Cliff: How Obama's Election Drove the American Right Insane" by the aforementioned Neiwert.
I wonder if it's the result of the embarrassment that came out of Ruby Ridge? Also, I imagine that there's a certain element of control, predictability, and cowardice: as an undercover cop or informant, I'm going to feel a lot more comfortable 'infiltrating' a protest movement than I am going into a somewhat isolated, armed, and organized group.
The damage inflicted goes beyond those who are being entrapped. This type of behaviour develops a culture which lives in irrational fear. The type of irrational fear that makes a population believe that body scanners at airports are acceptable, that all muslims must be Terrorists, and that no one is trust worthy anymore.
We need to remember what our core principles are. We have allowed terrorists to influence the way we live our lives, and in doing so we have allowed them to win. That's right, we ALLOWED them to win.
I last reread Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago not long after 9/11. What was particularly salient is how many of the people he describes had been charged with terrorism by Stalin's organs.
There's nothing particularly shocking in the rolling stone article. Terrorists are so designated for political ends.
That's not to say that they're never criminals, just that conspiracy to blow up a bridge is already a crime.
I disagree with defining terrorism so broadly. An act (or the ability to execute an act) of violence targeted against a civilian population is necessary to be considered terrorism. The FBI has been attempting to widen the definition over the past ten years (successfully I might add) & has clearly focused on helping groups gain (very minimally) the capabilities of executing a terrorist act.
I am not sure if the Pentagon is considered a military building or a civilian building (I think there is a valid argument to make that it is a civilian building.) I do not believe that the attack on the USS Cole should be classified as an act of terrorism.
As far as acts that resemble terrorism during war, they can be classified as war crimes. Actions during war have their own categories of law, so I would disagree with using the fire bombing of Dresden or the bombing of Tokyo as examples.
"The Pentagon is the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense, located in Arlington County, Virginia. As a symbol of the U.S. military, "the Pentagon" is often used metonymically to refer to the Department of Defense rather than the building itself."
You can find soldiers at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, that doesn't make the tomb a military installation. The mere presence of military personnel does not make a facility a military installation. Since the Pentagon is where the civilian leadership of the military is located, the building is arguably a civilian facility.
I am aware that JCS meets in the Pentagon, what is the point you are attempting to make? The fact is no troops are trained, quartered, & mobilized for war in the Pentagon. The Pentagon is a civilian location. In the U.S. civilians run the military (in other words the chiefs answer to their bosses, the secretaries, who answer to their boss the SecDef.)
Tora Bora is where the Taliban trained, mobilized, & quarter troops (even if they were irregulars.) This is the distinction between a military facility & a civilian facility that happens to deal with military affairs.
Terrorism is opposition to the current political setup. It's not _just_ that; there are other requirements (terrorism is a subclass of opposition, if you will) but I was simplifying in the service of an epigram. (",)
DHS needs to justify its budget and spying on Americans. To do so they need homegrown terrorists. Put yourself in the position of a DC bureaucrat. It's a lot safer to deal with losers than dangerous wackos.
I'm sorry, but I have little sympathy for someone who was able to be convinced to blow up $thing with nothing more than a "Gee, it would be nice to blow up $thing wouldn't it?"
That's not entrapment. Any sane, law abiding person would react viscerally and negative to such a suggestion.
I don't even like Congress, but if you were to suggest that setting a bomb in the building was a sane course of action, I'd ask what you were smoking.
This isn’t a question of sympathy, it’s a question of what types of behaviour on the part of the police are in society’s best interests. I don’t have sympathy for a shoplifter, but if the police beat a confession out of him, I am troubled by their actions.
The world where the police can suggest targets to a group and supply the materials for action is also a world where you can take your taxes to an accountant, have him suggest some “aggressive” reporting of expenses, and when you agree you are arrested when it turns out the accountant was an undercover fraud squad officer.
It’s a world where you can take a Porche out for a test drive and discover that the sales man who gave you directions to a deserted highway and suggested you speed was really an undercover police officer padding the unit’s statistics.
