Human Rights Watch report says FBI encouraged terrorism
Excerpt: "Well, you might still be surprised by the report's most troubling allegation: that US government agents, by employing methods of investigation that border on entrapment, have actively encouraged ordinary Americans to become terrorists."
"A former FBI agent, Michael German, explained it to HRW and the HRI this way:
"Today’s terrorism sting operations reflect a significant departure from past practice. When the FBI undercover agent or informant is the only purported link to a real terrorist group, supplies the motive, designs the plot and provides all the weapons, one has to question whether they are combatting terrorism or creating it. Aggrandizing the terrorist threat with these theatrical productions only spreads public fear and divides communities, which doesn’t make anyone safer."
Interesting. The FBI seeks out individuals that they have screened as malleable and easily influenced by terrorist groups and presents a fictional situation to which they can decide to or not to participate. Participation results in arrest.
It's a little underhanded IMO but at the end of the day kind of shocking how easy it is to convince an individual of religious faith to not only plant a bomb but detonate it. It illustrates the inherent issue in that there's a portion of the population that is easily influenced to commit crimes against mankind in the name of religion. I'm not sure how fair it is at the end of the day to arrest someone for committing a crime that was staged by the FBI but at the end of the day society is probably safer with those types of people off the streets so maybe life isn't always fair.
Is it an infringement of your rights if Tom Cruise shows up at your house to arrest you for a crime you haven't committed yet?
Is it an infringement of your rights if the FBI arrest you for a crime you are going to commit but maybe wouldn't have if they hadn't prodded you toward doing it?
Are these infringements justified? How far do you go in the name of safety? People these days seem to be willing to give up an awful lot of these intangible and amorphous rights against state interference in the name of feeling "safe".
It's a little underhanded IMO but at the end of the day kind of shocking how easy it is to convince an individual of religious faith to not only plant a bomb but detonate it.
Problem is, in the cases I've seen mostly the people have not been anywhere near planting any actual bombs, let alone detonating them.
Now, I haven't done crazy careful study on the topic, but I did at some point (as part of my general interest in matters civil rights) try to find out what I could about the terrorism sentences in the US. To me it all sounds like bogus.
Al Jazeera recently released a documentary with some examples of how these things work. Of course it's only side, but there's enough actual facts in and quotes from the feds themselves that yeah, they've been putting to prison people who have not actually done anything.
You can check from about 7:30 on to get an idea of how the thing works. Those guys had no weapons at the time of arrest, so really there is no way to prove that they actually were about to do anything. Interestingly enough, there was also no real need to arrest them at that point, since had they actually tried to get their hands on weapons or explosives and went on with the alleged plot, the FBI would have immediately known about it because they had an informant in the group.
They didn't do that. To me that signals that they knew or at least suspected that these guys just wanted to take the money and run, and were no real threat. Had they done the legal thing, they would have just cut ties with them and forgot about them. But no, they wanted a public terrorist arrest, so they manufactured one.
Or, at least that's my take on what happened. Judge for yourself.
Is it an infringement of your rights if Tom Cruise shows up at your house to arrest you for a crime you haven't committed yet?
Is it an infringement of your rights if the FBI arrest you for a crime you are going to commit but maybe wouldn't have if they hadn't prodded you toward doing it?
Are these infringements justified? How far do you go in the name of safety? People these days seem to be willing to give up an awful lot of these intangible and amorphous rights against state interference in the name of feeling "safe".
I think this is important. People get angry and think crazy thing all of the time, but most of the time a quick analysis of the requirements in terms of means/opportunity tends to quickly dismiss those thoughts and then cooler heads prevail.
If someone is pushing these people, pressuring them and fueling their motive with the required means and opportunity I think it certainly would make some people act in a situation where they'd normally never find themselves. Add to that a few sweet lies about any potential consequences and you've got yourself a terrorist.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
A rather basic tactic seems to be offering the people targeted a lot of money. In one of the cases displayed on the Al Jazeera document (which again might not be completely reliable) a supposed terrorist was effectively living off of an FBI informant (well, infiltrator really) for months.
Especially if the target is poor, it's very easy for him to say what ever it takes to keep the money flowing.
Interesting. The FBI seeks out individuals that they have screened as malleable and easily influenced by terrorist groups and presents a fictional situation to which they can decide to or not to participate. Participation results in arrest.
It's a little underhanded IMO but at the end of the day kind of shocking how easy it is to convince an individual of religious faith to not only plant a bomb but detonate it. It illustrates the inherent issue in that there's a portion of the population that is easily influenced to commit crimes against mankind in the name of religion. I'm not sure how fair it is at the end of the day to arrest someone for committing a crime that was staged by the FBI but at the end of the day society is probably safer with those types of people off the streets so maybe life isn't always fair.
You don't need religion to coerce people into viciousness...see Milgram experiment.
The right context...an air of authority (provided by a lab coat) and most people will act in a lethal manner
If you take people off the streets for their ability to be manipulated...you are going to need lots more prison spaces.
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
People these days seem to be willing to give up an awful lot of these intangible and amorphous rights against state interference in the name of feeling "safe".
I sure as hell am not, but unfortunately I don't get a choice because of how much air travel I am subjected to. But the security theatre does nothing for my sense of security and I doubt very much it does for most people. It's a nuisance.
CBC just ran a documentary on this exact subject. The Newberg Sting. Check it out.
Again, a lot of it goes right back to departments not wanting their budgets cut. Unfortunately, if they succeed in their mission, which is supposed to be the whole point to begin with, eventually they aren't needed anymore. They know this. So they gotta prove that they are needed.
Culture of fear. Over and over again in America. Just like the failed war on drugs.
The US is cutting social services to the bone, filling up their jails with people that really shouldn't be there (which also costs a lot of money by the way) just to keep their bloated espionage, anti-terrorism, CIA and FBI budgets high. And making everyone believe that those services, and not the multitudes of others, that really keep a nation safe and prosperous, are the ones that are needed.
You wanna know why the US is broke? It's not because of the 'nanny state' or people who are 'lazy'. It's not because of bloated social programs. It's not because they don't manufacture anymore, or because the economy is bad. Hell, it's not even because of corrupt bankers and manipulated markets.
It's because they throw dollars beyond reason to spying on the world, trying to police it, (which rarely works by the way) and filling their prison populations when they have no real need to.
You could probably cut a lot of those budgets right in half. That's where the real government waste is. Sure they need to fix the inter-government waste, and yeah, they really need better regulations on Wall Street. It sure would help if they did ramp up their manufacturing. But the number one reason they are broke is that they continue to increase military, espionage, and domestic enforcement spending, at a time when everything else is getting a trim. They are fixing the symptoms and not the problems, and in fact, creating a lot of the problems along the way in doing so.
Last edited by Daradon; 07-23-2014 at 06:00 AM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Daradon For This Useful Post:
I generally like Obama compared to the alternative but Holy folk.
I guess these were his plans to raise the level of the DHS and the resulting expansion of NSA.
I look at the USA and I start to think it's days as a democracy are numbered. Some say it's already a plutocracy.
Human Rights Watch report says FBI encouraged terrorism
