dagblog - Comments for "Terrorists Under Every Bed "

Here is a well documented,

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:28:01 +0000

In reply to Terrorists Under Every Bed

Here is a well documented, well told story that relates to this blog.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/471/the-convert

The intro is worth listening but the meat of the story begins at the 8:40 mark.

Taking extenuating

Elusive Trope — Fri, 25 May 2012 19:20:58 +0000

In reply to It is correct that I didn't

Taking extenuating circumstances into consideration when passing sentence on someone found guilty is about as liberal as one can get. An otherwise law-abiding police officer who snaps after seeing a "known" drug dealer walk on the rare occasion they get enough evidence to drag him into court is different than a police officer who plants evidence on someone just because they don't like the color of their skin or their religion or whatever. Guilty of the same crime, I would give the former a lighter sentence than the latter. Both would be given sentences, just different ones.

Activities like planting evidence undermines the whole system, so to say, and shouldn't be tolerated if only for that reason.

Along the same lines, if some guy, after learning the statue of limitation had run out, goes and puts a bullet into the head of a priest who had molested him many moon ago, I would take that past molestation into consideration on sentencing. Even though I don't condone murder and believe people shouldn't be going around being judge, jury and executioner - especially since I am against the death penalty - and I'm sure you'd love watching me reconcile that with the use of predator drones ;)

It is correct that I didn't

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:28:48 +0000

In reply to I was not taking this

It is correct that I didn't read your comment with a 'beginners' mind', I have read your apologies for everything authority does too many times. So, while you say I took it wrong and assert that you actually believe,"police should never take matters in their own hands" you veer back pretty close to supporting them doing so in your last sentence.

yup

Elusive Trope — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:12:50 +0000

In reply to I was about to caution Trope

yup

I was not taking this

Elusive Trope — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:12:08 +0000

In reply to If police are driven to take

I was not taking this position, I was just putting it out there as being a strong sentiment within the public.

If you go around shouting "the police are framing people!" and you get a "so?" response, it is in large part not because they don't police frame people, it is because they believe the police frame people who probably should be behind bars.

If you want people to start taking this issue is significant and needs to be addressed, one has to show that it is the law-abiding citizens that the police are just framing for the heck of it or for some other weird reason.

I personally believe in the rule of law, and believe that police should never take matters in their own hands. Activities like planting evidence should never be tolerated. At the same time, I am willing to allow such things like who they framed and why to be taken into consideration at the time of sentencing.

I was about to caution Trope

Verified Atheist — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:08:53 +0000

In reply to If police are driven to take

I was about to caution Trope to stress that he was citing the opinion of Conservative politicians (see the sentence prior to the one you're quoting) and not his own view point (I assume) as I was certain some people would take it as the latter…

Hey, it worked for the KGB

Donal — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:03:56 +0000

In reply to If police are driven to take

Hey, it worked for the KGB ... until the Soviet Union crumbled. No doubt the same thing will happen here.

If police are driven to take

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:57:41 +0000

In reply to In terms of the public, I

If police are driven to take the law into their own hands and plant evidence to get the "scum" off the street, then they should be applauded rather than prosecuted.

Who would have guessed that Trope would fall back on his old trope and applaud cops for taking the law into their own hands? Like I said, I am no longer surprised.

In terms of the public, I

Elusive Trope — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:44:26 +0000

In reply to Heritage Foundation has

In terms of the public, I also think there is a distinction made between framing an innocent person who is innocent overall, and framing an individual who is innocent of the crime they are being tried for but "guilty" of other crimes that cannot be proved in a court of law.

In other words, there are many in the public who don't have a strong reaction if the police plant evidence on a "known" drug dealer in order to bust them. One of the most common storyline on the police shows is the gang member or murderer who everyone knows is guilty but because of the "rules of law" they avoid prosecution. Conservative politicians have spent considerable amount of air time bashing the liberals and their liberal court systems that lets thugs and rapists back on the street because they care more about the rights of the criminals than the rights of the victims. If police are driven to take the law into their own hands and plant evidence to get the "scum" off the street, then they should be applauded rather than prosecuted.

I'm not saying that this is what is happening in Philadelphia and NJ, but when talking about police framing individuals, this sentiment needs to be taken into consideration, if one is attempting to convince people this is a serious issue.

Heritage Foundation has

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 25 May 2012 16:55:11 +0000

In reply to Another just convicted in

Heritage Foundation has compiled a list of at least 50 publicly known Islamist-inspired terror plots ...

Yes, The Heritage Foundation has their ideological point of view which naturally puts a spin on their evaluations. We all do that. I believe that some of their spin, though, is cynically calculated more than just a reflection of ideology and qualifies as propaganda. An example is labeling the 50 plots as being "Islamist-inspired". That demonizes people as a group who are of the Islamic faith and who are of that faith for the same reason you and I are, or were, Catholic; our parents were, and it is just as wrong as using that affiliation to group us with pedophiles and implicitly demonize us as pedophiles. An atheistic or agnostic citizen of a predominately Islamic country might very well have some hard feelings against the USA.

...because it [the list] focuses on plots disrupted but doesn't include charges like this example: attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization..

Yes, some who are charged with that crime are convicted, and that conviction is sometimes an illegitimate method of suppression of others through warning by example of harsh consequences, more than it is the legitimate neutralization of a meaningful threat. Some other elites who are actually highly affective in their material support for designated terrorist organizations get paid handsomely for that material support and maintain their positions of influence and status among other elites rather than going to jail.

In the article I linked to the author gives several examples of cops framing people and sending them to prison. I can easily believe that the conviction of the cops when caught framing innocents was legitimate because I believe that cops have enormous institutional protection and a jury can always be found ready to give them very high benefit of any doubt. Terrorist suspects have the polar opposite situation. Guilty cops are convicted far less often than are others charged with crime who are actually innocent. At the same time, I have no doubt that those same cops dealt with some genuine bad guys and legitimately brought them to justice. So, as Trope says below:

we shouldn't be surprised if they were framed
and
we shouldn't be surprised if they were not framed.

And I am no longer surprised that most people don't care one way or the other so long is it is the 'other' who might be getting framed.