I can’t even imagine how badly this could go if undercover police officers were to pose as high school students. Actually, I can, there has already been at least one case where a female officer suggested a male citizen procure drugs for her and then arrested him when he complied.
I don’t need to sympathize with tax cheats, fast drivers, or love-smitten young men to fear the police state that doesn’t have enough criminals to catch and therefore must manufacture some of its own.
Summary: yes, these people are unsympathetic. But also yes, it’s important to ask questions about the choices the police are making to prosecute them.
"This isn’t a question of sympathy, it’s a question of what types of behaviour on the part of the police are in society’s best interests. I don’t have sympathy for a shoplifter, but if the police beat a confession out of him, I am troubled by their actions.
The world where the police can suggest targets to a group and supply the materials for action is also a world where you can take your taxes to an accountant, have him suggest some “aggressive” reporting of expenses, and when you agree you are arrested when it turns out the accountant was an undercover fraud squad officer."
You're right, it's not about sympathy. It's exactly as you said, what is the in the best interests of society.
But the scenario you present of an accountant is a totally incorrect comparison in my view. An accountant is executing a complex task on your behalf presumably in good faith. We hire accountants because they are masters of a certain domain of knowledge, experts that guide us. Your scenario uses totally ambiguous language, and it would be understandable for the client of the accountant to be confused as to whether "aggressive" means "I'm using all my tools to save you money in a good faith effort" or "I'm going to pull one over on Uncle Sam".
What is NOT AT ALL ambiguous is the idea that someone has an intent to BLOW UP A BRIDGE, a desire to harm the infrastructure of this country and waste millions of dollars IN THE BEST CASE SCENARIO. At worst, loss of life and death to our fellow Americans. I can't even begin to understand how these two scenarios are in any way similar.
The FBI agent that guided these people through a process they willingly participated in is not comparable to an accountant. This is not some ambiguous undertaking where a poorly chosen phrasing of words can lead to a misunderstanding where an illegal action could potentially take place. The world is not black and white, but when you get to the point where you are actively participating in an effort that is frantically scanning the pages of the Anarchist Cookbook to produce explosives... I'd suggest that this scenario is pretty easily understood as wrong.
And the original poster is 100% correct: "That's not entrapment. Any sane, law abiding person would react viscerally and negative to such a suggestion."
This is not a movie. This is real life. This is not V. You don't get to run around executing on a plan to blow things up, regardless of who is leading you and their intentions, without some real serious consequences and without the FBI taking you down.
This isn't about me, or my sympathy's or tolerances (of which I have none and little, respectively) but it is about what we will tolerate as a society and what is in our best interests. As you suggested.
I think it's in society's best interests to roll these people up. I have absolutely zero qualms about taking people off the chess board that think it's a great idea for everyone to pile into the van and visit the bomb site.
These are grown adults, not children. It's not about my pop-psychology either, but I think if we all think about it for a moment, it's not hard to imagine that these people already had the core of this in them. Anyone who vacillates on whether or not building bombs to blow things up is right or wrong... These are super well balanced people who were led astray and corrupted in a series of weeks?
"Summary: yes, these people are unsympathetic. But also yes, it’s important to ask questions about the choices the police are making to prosecute them."
Ask away. In my view, it's easily answered. If you don't find it to be an easy answer, I can say that I honestly can't begin to understand your perspective, but I'd be interested in your response.
I think it's in society's best interests to roll these people up. I have absolutely zero qualms about taking people off the chess board that think it's a great idea for everyone to pile into the van and visit the bomb site.
Hunh, I think that’s the same argument to be used for illegal wiretapping, slapping GPS transmitters on cars, and on an on. "We’re after nasty people, so society’s best interests are served by having us use every tool at our disposal and letting us choose who, when, and why without oversight.” And yes, the answer may be easy for you, but it’s also easy for me. I don’t think the fact that these people may be nasty has any bearing on what should or shouldn’t constitute due process. I also don’t think that discovering their nastiness after the fact justifies the police actions before the fact of their nastiness has been established.
