Thread: FBI finds and organizes the terrorist plots it disrupts

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...ny-skepticism/

The FBI has documented 49 cases where it used informants, either bribed or threatened, to assist selected targets, radicalizing their rhetoric, organizing their entire plot, funding it, delivering all necessary equipment, sometimes even bribing the target to go forward far enough so they can be swept up an anticipatory sting operation and sent to a secret prison for torture and experimentation. All of this is legal.

I have mixed feelings on this. I do not know what details they have on this guy. It seems to me that agreeing to a plot or discussing a plot is far from actually doing the crime. I feel Americans should be able to fantasize that they are criminals and perhaps draw up plans for robbing Fort Knox. It may be great fun to imagine you will steal a helicopter and a cruise missle, and I do not feel drawing up how you could do it is a crime. However, actually climbing into the cockpit of a helicopter the FBI convinently left unattended and turning the key, is a crime, no matter how easy they made it for you to get into it.

IN one case they arranged this kind of stupid thing, exactly as the article talks about. However, the young man was shown a large bomb in a van and given a cell phone. He willingly parked the van in the middle of a crowded Christmas celbration full of families, he then walked away and dialed the number that was suppossed to set off the bomb. It did not work and he redialed twice.

I am glad they got that S.O.B. even if they set him up. The pig was more than willing to kill hundreds of children, and all it took was someone to put him up to it. The point is to find the deranged phsycos who could be hired by actual terrorists. I feel anything short of this kind of sting is crazy B.S., but in the case of someone actually pulling the trigger or pushing the button, then put them away for life. If they do not actually go that far, then no crime has been commited.

Whether or not the person's willingness to commit a crime given the opportunity is a punishable offense, the tactic sets a frightening precedent. They are not putting active terrorists in these secret prisons, they're filling them up with entrapped individuals to prove the mass surveillance program is useful, and then torturing them to say things that prove the military industry is necessary. One individual mentioned in the article was pestered by an informant for 8 months and only succumbed when he lost his job and got offered 250,000 dollars.

The amount of children being murdered as a result of these programs vastly outweighs the number of deaths that would have been caused even if these individuals had planned and carried out the attacks on their own, let alone the fact that these plots are completely organized and funded by the FBI. They are a ploy to lull the American people into supporting an enterprise that profits off death.

Not surprising at all. The government has been controlling what you think and what you believe for a long time, it's had a lot of practice. It doesn't want everyone to believe one thing either, it purposefully creates dissent among it's somewhat more intelligent citizens simply to appease their feelings of intellectual superiority, because hardly anybody is willing to dig deep enough beyond the surface to actually understand what is truly going on. As long as everybody is too busy arguing and talking about what's going on, they can simply maneuver in the background to keep themselves out of trouble. It's useful to have bloggers, social media, and the internet as free as it is. They can find out what public opinions are about what is going on and why think they think what's happening is happening. It is a remarkable tool for keeping surveillance on the public's unadulterated opinion, what they plan to do (if anything), and how and when to meet up (if a plan is in place). It sounds super conspiracy-esque, but after having been in the military I gave up making fun of people that make conspiracy theories. Some are definitely wacko, but everyone has one thing right: the government, corporations, the banks, and anyone with money is always who is behind it. You never know exactly why they do what they do, what they are trying to hide, or what they are trying to get you to do or believe, but the reason it is happening at all should help you realize that none of them give two fucks about you or your family. No matter what they say or anybody does, never believe for a second that they care about what happens to their constituents. This is all a business, the bottom line is making money and to keep making money. There are already enough psycho/sociopaths walking the streets as regular people, you need to understand that the people that get to the positions of power like this are all those kinds of people. Some aren't as successful, but if you get where you in these institutions and corporations, it is because you are allowed to and that you had to stab a lot of backs to do it. People took notice, and they figured if you are kept a big enough cut, you will make sure they all keep getting a big enough cut.

Yeah, I went super conspiracy ranty right there, but if you don't want to get used and stepped on you should probably take heed of what I said. The people that can and possibly will care about you are your fellow citizens. Nobody else does, wants to, or will.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...ny-skepticism/

The FBI has documented 49 cases where it used informants, either bribed or threatened, to assist selected targets, radicalizing their rhetoric, organizing their entire plot, funding it, delivering all necessary equipment, sometimes even bribing the target to go forward far enough so they can be swept up an anticipatory sting operation and sent to a secret prison for torture and experimentation. All of this is legal.

