NickDG 23 #1 September 25, 2009 Two stories this morning caught my eye. And I'm not sure what to think about either of them . . . They are similar in that U.S. authorities were watching two individuals, one a 19 year old illegal alien living in Texas who was talking jihad in some online "chat room" and the other an American man just released from prison where he had converted to Islam. Both these characters were furnished with fake bombs by undercover agents in a sting operation. And both of them actually planted the explosives. Okay, fine, lock them up and throw away the key. But really, what were the chances these two losers would have actually attempted this if the skids weren't so conveniently greased for them? How much egging on by federal agents went on here behind the scenes? As to the first case the world is full of wacky 19-year olds in "chat rooms" and there will always be a certain amount of them that could be easily manipulated. I remember when a good old fashioned "sting" meant mailing out letters to wanted criminals telling them they'd won some valuable prize in a local contest. Then when they showed up to collect they got slapped with cuffs instead. And both these stories are presented without it being apparent they were stings until you burrow down into the piece. And you know how some people never get passed the headline and first paragraph. I do see some merit in planting the seed in a would-be terrorist's mind that he can't trust anyone else, but that's giving them credit for intelligence most of them probably don't have. Are we manufacturing our own terrorists? http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/25/texas.terror.arrest/index.html http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2446507420090924 NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #2 September 25, 2009 QuoteAre we manufacturing our own terrorists? It wouldn't be the first or second time. Give this a listen.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites marks2065 0 #3 September 25, 2009 both could have easily said no and walked away. good thing the bombs and terrorists were fake Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #4 September 25, 2009 Like most undercover stings like this, it's a fine line, and there's not going to be enough info in a news article to determine which side of the line the agents were acting on. That's why we have courts though. Taking these articles at face value, however, it's hard to see a problem. Both men chose targets, parked the truck in position, and attempted to detonate the bombs remotely. If you assume they didn't know the bombs were fake, I think you just caught a couple dangerous people. At worst they were especially malignant and would have found someone to help them procure a bomb. At best they were useful idiots broadcasting their desire to fight and would have eventually been recruited. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #5 September 25, 2009 Entrapment is an "affirmative defense", which means a defense for which the burden is upon the defendant to prove. It's usually a very difficult defense to sell to a jury - but it's not impossible. These should be interesting cases to watch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ion01 2 #6 September 25, 2009 QuoteBut really, what were the chances these two losers would have actually attempted this if the skids weren't so conveniently greased for them? How much egging on by federal agents went on here behind the scenes? No amount of greasing or pressure could force me to even consider such a thing!! What about you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #7 September 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteBut really, what were the chances these two losers would have actually attempted this if the skids weren't so conveniently greased for them? How much egging on by federal agents went on here behind the scenes? No amount of greasing or pressure could force me to even consider such a thing!! What about you? No, but that's separate from Nick's point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites LongWayToFall 0 #8 September 25, 2009 That is somewhat similar to cops posting at stop signs, and having undercovers running out into the intersection, and anyone who drives across gets busted. I think this is very, very wrong. However, in this case, if they are serious enough to go through with the act then they are serious enough to do the research to make the bombs to begin with. It isn't as hard as you might believe. Now, if they are completely spoon fed IE a government agent, posing as a muslim, converts them, trains them, extorts them into following out the plan, then I would disagree with it completely. If all they did was agree with their position and offer a device, then they deserve to go to jail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lost_n_confuzd 0 #9 September 26, 2009 Quote That is somewhat similar to cops posting at stop signs, and having undercovers running out into the intersection, and anyone who drives across gets busted. I think this is very, very wrong. It's not similar. The cop in the car did not entice, manipulate, or entrap anyone to run the stop sign. They failed to stop and got caught. With that said, I'm probably the numero uno offendor for using the ole California Roll. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites LongWayToFall 0 #10 September 27, 2009 What I mean is that an undercover pedestrian cop, on the complete other side of the intersection, steps one foot into the crosswalk the moment you are about to start moving and fucks you. If the driver, and pedestrian (not a cop) have an understanding that it is acceptable for them to share the crosswalk at the same time, then police should stay out of it, know what I mean? They are borderline forcing you to break the law. If it was you vs. the driving rulebook, and you rolled the stop sign, then by all means you deserve a ticket. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Beachbum 0 #11 September 27, 2009 I posted about the one in Dallas thursday. I just got back to town ... haven't yet seen any more details so far. In response to the folks who seem to think it's ok to do this to someone because they feel the person would have done it anyway even if the FBI hadn't provided them the opportunity ... are you trying to say that all the people you know who make brash statements follow up on them? My experience is much more the other direction. Very few people seem to actually make good on stuff like that. I think there are very good odds in this particular case that if the FBI hadn't contacted this kid and kept him going, he never would have done anything on his own.As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #12 September 28, 2009 QuoteAre we manufacturing our own terrorists? Well, how else should some agencies/bureaucrats justify their existence?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #13 September 28, 2009 Quote Both these characters were furnished with fake bombs by undercover agents in a sting operation. And both of them actually planted the explosives. Okay, fine, lock them up and throw away the key. But really, what were the chances these two losers would have actually attempted this if the skids weren't so conveniently greased for them? How do you measure that? If the odds are even 10 to 1, I would rather these guys be in jail than carry out a real terror attack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #14 September 28, 2009 QuoteLike most undercover stings like this, it's a fine line, and there's not going to be enough info in a news article to determine which side of the line the agents were acting on. That's why we have courts though. Strongly concur and well-said. At the same time, I do think these cases bring forth issues that are very much worth discussing. The clear-cut cases in which someone uses a bomb are, uh, clear-cut. There is, imo, value in post-hoc analysis. QuoteAt worst they were especially malignant and would have found someone to help them procure a bomb. At best they were useful idiots broadcasting their desire to fight and would have eventually been recruited. I'd switch “may have” for “would have.” It does, imo, become a question of intention and capability. Wanting to do something, which includes, imo, grandiose talking about it, is not the same as the capacity to do something. And effectively making TATP explosives are more difficult experimentally than the TSA would like us to believe. Doesn't mean it's impossible as the London 7/7 bombers demonstrated. The value of good intelligence *and* good intelligence analysts in invaluable. Data isn't information until a human recognizes its significance. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #15 September 28, 2009 QuoteQuote Both these characters were furnished with fake bombs by undercover agents in a sting operation. And both of them actually planted the explosives. Okay, fine, lock them up and throw away the key. But really, what were the chances these two losers would have actually attempted this if the skids weren't so conveniently greased for them? How do you measure that? If the odds are even 10 to 1, I would rather these guys be in jail than carry out a real terror attack. It's not quite that simple. And the fact that it's not that simple is the reason the entrapment defense exists in the first place. And as I noted above, the reasonable counter-balance to that is the fact that entrapment is what's known as an "affirmative defense": the burden is on the defense to prove it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites catfishhunter 2 #16 September 29, 2009 Strike 1) They are Grown Strike 2) They pushed the button Strike 3) Fuck em send them down the pipe MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dks13827 3 #17 September 29, 2009 hey, this is great.. kind of like those 'Bait Car' cop shows !!! Once a car thief, always a car thief !! Many of the thieves are out on parole for... you guessed it... grand theft auto !!! I love it !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Krip 2 #18 September 29, 2009 Hi Nick "Are we manufacturing our own terrorists" The ones we caught? yes. It's major scary to see how little these two dumb shits value human life on a grand scale. But there prisons are full of these types in various forms. What was really accomplished? Success story for Homeland security, that will be balanced against their next failure. The cold war was "won" after 40 yr's and is now replaced by the war on terror. I don't expect to see a victory declared in my life time. But I'm getting old One Jump Wonder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #19 September 29, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Both these characters were furnished with fake bombs by undercover agents in a sting operation. And both of them actually planted the explosives. Okay, fine, lock them up and throw away the key. But really, what were the chances these two losers would have actually attempted this if the skids weren't so conveniently greased for them? How do you measure that? If the odds are even 10 to 1, I would rather these guys be in jail than carry out a real terror attack. It's not quite that simple. And the fact that it's not that simple is the reason the entrapment defense exists in the first place. And as I noted above, the reasonable counter-balance to that is the fact that entrapment is what's known as an "affirmative defense": the burden is on the defense to prove it. Nice speech, but it has nothing to do with my statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #20 September 29, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Both these characters were furnished with fake bombs by undercover agents in a sting operation. And both of them actually planted the explosives. Okay, fine, lock them up and throw away the key. But really, what were the chances these two losers would have actually attempted this if the skids weren't so conveniently greased for them? How do you measure that? If the odds are even 10 to 1, I would rather these guys be in jail than carry out a real terror attack. It's not quite that simple. And the fact that it's not that simple is the reason the entrapment defense exists in the first place. And as I noted above, the reasonable counter-balance to that is the fact that entrapment is what's known as an "affirmative defense": the burden is on the defense to prove it. Nice speech, but it has nothing to do with my statement. Of course it does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #21 September 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Both