I suspect there are deep, deep philosophical divides at work here. For your reading interest, I present something that happened during the a long-ago spate of successful domestic terrorism events:
And you're taking the same mischaracterization that an above post takes: I do not feel this was okay because "these are nasty people", as if my delicate sensibilities cringe at the idea of "icky people", people that are different than me or have different view than I have.
That is a false representation of my views.
I think it's okay to roll up on these people because they think it's okay to blow up bridges, and because they took all necessary actions to indicate intent, which would clearly and unequivocally be a crime.
Due process? They will get their day in court. If it turns out that they were just minding their business, being upstanding citizens in our society until an FBI agent kidnapped them and forced them to participate in a bomb plot, then I will gladly eat crow and be on the side of their exoneration and justice.
I am sure there are many things our government does that would not stand up with respect to a hard, realistic look at constitutionality. I am not naive enough to believe that "because the government does it, it's not illegal" nor am I for the wrongful persecution of political or religious organizations "just because I don't like them".
But here is my bottom line: people that plot to blow up pieces of American infrastructure and who then take steps to follow out that plan are criminals. I'm kind of amazed I even have to state this.
people that plot to blow up pieces of American infrastructure and who then take steps to follow out that plan are criminals. I'm kind of amazed I even have to state this.
I’m amazed you are stating this because it isn’t the argument against what the police are doing. The argument solely concerns what measures are appropriate for identifying and gathering evidence about criminals.
We can agree that they are criminals. My point is, I have questions about the way in which the police are conducting their “investigation,” and I don’t care whether they people being investigated turn out to be criminals. I get that you think they are criminals and you have no sympathy for criminals.
It goes back to my example of the police beating a confession out of a shoplifter. Or a murderer. Or torturing a terrorist. The guilt of the suspect is not the issue to me whatsoever.
And just so you know, I want domestic terrorists caught and convicted. We’re simply discussing how society should go about it.
My point is, I have questions about the way in which the police are conducting their “investigation,”
I don't, in this case. We can take a few things as given, yes?
1) There is no legitimate reason for an individual to attempt to blow up a piece of domestic infrastructure.
2) Any person who, given the materials, has no qualms committing the act in 1, is a criminal and should be taken off the streets.
This isn't even like most other stings. Drugs, speeding, whatever. There are legitimate reasons, law notwithstanding, to do both of those things. However, a person who takes steps to blow up a building and kill a bunch of people.. nope. There's zero question in my mind about someone who would do that. There is no legitimate reason. I suspect that the FBI will have a 100% success rate with these actions, and zero false positives.
What are the chances someone will be innocently caught in this dragnet? Pretty much zero. So where is the harm to society?
What of the harm to peaceful protesters who aren't going to be arrested? Should they be allowed to organize and plan peaceful actions without police officers continually derailing their discussions by trying to incite violence? What of the people scared away from protesting peacefully by that scary guy in the corner who keeps talking about blowing shit up? Should they be continually fearing that any expression that can be taken out of context as indicating they're advocating violence (Such as riffing off a Batman quote http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/some-men-just-want-to-watch-th... )
Which might be moot if I believed any of the groups mentioned would have committed these acts without the involvement of police officers or informants. But I don't, so.
[edit: Looking up another reference, I found a case you might find troubling.
>Should they be allowed to organize and plan peaceful actions without police officers continually derailing their discussions by trying to incite violence?
This is what's called harassment, and it's illegal. Furthermore, I challenge you to find a record of any such ongoing such actions.
In the Guardian link I posted it lists a mosque gaining a restraining order against a FBI infiltrator. They also reported him to the FBI, but as the FBI was employing him, they didn't do anything about it.
In any case, the FBI was out of control.. (as usual it seems..) - But they got a restraining order. Isn't that what you're supposed to do when someone won't leave you the hell alone?
"My point is, I have questions about the way in which the police are conducting their “investigation,” and I don’t care whether they people being investigated turn out to be criminals."
