MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
FBI: Five arrested in plot to blow up Ohio bridge
By cmaukonen on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 12:16pm |Five self-described anarchists have been arrested in a plot to blow up a bridge in Cleveland, Ohio, but the public was never in any danger, the FBI said Tuesday.
The anarchists spent months planning several different attacks but did not realize that they were being closely monitored and had purchased inoperable explosives from an undercover FBI agent.
“The individuals charged in this plot were intent on using violence to express their ideological views,” Stephen Anthony, special agent in charge of the Cleveland division of the FBI, said in a statement.
. . . . . . . .
They initially plotted to distract the police with smoke grenades while knocking signs off bank buildings, but decided there weren’t enough people in Cleveland willing to participate in a riot.
They eventually settled on the plot to blow up a bridge that spans the Cuyahoga Valley National Park.
[Submitters Comment: The biggest thing so far here has been the St. Patrick's Day Parade. The fact is that here in Cleveland if it doesn't involve getting drunk, people are just not that interested.]
URL:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/01/fbi-five-arrested-in-plot-to-blow-up-ohio-bridge/
- Add new comment
- 2265 reads
Comments
Interesting in the comment section below how most of the people commenting were intent on making the claim the FBI, to use the words of one commenter "busted theFBI's own terror plot" when there is nothing in the article to support such a claim. It may turn out to be true that the "the only terrorists the FBI can find are the ones they create" and they "infiltrate a small group impotent, incompetent misfits, then lead them into a fake plot," but there is no evidence it seems that this was the case.
There are those on the Left who are unwilling to accept that yes, indeed, there are those on the Left who are willing to use violence, like blowing up a bridge, to achieve their agenda. These violent folks are a huge minority, but they do exist.
I would assume, too, that the main drive to discredit the validity of this bust is that it justifies the infiltration of demonstrations like those of Occupy. If everyone in those demonstrations are 100% non-violent activists, then there would be no justification.
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 3:01pm
They've egged on unwary revolutionaries often enough that it was the first thing that occurred to me.
by Donal on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 3:08pm
I personally don't believe it is so easy to just egg someone from being a harmless soul into someone who will buy explosives with the intent to use them.
Even if it so easy, there are those who are actively out there looking to recruit such eggable individuals for such acts. In such a scenario it becomes a race between which side finds the eggable ones first.
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 3:31pm
It's not a crime to go around brooding and thinking evil thoughts. A lot of people indulge themselves this way. Seems like law enforcement is out there deliberately trying to provoke these people into action even though, absent such stimulus, they would likely either do nothing, or would lack the skills to achieve their evil plans.
by Michael Maiello on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 3:39pm
There is a fine line between brooding about something and plotting something. My guess is if you lost a loved one to such a group of fellows like this, you wouldn't find the FBI's excuse they just thought they were brooding about something as a legitimate excuse why they didn't intervene.
Because of the laws in this country, one does have to prove intent before one can arrest them, ie it is not a crime to go around brooding and thinking evil thoughts. So if the individuals are deemed credible threats in the future, would it be better to just provide them the means to prove their eventual intent? Or should the law enforcement agencies just watch them for as long as it takes to see it unfold without some enticement.
I key point is that your stance is based on the assumption that they would do nothing without the enticement pro provocation by the government agencies. Yet there is no way to prove or disprove this.
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 3:55pm
My guess that they'd have done nothing (or would have tried and failed) can't be disproven unless, of course, we left them alone and they successfully blew up a bridge or something.
But, consider this... with all the ill will out there, the vast majority of days go by without anybody blowing things up. I assume this is because most people don't really want to and because it's hard to do.
by Michael Maiello on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 4:09pm
I never said they were harmless, but from what destor commented, there is some reason to suspect that they were entrapped.
by Donal on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 3:45pm
There is being entrapped and then there is being entrapped. Right now there doesn't seem to be any evidence that they weren't less than totally willing buyers of explosives who were willing to use it. It would have probably taken them much longer to find such without the assistance of the FBI. There is really no difference between this and someone who expresses the desire to buy a large quantity of cocaine, and the DEA sets up a deal. Maybe it would have taken the person longer to find a seller, but it makes them no less guilty of the intent to distribute a controlled substance.