these characters were furnished with fake bombs by undercover agents in a sting operation. And both of them actually planted the explosives. Okay, fine, lock them up and throw away the key. But really, what were the chances these two losers would have actually attempted this if the skids weren't so conveniently greased for them? How do you measure that? If the odds are even 10 to 1, I would rather these guys be in jail than carry out a real terror attack. It's not quite that simple. And the fact that it's not that simple is the reason the entrapment defense exists in the first place. And as I noted above, the reasonable counter-balance to that is the fact that entrapment is what's known as an "affirmative defense": the burden is on the defense to prove it. Nice speech, but it has nothing to do with my statement. Of course it does. Only if you make ASSumptions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jcd11235 0 #2 September 25, 2009 QuoteAre we manufacturing our own terrorists? It wouldn't be the first or second time. Give this a listen.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #3 September 25, 2009 both could have easily said no and walked away. good thing the bombs and terrorists were fake Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #4 September 25, 2009 Like most undercover stings like this, it's a fine line, and there's not going to be enough info in a news article to determine which side of the line the agents were acting on. That's why we have courts though. Taking these articles at face value, however, it's hard to see a problem. Both men chose targets, parked the truck in position, and attempted to detonate the bombs remotely. If you assume they didn't know the bombs were fake, I think you just caught a couple dangerous people. At worst they were especially malignant and would have found someone to help them procure a bomb. At best they were useful idiots broadcasting their desire to fight and would have eventually been recruited. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #5 September 25, 2009 Entrapment is an "affirmative defense", which means a defense for which the burden is upon the defendant to prove. It's usually a very difficult defense to sell to a jury - but it's not impossible. These should be interesting cases to watch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ion01 2 #6 September 25, 2009 QuoteBut really, what were the chances these two losers would have actually attempted this if the skids weren't so conveniently greased for them? How much egging on by federal agents went on here behind the scenes? No amount of greasing or pressure could force me to even consider such a thing!! What about you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #7 September 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteBut really, what were the chances these two losers would have actually attempted this if the skids weren't so conveniently greased for them? How much egging on by federal agents went on here behind the scenes? No amount of greasing or pressure could force me to even consider such a thing!! What about you? No, but that's separate from Nick's point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LongWayToFall 0 #8 September 25, 2009 That is somewhat similar to cops posting at stop signs, and having undercovers running out into the intersection, and anyone who drives across gets busted. I think this is very, very wrong. However, in this case, if they are serious enough to go through with the act then they are serious enough to do the research to make the bombs to begin with. It isn't as hard as you might believe. Now, if they are completely spoon fed IE a government agent, posing as a muslim, converts them, trains them, extorts them into following out the plan, then I would disagree with it completely. If all they did was agree with their position and offer a device, then they deserve to go to jail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lost_n_confuzd 0 #9 September 26, 2009 Quote That is somewhat similar to cops posting at stop signs, and having undercovers running out into the intersection, and anyone who drives across gets busted. I think this is very, very wrong. It's not similar. The cop in the car did not entice, manipulate, or entrap anyone to run the stop sign. They failed to stop and got caught. With that said, I'm probably the numero uno offendor for using the ole California Roll. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LongWayToFall 0 #10 September 27, 2009 What I mean is that an undercover pedestrian cop, on the complete other side of the intersection, steps one foot into the crosswalk the moment you are about to start moving and fucks you. If the driver, and pedestrian (not a cop) have an understanding that it is acceptable for them to share the crosswalk at the same time, then police should stay out of it, know what I mean? They are borderline forcing you to break the law. If it was you vs. the driving rulebook, and you rolled the stop sign, then by all means you deserve a ticket. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beachbum 0 #11 September 27, 2009 I posted about the one in Dallas thursday. I just got back to town ... haven't yet seen any more details so far. In response to the folks who seem to think it's ok to do this to someone because they feel the person would have done it anyway even if the FBI hadn't provided them the opportunity ... are you trying to say that all the people you know who make brash statements follow up on them? My experience is much more the other direction. Very few people seem to actually make good on stuff like that. I think there are very good odds in this particular case that if the FBI hadn't contacted this kid and kept him going, he never would have done anything on his own.As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #12 September 28, 2009 QuoteAre we manufacturing our own terrorists? Well, how else should some agencies/bureaucrats justify their existence?