So what are your questions about police conduct during the investigation?
I think it's in society's best interests to roll these people up. I have absolutely zero qualms about taking people off the chess board that think it's a great idea for everyone to pile into the van and visit the bomb site.
I agree.
That's why we formed the PreCrime police force, but were forced to shut it down because of that movie with Tom Cruise ... Minority Consort or something like that.
I know it was a joke, but seriously addressing this: It wasn't a "pre-crime". It wasn't a fleeting thought of "god dammnit I'm so mad I could blow this whole place up!!", it wasn't venting. It was coldly, calculatingly plotting to blow up the infrastructure of America as part of a political agenda.
Count yourself lucky you don't live in the UK, where you can be convicted for tweeting "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"
It's not textbook entrapment unless they're conditioning people to want to commit acts of terrorism they wouldn't otherwise commit, but who cares? I do not want the people charged with protecting me to manufacture threats that justify their existence.
I think the law is a bit more complicated than that. Anyone who commits a crime has some propensity. Entrapment is meant to draw a line between encouraging a person to commit a crime, and simply giving them an opportunity (i.e. a sting operation).
Most sting operations (not entrapments) aim to catch habitual criminals - drug addicts, dealers, thieves, etc. Habitual criminals have a propensity to commit the offense, people who were talked into it by an agent do not.
Nobody cares if someone innocent is busted for saying "Yeah, let's bomb a bridge!" What people are afraid of is that the FBI is the only thing pushing real terrorism forward. That but for the FBI, it would ALL be just talk. That's pretty dangerous if you ask me.
(To my follow-up comment, I forgot to add: what if the person who precipitates the terrorist plot and manoeuvers into being the final link in the chain simply CAN'T be that link. Maybe they get EXTREMELY ill, maybe they die, maybe someone else convinces the rest of the organization to let THEM do it, what if all the pieces are laid and then the informant is simply replaced by someone who doesn't know enough not to set the thing off at the end...)
The bombs are duds. Meaning that even if they attempt to set them of, nothing will happen.
And, presumably the FBI is keeping so well tap on them that if they somehow got acces to real explosives (which can't be that hard, considering Tanerite is legal, as is fertilizer if purchased in small enough quantities) they would be arrested earlier.
They may be 'duds', but there are plenty of instances of the FBI providing actual explosives even if the 'detonator' is not going to work large quantities of high explosives in and of themselves are dangerous.
I'm not really familiar with the case, and the article isn't clear. Had they already decided to carry out the act and were merely discussing a target, or were they bullshitting the best way to "disrupt the 1%" or whatever other nonsense, when the informant offered up the C4 and where and how to detonate it?
Moving a serious conversation about blowing up "a bridge" versus a "cargo ship" using bleach explosives to a "big bridge" using C4 isn't "inventing terrorists".
It may not have been a serious conversation. I've met a few "anarchists" in college, and the limit to what they can usually accomplish is a bit of graffiti.
They'd need leadership, training, and materials to actually accomplish anything.
I'm sure you could find a few people here who talk about ways they could hack into banks, but they aren't bank robbers. If you came up with a great plan (designed by a bank security specialist), and egged them on, then you might be able to convince a few to join you.
Being "lead" isn't the same as being bossed around. As long as the leader doesn't claim some authority over the other members, it can still be "anarchist" leadership.
Surely the anarchist would have dismantled the power structure and put some kind of heterarchical system in its place, assuming he had the power to do so. If he was just planning to sit in his special chair and laugh it up, then yes, that is ridiculous.
If one is promoting a system radically different to the status quo, one inevitably has to compromise to some extent to make progress, unless you're planning a violent coup or something.
They'd need leadership, training, and materials to actually accomplish anything.
Great point... The FBI is taking what is basically a thought crime and pushing that person along until they commit an arrestable offense.
Like all government agencies, the FBI (and all departments within it) has to continue to prove it's usefulness in order for everyone to keep their jobs and keep getting nice government salaries and bonuses.