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 4:05pm
It would have been very difficult here in Cleveland. Nearly all of those kind of outlets have left the area long ago. And no military close by either. No big need for explosives in Ohio. No mountains and the only mining done is above ground for concrete aggregate and sand stone.
by cmaukonen on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 4:14pm
I read TPM's account and what I got from it is that the FBI had this guy, described as:
"The confidential source who brought the suspects to the FBI’s attention had been working with federal agents since July 2011. The source has a conviction for possession of cocaine in 1990 and a robbery conviction in 1991 as well as four convictions for passing bad checks between 1991 and 2011. The source was paid about $5,750 for his services."
They sent him to an Occupy Rally specifically to find troublemakers. He found five losers who wanted to play GI Joe and spent months talking about attacking coal mines and the Federal Reserve Bank before settling on blowing up a bridge.
My hunch is that the source egged them on the whole way and introduced them to the undercover plastic explosives salesman ("Will. E. Blowman"). These idiots are f'ed for life.
But, no, I don't believe they ever actually posed a credible threat to anyone before this latest FBI fantasy.
by Michael Maiello on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 3:16pm
The operative word at this point is "hunch." We're all entitled to our hunches, of course.
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 3:26pm
I'm having a hard time figuring out how they'd run into an undercover officer out to sell them C-4 if the FBI infiltrator wasn't the introducing party. I suppose you could believe that if not for that, they'd have found a real purveyor of high powered explosives. But, c'mon... look at those guys.
by Michael Maiello on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 3:34pm
I'm sure he was the introducing party. The question is whether they would have sought out another introducing party had he not been around. Of course, because the FBI intervened, we would have to look into a parallel universe to see what might have happened had the FBI not intervened.
And looking at the guys I would say that at least one of them might have the mental ability to hook up with some violent group via the internet and eventually find themselves connected to someone who could be the introducing party.
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 3:44pm
Well, then naturally we'd better send agents out to test the loyalty of anyone that doesn't look trustworthy. Is this a great country, or what?
by Donal on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 3:51pm
I didn't in anyway say that since they looked a certain way, the FBI was justified in investigating them. It was destor who may the statement - half joking? that just by looking at them, one could tell they didn't have the mental capacity or wherewithal to pull this off without the FBI.
Nor were they targeted by FBI because of how they looked, but because of statements and actions taken during an occupy demonstration. So maybe this is a just a little better country than the worst of the worst.
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 3:59pm
Well, then naturally we'd better send agents out to test the loyalty of anyone that demonstrates against the oligarchy. Is this a great country, or what?
by Donal on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 5:08pm
What.
by Qnonymous (not verified) on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 9:37pm
After all, you got Trope.
by Qnonymous (not verified) on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 9:38pm
And also... up against the wall.
by Qnonymous (not verified) on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 9:39pm
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.
by Elusive Trope on Wed, 05/02/2012 - 11:08am
But, c'mon... look at those guys
Ok, I did. And they don't look much different from these three guys or this guy to me.
Who'd thunk destor, the iconoclastic dresser, would be judging guilt or innocence on appearance?
by artappraiser on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 4:20pm
No way, those guys are heshers!
by Michael Maiello on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 4:21pm
http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/05/01/if-anarchists-threaten-to-blow-up-a...
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 4:49pm
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?
by Elusive Trope on Wed, 05/02/2012 - 10:50am
If the skinheads were originally planning on a symbolic desecration and were goaded by a paid informant into a much more destructive act, Yes.
by Donal on Wed, 05/02/2012 - 11:03am
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.
by Elusive Trope on Wed, 05/02/2012 - 11:26am
So you must have really enjoyed the early parts of Minority Report.
by Donal on Wed, 05/02/2012 - 11:54am
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.
by Elusive Trope on Wed, 05/02/2012 - 12:30pm
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.
by Donal on Wed, 05/02/2012 - 1:16pm
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!
by Michael Maiello on Wed, 05/02/2012 - 3:50pm