You believe that, but you think the idea that Sandy Hook was a hoax is insane?

• Make it illegal to plan acts of terrorism, even without hard proof of intent
• Set up sting operations to prove intent
• Allow people to freely plan acts of terrorism

Pick one.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

• Make it illegal to plan acts of terrorism, even without hard proof of intent
• Set up sting operations to prove intent
• Allow people to freely plan acts of terrorism

Pick one.

[*] Investigate genuine terrorist threats, collect evidence, and prosecute accordingly.

I pick that one. It preserves the legitimacy of the state, whereas the other three degrade it and inadvertently bolster the sentiments of would-be terrorists.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

• Investigate genuine terrorist threats, collect evidence, and prosecute accordingly.

Firstly, this simply doesn't make any sense in the real world. The FBI doesn't have a magic truth machine. If they could tell which threats were genuine and which were false leads, they wouldn't need to investigate in the first place, would they? All you can do is investigate potential threats.

Secondly, although your rhetoric suggested otherwise, this is not actually different from the first option. There's no getting out of the fact that you have to choose one of the three options. You're saying it should be illegal to plan acts of terrorism, even when there's no hard proof of intent and the plotters have still taken no steps to actually enact the plot. Okay, sure, that's your moral decision and I imagine you have some arguments to defend it. But don't pretend it's not actually your decision.

I am ok with "Set up sting operations to prove intent."

However they need to go so far as to clearly prove the person would have committed the act. In the example I gave, they showed him a large bomb, which he drove to an event, parked it, and then called a phone number 3 times he was told would set off the bomb. Intent clearly proven.



Here is another one. They had someone pose as a drug dealer. That person told a guy in charge of an armory that they would trade kilos of heroin for military weapons. That man then stole rocket launchers and delivered them to people he had been told were terrorists. I don't think that is wrong; I think that is justice.

Originally Posted by sivason

I am ok with "Set up sting operations to prove intent."

However they need to go so far as to clearly prove the person would have committed the act. In the example I gave, they showed him a large bomb, which he drove to an event, parked it, and then called a phone number 3 times he was told would set off the bomb. Intent clearly proven.



Here is another one. They had someone pose as a drug dealer. That person told a guy in charge of an armory that they would trade kilos of heroin for military weapons. That man then stole rocket launchers and delivered them to people he had been told were terrorists. I don't think that is wrong; I think that is justice.

Would these people have done these things on their own without the help of the authorities? If yes, then it's fine. If not, then there's a problem.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

Would these people have done these things on their own without the help of the authorities? If yes, then it's fine. If not, then there's a problem.

It shows that in both of these cases these people would have done these things IF they were approached by actual terrorists.

One can say they were tempted by our people and that is unfair "anyone would if offered enough money." But, that is not rue. Most people would never harm children no matter how much you tempted them with.

It's important what you mean by "help".

If you mean reinforce the will to violence through persuasion, then that should not be allowed, and indeed it isn't allowed. If a defendant can prove that the authorities did this then that seriously damages the prosecution.

If however you just mean enable - by providing equipment and so on - then I don't see the problem. The terrorist is still the one making the decision and bears all of the moral weight, and is as much of a risk to the public if they do manage to become well-equipped.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Firstly, this simply doesn't make any sense in the real world. The FBI doesn't have a magic truth machine. If they could tell which threats were genuine and which were false leads, they wouldn't need to investigate in the first place, would they? All you can do is investigate potential threats.

You're right, I should have worded it better.

Prosecute genuine terrorists*

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Secondly, although your rhetoric suggested otherwise, this is not actually different from the first option.

It certainly is different.

Making it illegal to plan acts of terrorism sounds well and good, except just about anything can fall under "terrorism" today. This includes drawing up a plan for a non-violent protests. I'm sure many of the activism-related brainstorms/mind maps I've drawn up for assignments in my political science class can easily be interpreted as an act of terrorism, even though it was clearly done as an academic exercise. That's the sort of thing that concerns me, the possibility of the authorities knowingly snatching up activists or would-be dissidents and using "evidence" like this to justify an arrest. Once someone ends up on a list and is labelled a terrorist, there's almost no oversight by the public.

To give another example, I've done a short write-up on the Black Panther Party of the 1960's and how their organizational methods could be improved and possibly applied (within a non-violent context) in today's socio-political climate. Innocent enough, it's just a thought exercise. But as far as the state is concerned, the Black Panther Party was a terrorist organization... So if I've written down ways to improve their methods and apply them today, what does that make me in the eyes of the state?