So, if there isn't a real terroristic threat, they'll just invent one.
If every conversation among people of all political persuasions was exploited, you'd see a very different picture. You really think conversations among Tea Partiers, Democratic party drones, and other mainstream-type groups never bring up fantasies of violence on their supposed enemies? Or do you think there are no unstable and insecure people who could be turned among these political blocs?
In particular, it seems like it'd be pretty easy to entrap some of the gun-show types who talk about "second amendment solutions", goading them into making more specific statements. I'm not sure it makes sense to lock up everyone who has a very generalized idea of using violence, though, especially if it takes coaching to get them to articulate it with any specifics.
It's not illegal to fantasize. It is illegal to attempt to blow up a bridge. Federal law is remarkably consistent on this, whether you vote Democrat, Republican, or Ron Paul.
That isn't how conspiracy to commit works. There has to have been foo (or an attempt at foo), and demonstrable knowledge of that act of foo (or highly probable knowledge), and actions to further the committing of foo (direct or indirect I believe). Just exploring stuff in the hypothetical is completely legal.
It is illegal to attempt to blow up the bridge. But if you do so when led by an agent of the state, having been convinced by an agent of the state to perform the act, and with the necessary materials provided by the state, then you ought not be convicted of a crime.
The more worrying part of this article is the targeting of certain groups and certain ideologies. Even if this particular case wasn't entrapment, that the FBI is specifically targeting certain groups and egging them on to commit acts of violence, is undemocratic and just plain evil.
Agreed. These guys have lawyers and will be tried in front of a judge. If they can prove entrapment, then the charges will be dismissed.
The gov't isn't stupid about this, they want convictions, they have their own lawyers (prosecutors). No doubt many conversations were had about avoiding entrapment and ensuring that the party in question committed a crime.
I'm not saying that there aren't abuses, but the gov't (ATF, DEA, etc) have been doing this for decades. This is nothing new.
How many times, though, have you jokingly said to a close friend that you should blow X up to solve the world's problems? It's akin to saying we should ship all of X type of people to some third world country. It doesn't mean you want to act on the thing. It might be a joke in bad taste, but words do not equal action. This guy apparently felt "pressured" by this agent to go through with an act. I don't know what that means, but it surely casts doubt on the ethics of the investigating agency.
Any of you beancounting/game theory types fancy analysing this trend in the FBI's behaviour from an economic perspective? What is the driver or incentive for them to do this?
It's not so much an economic perspective as a political one, the government derives its power (and income) from the current federal reserve system, if something were to undermine this system the government would be left toothless and facing a very angry populace.
A full investigation of the banking system would cause credibility to be lost by the banks which would unravel the whole system as the fractional reserve system collapses. Thus the government needs to remove credibility from those who pose a threat to this system.
As to why white supremacists aren't targeted, white supremacists don't pose any fundamental threat to the banks or to power because their ideas are unpopular, occupy touches upon an angry thread running through the country that the average person cannot get ahead. Threads like these unseat governments, an unseated government cannot prevent an investigation into the banks.
It's not simply a political factor (although it mostly is.) This has nothing to do with the Fed (which I believe should be done away with.) The powers the USG use to go after groups that potentially threaten it existed before 1913 (even though more powers have been added since then.) The Fed has nothing to do what so ever with this discussion.
I misunderstood your comment then (my apologies for down voting it then.) My best guess is that there are probably a number of reasons why the Feds are targeting specific groups.
It could be as simple as the Occupy movement represents a target rich environment.
This doesn't explain why they keep doing it to muslims who don't care about the fed, or at least dont care about it any more than any other aspect of US culture.
I meant economic in more of a generalised "freakonomics" sense.
+1 that is a great point about the occupy movement. The level of violence against who I think are largely law-abiding protestors has surprised me. It seems like we are quickly becoming a different sort of country.
The incentive is the same with any law enforcement agency, arrests & convictions. The number of arrests & convictions is how all law enforcement agencies are judged; the more you the better you are.
