dagblog - Comments for "FBI: Five arrested in plot to blow up Ohio bridge"

Which is to say nothing about

Michael Maiello — Wed, 02 May 2012 19:50:14 +0000

In reply to So let's say Mr Carlin tells

Which is to say nothing about what the FBI is really up to here, which is to drum up and prosecute terrorism cases specifically so that we never roll back the post-9/11 anti-terrorism laws which... let's face it... it's time to roll back!

So let's say Mr Carlin tells

Donal — Wed, 02 May 2012 17:16:26 +0000

In reply to And you must want a

So let's say Mr Carlin tells Dr Hartley that he's depressed. Is the right thing for Dr Hartley to agree with Mr Carlin that life is pretty bleak, depress him even more and see if he is actually suicidal? Or should he hire Mr Petersen to hang around with Mr Carlin, talk him into a suicide attempt, then have Kojack there to arrest him just before he can actually do it? Who loves ya, Baby?

Maybe we could apply that strategy to other offenses. The police could hire people to drive faster and encourage other drivers that it was safe to speed. Over the hill is a state trooper with a radar gun. Potential speeders arrested, crime averted. They could hire people to wave cars through crosswalks, then arrest them for it. Scofflaws arrested, crime averted. They could hire people to hang out in bars, waiting for drunks to complain about their spouses. They would offer to kill their spouses, then arrest anyone that bites. Potential murderers arrested, crime averted. Even better, they could assign officers to marry people suspected of being violent, see if they could taunt them into spousal abuse, then arrest them. Spouse abusers arrested, crime averted.

Hey, I could offer my clients a cheap way around the building codes—then turn them in for it. Slumlords arrested, crime averted. And I'd make a bit of money along the way, too. Goading must be rewarded.

What a beautiful world it would be; what a glorious time to be free.

And you must want a

Elusive Trope — Wed, 02 May 2012 16:30:15 +0000

In reply to So you must have really

And you must want a psychiatrist to do nothing when a patient says he or she wants to kill him or herself since they haven't actually done anything that would lead to their death. Just let them walk out the door and wait until they actually do something that might harm him or herself.

It's a crazy notion, but sometimes society can make the determination that there is sufficient evidence based on conversations and behaviors to lead people to the conclusion is in the best interest to intervene in order to avoid a behavior from occurring. Since it is humans making the determination, there is the possibility of human error (Minority Report plays on the desire to have this human error removed from the process...which it can't be of course, blah blah blah).

The answer is not to stop making certain determinations because there is an error. Juries convict innocent people, and will always convict innocent people. But we don't get rid of the jury system. But we continuously attempt to minimize those factors which increase the likelihood of an error occurring. We put in safeguards and investigate when there is evidence that things are not operating as it should be.

When it comes to law enforcement and ideologically driven violence - whether racists or anarchists or prolifers or religious fanatics - there are sometimes statements and behaviors which would lead a reasonable person to determine that the individual or individuals pose a credible threat. This determination may be wrong. But if one believes it is credible there is some responsibility to act. One could spend all the resources, human and otherwise, to monitor them and wait to see if they do something. Or one can goad them as one might put it, and see what happens. Do what they call a sting.

And whether it is human trafficking or drug smuggling or terrorist activity, there are those, such as myself, that believe a sting operation is a legitimate means to intervene before an illegal activity occurs. Not always legitimate, but sometimes legitimate.

With the amount of information we have about this, it is impossible to determine whether it is one of those legitimate stings or not. A couple of little articles on the web is not going to determine that one way or the other.

So you must have really

Donal — Wed, 02 May 2012 15:54:21 +0000

In reply to If some lowly FBI informant

So you must have really enjoyed the early parts of Minority Report.

If some lowly FBI informant

Elusive Trope — Wed, 02 May 2012 15:26:49 +0000

In reply to If the skinheads were

If some lowly FBI informant can goad them into something like this, don't you think someone like Randy Weaver could even more easily get them to carry out some act of violence. Thinking back over my experiences, I can only think of one person who I might put into this category of the capable of being goaded into buying explosives - he thought blowing up capitalist billboards along the demonstration route would be a great way to bring attention to the cause. When I tried to explain to him that it was a bad idea if for the only reason it would be bad PR, he got incredibly angry with me, and went into a rant that I can only assume was fueled by some daddy didn't love me enough wound.

There are people out there who are ticking time bombs. Many never go off. Sometimes it is just crossing paths with the "right" person at the "right" time. Was there a moment which had it not occurred, McVeigh would not have actually do what he ended up doing? At what point would it have been appropriate to goad McVeigh into an illegal act before he had actually committed an act worthy of arrest in order to prevent a possible Oklahoma City bombing?

I personally believe that sometimes it is better to intervene rather than cross our fingers these walking time bombs don't cross paths with the wrong people, or have that epiphany that changes everything. A lot of grey. It would be nice if the world was black and white, but it isn't.

I don't have a problem with

Elusive Trope — Wed, 02 May 2012 15:08:17 +0000

In reply to Well, then naturally we'd

I don't have a problem with the FBI investigating demonstrations in such a way as to possibly discover credible violent threats, whether they are anarchists trying to take it to the Man or pro-lifers plotting to bomb a clinic or shoot a doctor. Personally, I think it is better to prevent an abortion doctor from being shot rather than capturing the perp after he or she has shot the doctor.

Obviously it is easy for them to cross the line, maintaining files on people who are not credible threats, interfering or disrupting people's legitimate exercise of free speech and right to assembly, etc. When they cross over the line they should be dealt with.

If the skinheads were

Donal — Wed, 02 May 2012 15:03:01 +0000

In reply to In regards to my response to

If the skinheads were originally planning on a symbolic desecration and were goaded by a paid informant into a much more destructive act, Yes.

In regards to my response to

Elusive Trope — Wed, 02 May 2012 14:50:58 +0000

In reply to FBI: Five arrested in plot to blow up Ohio bridge

In regards to my response to some of the responses by those on the Left to this, the way to think about this might be: would one's response be the same, would the feelings about the FBI be the same, would one feel compelled to publicly discredit their work, if anarchists was replaced with skinheads, occupy rally replaced by white supremacy rally, and bridge was replaced by black church (or maybe a MLK parade in Spokane). Would it matter in this situation that initially it would appear they probably would not have been able to find someone to sell them explosives, etc?

And also... up against the

Qnonymous — Wed, 02 May 2012 01:39:51 +0000

In reply to Well, then naturally we'd

And also... up against the wall.

After all, you got Trope.

Qnonymous — Wed, 02 May 2012 01:38:24 +0000

In reply to Well, then naturally we'd

After all, you got Trope.