Now I don't expect anyone to come kicking down my doors, but think of the ramifications. Say you have a genuine political activist out there who's organizing others and posing a legitimate challenge to the state, this sort of "evidence" can easily be used as justification to shut everything down. And given the FBI's history, I wouldn't put that sort of thing above them.

Originally Posted by sivason

It shows that in both of these cases these people would have done these things IF they were approached by actual terrorists.

Fair enough, but it begs the question, how likely are these people to actually be approached by terrorists? If the risk is high, I'd say a sting operation is justified. But if the risk is low, they should simply continue to be monitored. And if the variables are too high, or the risk factor can't be calculated, then these operations needs a great deal of oversight/checks and balances.

And if people differ on this point, then it comes down to what each individual expects of the state. Personally, I prefer to keep my expectations high.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

It's important what you mean by "help".

To encourage or groom.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

Making it illegal to plan acts of terrorism sounds well and good, except just about anything can fall under "terrorism" today.

That's not what we mean by the term though, and we're the ones having the conversation. So let's not muddy the waters, and use "terrorism" to mean what we both understand the term to mean; roughly, an act of violence intended to cause public fear. Under this definition, terrorism is of course distinct from planning terrorism.

I don't understand your position yet. It sounds to me now like you're strongly against criminalising the act of planning terrorism. But you've also told me you don't believe in setting up strings operations to prove intent. So... what exactly do you want to criminalise in order to "prosecute accordingly", if planning is not sufficient and intent is not demonstrable? Do you want to solely criminalise acts of terror, and only prosecute terrorists after they've tried to enact their plans?

All very good points.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

That's not what we mean by the term though, and we're the ones having the conversation.

If we're discussing the actions of the state, we have to include their definition of terrorism.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

I don't understand your position yet. It sounds to me now like you're strongly against criminalising the act of planning terrorism. But you've also told me you don't believe in setting up strings operations to prove intent. So... what exactly do you want to criminalise in order to "prosecute accordingly", if planning is not sufficient and intent is not demonstrable? Do you want to solely criminalise acts of terror, and only prosecute terrorists after they've tried to enact their plans?

1. I want the government and the public to hammer out a clear definition of "terrorism," without the use of any Orwellian language.
2. A similar process to decide what constitutes as a "terrorist plot," differentiating between an academic exercise and an action plan.
3. A set of guidelines for dealing with these situations, along with a simplified explanation of these guidelines available to the press/public.
4. Monitor suspected terrorists and conduct lawful investigations (no "black bag" jobs like those conducted during the days of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover).
5. If there's a reasonable risk of harm (this would require further definition as well, without Orwellian language), conduct a sting operation that adheres to strict guidelines
6. If the risk is low, then merely continue to monitor the individual until the situation changes (if it changes)
7. If the risk can't be calculated, conduct these sting operations (while adhering to strict guidelines) and be as open and transparent with the public as possible.
8. Public discussion on the matter should be encouraged, not stifled.

In short, when it comes to dealing with terrorism, I want to see strategy, not foolishness. Reason and diligence, not paranoia and carelessness.

Makes perfect sense to me. Though it did fall under the second option after all, albeit highly qualified.

I can't believe we're even arguing the merits of pre-crime. If I weren't on a cell phone I'd link you to a statement made by the head of the FBI admitting this program exists to keep fear alive and keep their budget relevant. Every other industry is creating problems to remain relevant as it is, the military industry made ISIS, the prison industry incarcerates and institutionalize a victimless criminals so they'll keep coming back, the food and drug industries are actively making us sick. Everything in this country meant to solve problems has a pulled a 180 and started creating problems to justify their budget.

Let's look at that case in Ohio, the guy was given military equipment by the FBI to go shoot some politicians. This is not a reasonable means of proving intent, half the fucking population fantasizes about lighting up these politicians. The ones crazy enough to actually do it are probably just on SSRIs like nearly all mass shooters are. So the FBI plans the attack, supplies the equipment then makes the arrest, and to America it makes these intelligence programs look justified but all it really proves is that people are pissed the fuck off.

This isn't done to stop terrorist organizations. The head of the FBI said it's done to keep fear alive. That is the definition of a terrorist organization.

Where do you have this info with the SSRIs from? Not saying it doesn't make sense, quite the opposite, but are there data?