But why this tactic particularly? Why not go after actual dangerous groups?
Are you implying that there aren't enough of these groups to justify their budget, so they have to invent them? This is indeed the obvious conclusion. I was wondering if anyone with more knowledge of the specifics could dream up something more juicy...
It's easier for the FBI to arrest a terrorist that they have been involved with the whole time than to catch a terrorist who is actually hiding from law enforcement.
How about it raises the costs of coordinating a conspiracy - it signals to other protest groups that if someone starts suggesting violence, you should decline because they might be an agent. That could then prevent violence in cases where no undercover agents have infiltrated the group.
I still think the tactic is unethical, but this is one way it could be effective.
The incentive is more legal than economic. Everything terrorists do is within the law until they take the specific act of trying to kill people. Joining a terrorist organization is not illegal. Recruiting people into a terrorist organization is not illegal. Speaking out in support of a terrorist organization is not illegal. Wanting to kill innocent people because they're the wrong race or religion and talking about it day after day after day is not illegal. There are good reasons for this.
So basically, nothing that terrorists do is illegal until they actually go out and try to kill someone. The FBI can use a person's history of lawful activities to find people who match the profile of someone who is highly likely to commit a terrorist act in the near future and offer them a fake bomb and a ride to the nearest synagogue. When that person pushes the button, that establishes the intent to commit a crime. It's no different than going up to a guy the police think is a drug dealer -- because of the clothes and the way he acts and other lawful activities -- and asking if he'll sell them any drugs. It's not entrapment unless the police really screw up their approach.
As for the economics, consider the alternatives. Waiting to see if the terrorist would use a real bomb carries a high risk, and the terrorist would be less likely to be convicted than in the case of a FBI-provided fake bomb. The court system has exonerated terrorists with strong evidence against them like Sayyid Nosair and Sami al-Arian because they claimed to have been oppressed and persecuted for being Muslims and found sympathetic juries. The fake bomb plots with their careful establishment of identity, motive, and criminal action have all gained convictions.
Articles like this are pointless. Americans as a whole will not band together to prevent or rectify problems like this because of one or more of the following:
FEAR) We're all expecting the government to view anything related to freedom as an act of terrorism that will get us into pound-me-in-the-ass prison or worse.
DENIAL) That will never happen to me if I just keep my head down. Only bad people have that happen to them.
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSIBILITY) I'm nobody, so how could I change government policy? That is something that important people can do, but not me, I'm just a(n) __________.
Suppose I went out and sought out people who I think might have a beef with the american government, proposed a terrorist plot to them, and supplied them with the tools to do it (and the FBI has supplied real explosives in the past to these groups).. and then they do it and all die in the process, but cause death of innocents as well.
If I did all that, would I be guilty of something? Probably conspiracy and a dozen other crimes.
Ok, now, if I'm doing the exact same actions, but I'm a member of the government, does that make my actions less of a crime?
If something is a crime, does the criminality of it change depending on who is doing it?
Is it ok for the president to murder someone but not for a distraught spouse?
Is it ok for an FBI agent to set up a terrorist plot that gets foiled, but not ok for a truck driver?
Imagine in both cases, before the plot can be put in motion, that law enforcement swoops in. The plot hasn't occurred yet, so they haven't actually committed an act of terrorism. But they did plan one and engage in a conspiracy to do it.
In that case, isn't the FBI agent legally as guilty as anyone else in the conspiracy?
How can the law be relative and let certain members of society off the hook- especially if, as it appears, those members were the primary conspirators, and without whome nothing would have happened?
Whether this is "entrapment" or not is besides the point here-- if participating a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act is itself a crime, then isn't organizing the same also a crime?
And shouldn't' criminality apply to anyone, no matter what their profession.
If the law starts treating certain members of society differently than others, you don't have the rule of law so much any more and you start having two classes- the untouchables and the common.
Police getting away with speeding doesn't always hurt society (thought it does cause wrecks) but over time, it seems natural that more and more laws will apply to the common folk and not to the "elite" and the elite will come to use their powers more and more for their own advantage.