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #13 September 28, 2009 Quote Both these characters were furnished with fake bombs by undercover agents in a sting operation. And both of them actually planted the explosives. Okay, fine, lock them up and throw away the key. But really, what were the chances these two losers would have actually attempted this if the skids weren't so conveniently greased for them? How do you measure that? If the odds are even 10 to 1, I would rather these guys be in jail than carry out a real terror attack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #14 September 28, 2009 QuoteLike most undercover stings like this, it's a fine line, and there's not going to be enough info in a news article to determine which side of the line the agents were acting on. That's why we have courts though. Strongly concur and well-said. At the same time, I do think these cases bring forth issues that are very much worth discussing. The clear-cut cases in which someone uses a bomb are, uh, clear-cut. There is, imo, value in post-hoc analysis. QuoteAt worst they were especially malignant and would have found someone to help them procure a bomb. At best they were useful idiots broadcasting their desire to fight and would have eventually been recruited. I'd switch “may have” for “would have.” It does, imo, become a question of intention and capability. Wanting to do something, which includes, imo, grandiose talking about it, is not the same as the capacity to do something. And effectively making TATP explosives are more difficult experimentally than the TSA would like us to believe. Doesn't mean it's impossible as the London 7/7 bombers demonstrated. The value of good intelligence *and* good intelligence analysts in invaluable. Data isn't information until a human recognizes its significance. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #15 September 28, 2009 QuoteQuote Both these characters were furnished with fake bombs by undercover agents in a sting operation. And both of them actually planted the explosives. Okay, fine, lock them up and throw away the key. But really, what were the chances these two losers would have actually attempted this if the skids weren't so conveniently greased for them? How do you measure that? If the odds are even 10 to 1, I would rather these guys be in jail than carry out a real terror attack. It's not quite that simple. And the fact that it's not that simple is the reason the entrapment defense exists in the first place. And as I noted above, the reasonable counter-balance to that is the fact that entrapment is what's known as an "affirmative defense": the burden is on the defense to prove it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
catfishhunter 2 #16 September 29, 2009 Strike 1) They are Grown Strike 2) They pushed the button Strike 3) Fuck em send them down the pipe MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dks13827 3 #17 September 29, 2009 hey, this is great.. kind of like those 'Bait Car' cop shows !!! Once a car thief, always a car thief !! Many of the thieves are out on parole for... you guessed it... grand theft auto !!! I love it !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krip 2 #18 September 29, 2009 Hi Nick "Are we manufacturing our own terrorists" The ones we caught? yes. It's major scary to see how little these two dumb shits value human life on a grand scale. But there prisons are full of these types in various forms. What was really accomplished? Success story for Homeland security, that will be balanced against their next failure. The cold war was "won" after 40 yr's and is now replaced by the war on terror. I don't expect to see a victory declared in my life time. But I'm getting old One Jump Wonder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #19 September 29, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Both these characters were furnished with fake bombs by undercover agents in a sting operation. And both of them actually planted the explosives. Okay, fine, lock them up and throw away the key. But really, what were the chances these two losers would have actually attempted this if the skids weren't so conveniently greased for them? How do you measure that? If the odds are even 10 to 1, I would rather these guys be in jail than carry out a real terror attack. It's not quite that simple. And the fact that it's not that simple is the reason the entrapment defense exists in the first place. And as I noted above, the reasonable counter-balance to that is the fact that entrapment is what's known as an "affirmative defense": the burden is on the defense to prove it. Nice speech, but it has nothing to do with my statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #20 September 29, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Both these characters were furnished with fake bombs by undercover agents in a sting operation. And both of them actually planted the explosives. Okay, fine, lock them up and throw away the key. But really, what were the chances these two losers would have actually attempted this if the skids weren't so conveniently greased for them? How do you measure that? If the odds are even 10 to 1, I would rather these guys be in jail than carry out a real terror attack. It's not quite that simple. And the fact that it's not that simple is the reason the entrapment defense exists in the first place. And as I noted above, the reasonable counter-balance to that is the fact that entrapment is what's known as an "affirmative defense": the burden is on the defense to prove it. Nice speech, but it has nothing to do with my statement. Of course it does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #21 September 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Both these characters were furnished with fake bombs by undercover agents in a sting operation. And both of them actually planted the explosives. Okay, fine, lock them up and throw away the key. But really, what were the chances these two losers would have actually attempted this if the skids weren't so conveniently greased for them? How do you measure that? If the odds are even 10 to 1, I would rather these guys be in jail than carry out a real terror attack. It's not quite that simple. And the fact that it's not that simple is the reason the entrapment defense exists in the first place. And as I noted above, the reasonable counter-balance to that is the fact that entrapment is what's known as an "affirmative defense": the burden is on the defense to prove it. Nice speech, but it has nothing to do with my statement. Of course it does. Only if you make ASSumptions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