I suppose it depends what you're asking. I don't mean to say the FBI is hunting down ssri patients and radicalizing them, but rather that the vast majority of mass shooters in the US are ssri patients. https://www.corbettreport.com/medica...mass-killings/

I bring this up because there appears to be a belief, promoting pre-crime, that a portion of the population is just bad and needs to be rooted out. With this belief, providing opportunity to radical thinkers to carry out their plans just far enough to prove intent appears justifiable. I bring up SSRIs and mass shootings to show that people who commit violence are not a separate species. Each person is only one experience or chemical reaction away from the same capability. Meanwhile, this pre-emptive attitude builds deeper resentment against the government, further pushing people to change it through whatever means necessary. And the violence being committed through consent of this systematic terrorism greatly outweighs the potential violence perpetrated by its dissidents. When one realizes their consent already causes more harm than any action they could commit, and is given the opportunity, in their deceived mind, to rectify some of this violence, can you at least understand the temptation?

The only way to defeat an enemy is to take responsibility for creating it, and with forgiveness you blunt their weapon, and through forgetting them, they forget you as well. But that is only the best solution if your aim is to remove your enemy, not if your aim is to maintain public consent of lucrative butchery.

This is why the FBI practices pre-crime: http://youtu.be/TX0UTB-Foyc

Wait, wouldn't it make more sense to believe that the reason most mass muderers are on SSRIs is because they are mentally unstable individuals with troubled pasts that probably needed attention, whether it was negative or positive? Blaming SSRIs specifically when so many people are on them as the culprit or a major influence on their decision to go commit murder seems a bit... premature. There would need to be a lot larger group of studies done. It is true that too much can lead to suicidal ideation and worsening of depressive symptoms, but if a doctor is doing his or her job, then this issue should be rather moot. If anything then, blame the doctors prescribing it rather than the drugs. So many factors go into committing a crime though that I feel it would always make more sense to blame environmental factors, mental illness, predisposition to violence, anger management issues, the community, previous behavioral issues, and personal history.

Don't get me wrong, I think SSRIs are terrible drugs without much evidence supporting the wanton prescribing of them to patients that could receive better and more effective help without being subjected to withdrawal symptoms upon finding out the drug is useless, but blaming them for mass shootings is over-the-top at best. Pointing out the correlation is fine, but using it in the context that you are is implying blame.

I hate it when I am watching crime shows, and they make the big exciting announcement "we have found out he was taking Prozac" like that is worth even mentioning. Now maybe if it were an anti-psychotic like Abilify it might make sense to mention it.

Hospitals cause broken arms and cancer. Everybody I have known with cancer went to the hospital a lot when they had it, and every person I have ever known who wore an arm cast had been to a hospital. Well, now that I think about it, some had been to small clinics. It looks like those break people's arms too.

I'm not arguing causation using the link between SSRIs and mass shootings alone. Actually, the causation argument appears to be that coming off SSRIs too soon after being on them causes one to act upon their thoughts they would normally file away into pure fantasy. People are more likely to commit suicide if they've just come off SSRIs, as well.

What creates a school shooter? The real answer is that no single thing creates a school shooter, just as no single thing creates all traffic accidents, but a number of things create a "loaded gun" which results in an accident. SSRIs are most certainly a round for the chamber regarding both suicide and murder. Another round for the chamber regarding school shootings, in particular, is bullying. If the FBI wanted to prevent school shooters, their best option, based on the strategy they use to fight Islam, would be to find a nerdy kid, bully him until every day is a living nightmare, fill him full of prozac to cope with it, take him off it, continue to bully him, then give him a gun and tell him they left the fire escape open, and if he still refuses then coerce him until he says yes. All to fill a quota and keep their budget.

People tend more to commit murder and suicide when coming off SSRI's because they need to be on the SSRI's. Those are medications for mental problems (mainly depression), and people with mental problems are the people who take them. Prozac is an SSRI, and it saved me from a suicidal depression. I wasn't suicidal because I was on Prozac. I was on Prozac because I was suicidal. If I had quit taking it too early, I might have gone right back to being suicidal.

I am not sure what you mean with your Islam analogy. I didn't even realize that the FBI fights Islam. Are they shutting down Mosques?

How can you believe all of what you have said about the FBI and still think the idea that Sandy Hook was a hoax is absurd? I don't think the FBI was behind Sandy Hook, but you seem to have a major mistrust of the U.S. government. Is the idea of a shooting hoax really that far fetched?