This disconnect is corruptive in nature, I believe.
Mental state is an element of most crimes. Conspiracy, for example requires that the conspirator intend for the object of the conspiracy to be carried out. A detective posing as a hit man might arrange with a woman to murder her husband for $5000[0], but can clearly demonstrate he had no intent to carry out the murder. An informant can sell a terrorist fake explosives and clearly demonstrate he had no intention of blowing anything up.
I, as a private citizen could do the same thing, though I might end up having to argue to a jury that my intentions were pure if the police stepped in halfway through.
Suppose I take someone I find disagreeable and put them in a room and say I'll take basic care of them but that they can't leave for 5-7 years. If I did this it would be illegal. If the government does it it is not. Yet incarceration is not championed as a violation of the rule of law.
The accused will still get a fair trial. The reason entrapment isn't besides the point is covert police activity checked by laws against entrapment are part of a long tradition of legally admissible police behaviour - there is nothing evidently abnormal about this case.
I do not believe in exceptionalism - if I were in the wrong social group I cannot say for certain I could not, eventually, be re-conditioned in a socially destructive way. Whether it is the individual's or the movement's or society's fault that a young person is found seriously contemplating (a threshold with judicial precedent that the FBI is and the jury will be made aware of) blowing up bridges is irrelevant from the perspective of justice as much as a shooter's peers bullying him is to his sentencing. Those factors, instead, inform reform discussions going forward.
Thinking about a crime is not - and should not - be a crime. Actively planning one is. The line between conception and execution is blurry. That does not mean we need to watch and wait for someone to blow up a bridge before we can arrest them.
I think you make a strong argument. Here's a question: What happens when the smart anarchist turns in the snitch to the local police department with full documentation of conspiracy to commit a terrorist act?
It's happened! They ended up having to get a restraining order against him.
"Yet, far from succeeding, Monteilh eventually so unnerved Orange County's Muslim community that that they got a restraining order against him. In an ironic twist, they also reported Monteilh to the FBI: unaware he was in fact working undercover for the agency."
What a great read; thanks for posting it. While the reported outcome differed from the Rolling Stone article, the FBI's modus operandi appear the same.
> Is it ok for the president to murder someone but not for a distraught spouse?
It's not OK for the President to murder someone, but it may be OK to kill someone if it's within President's powers as chief executive and commander in chief. These powers are vast, that's the reason people carefully examine candidate's abilities, experience, moral standing, ability to take right decisions, etc. and do not base their choice on catchy bumper stickers and amount of money the candidate promises to extract from other people and give to them. Or at least they should be doing this if they don't want surprises later...
We need to increase the number of checks and balances in our government. They've been eroding steadily over the last century, resulting in the overly powerful executive branch we have today. For example, there was a time when the president did not have the ability to wage war without legislative approval.
The progressives (circa 1900) were not the first group that wished to diminish checks and balances, but they were the most consistent opponents of that system. And because they had a complete, systematic ideology, they succeeded in their goals, even though they were incorrect. See the following paragraph from Woodrow Wilson's book, "The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People":
"The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live. On the contrary, its life is dependent upon their quick co-operation, their ready response to the commands of instinct or intelligence, their amicable community of purpose. Government is not a body of blind forces; it is a body of men, with highly differentiated functions, no doubt, in our modern day, of specialization, with a common task and purpose. Their co-operation is indispensable, their warfare fatal. There can be no successful government without the intimate, instinctive co-ordination of the organs of life and action. This is not theory, but fact, and displays its force as fact, whatever theories may be thrown across its track. Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop."
Isn't that quite the bothersome perspective? It's to me in the same level of awe as the part of hand-leading people into terrorist acts. Probably even related, as a police state can make use of home-grown hooligans that are just waiting for the oportunity to put their 'peers' in line through violence.
How much further along is there before the US turns into a full-blown totalitarian regime?
This all seems eerily in line with this bleak proposal: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-... (2007)