|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:42 pm
katsuhaiabi Khalida Nyoka it still sounds like they were going to act... they just didn't pay enough attention with whom they were dealing. i wouldn't necessarily say entrapment... though it is close. The informant did not trick them into doing anything, merely made them think they had support. Look closer. He made those kids pledge an oath of allegiance to Al-Qaeda. Who is "He"? katsuhaiabi I doubt they would have acted; they had no real connection to Al-Qaeda, That isn't under dispute. katsuhaiabi they had no access to any kind of explosives and they don't know how to make them. It was really nothing more than smoke, much less anything to worry about. They were seeking access to these kinds of things. Do you suggest that when someone seeks the materials required to carry out a terrorist attack we ignore them if it doesn't seem like their hopes will pan out?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:56 pm
The informant. Strideo That isn't under dispute. You must admit, though, that the lack of connections would limit all accessibility. Strideo They were seeking access to these kinds of things. Do you suggest that when someone seeks the materials required to carry out a terrorist attack we ignore them if it doesn't seem like their hopes will pan out? If they were competent, they would have looked for (and found) said materials in Long's Drugs, Home Depot, Safeway, etc. That's what the unabomber did, after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:04 pm
you people write alot... x.x i dont have the attention span to read everything i missed in here... whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:22 pm
I haven't seen any reports that support what you say. Can you provide me with some? katsuhaiabi Strideo That isn't under dispute. You must admit, though, that the lack of connections would limit all accessibility. The lack of connections to al qaeda limit all accessibility to weapons or to al qaeda themselves? I would say it does not eliminate the chance of accessibility to what they were seeking or someone else who would provide it. Also to say that if one is not connected to al qaeda that they then cannot become connected would be wrong, but I admit al qaeda is not easy to get in touch with. katsuhaiabi Strideo They were seeking access to these kinds of things. Do you suggest that when someone seeks the materials required to carry out a terrorist attack we ignore them if it doesn't seem like their hopes will pan out? If they were competent, they would have looked for (and found) said materials in Long's Drugs, Home Depot, Safeway, etc. That's what the unabomber did, after all. Is competence a measure of guilt in a conspiracy trial? If I were in the process of robbing a bank and as soon as I got in the door I dropped my gun and shot myself in the foot would I be exonerated of any crime?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm
wow a fake terrorist attack turns into a full-blown debate with seperate quotes and everything crazy man crazy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:35 pm
FFXIsKegan wow a fake terrorist attack turns into a full-blown debate with seperate quotes and everything crazy man crazy! Snakes on a plane, man. Snakes on a plane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:35 pm
Strideo I haven't seen any reports that support what you say. Can you provide me with some? katsuhaiabi Strideo That isn't under dispute. You must admit, though, that the lack of connections would limit all accessibility. The lack of connections to al qaeda limit all accessibility to weapons or to al qaeda themselves? I would say it does not eliminate the chance of accessibility to what they were seeking or someone else who would provide it. Also to say that if one is not connected to al qaeda that they then cannot become connected would be wrong, but I admit al qaeda is not easy to get in touch with. katsuhaiabi Strideo They were seeking access to these kinds of things. Do you suggest that when someone seeks the materials required to carry out a terrorist attack we ignore them if it doesn't seem like their hopes will pan out? If they were competent, they would have looked for (and found) said materials in Long's Drugs, Home Depot, Safeway, etc. That's what the unabomber did, after all. Is competence a measure of guilt in a conspiracy trial? If I were in the process of robbing a bank and as soon as I got in the door I dropped my gun and shot myself in the foot would I be exonerated of any crime? If a police officer were to give you the gun, drive you to the bank, then arrest you after you shoot yourself in the foot, it would be the town clown who would be the guilty party. But a closer example would be if you and six of your friends were to talk about robbing a bank, go to Kmart, ask an employee where they keep the guns, then get arrested by the dude who suggested Kmart during the meeting. In either case, the informant would be the guilty party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:41 pm
katsuhaiabi If a police officer were to give you the gun, drive you to the bank, then arrest you after you shoot yourself in the foot, it would be the town clown who would be the guilty party. But a closer example would be if you and six of your friends were to talk about robbing a bank, go to Kmart, ask an employee where they keep the guns, then get arrested by the dude who suggested Kmart during the meeting. In either case, the informant would be the guilty party. Well, first of all your statement here focuses on the aspect of entrapment where the question (at least in regard to the analogy) was about competency. I feel that only serves to obfuscate my point of view. The issue of competency is this: you do not have to be skilled or capable to have larceny in your heart. Competency is not a measure of guilt. As for the matter of entrapment, well first off let's make the matter clear. If a man leaves his home with absolutley no intention of hiring a prostitue and a woman comes up to that man on the street and offers herself to him for money and he says "Yes let's go" and then he gets arrested becaue she was a police woman then that is entrapment. If a man leaves his home with the intent of hiring a prostitue and he sees a woman who appears to be a prostitue and approaches her to ask if she is "selling", so to speak, then that is not entrapment if he is arrested and she is an under cover officer. So, if it were known that these men were seeking connections to al qaeda and the FBI provided a fake one is that entrapment? Do you know what level of invovlment the undercover person had? If he came in and became the ring leader of the group and led them by the hand then yes, that would probably be going too far, but do you know that for a fact? If you don't then your assertions are just speculative at best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:22 pm
Strideo katsuhaiabi If a police officer were to give you the gun, drive you to the bank, then arrest you after you shoot yourself in the foot, it would be the town clown who would be the guilty party. But a closer example would be if you and six of your friends were to talk about robbing a bank, go to Kmart, ask an employee where they keep the guns, then get arrested by the dude who suggested Kmart during the meeting. In either case, the informant would be the guilty party. Well, first of all your statement here focuses on the aspect of entrapment where the question (at least in regard to the analogy) was about competency. I feel that only serves to obfuscate my point of view. The issue of competency is this: you do not have to be skilled or capable to have larceny in your heart. Competency is not a measure of guilt. As for the matter of entrapment, well first off let's make the matter clear. If a man leaves his home with absolutley no intention of hiring a prostitue and a woman comes up to that man on the street and offers herself to him for money and he says "Yes let's go" and then he gets arrested becaue she was a police woman then that is entrapment. If a man leaves his home with the intent of hiring a prostitue and he sees a woman who appears to be a prostitue and approaches her to ask if she is "selling", so to speak, then that is not entrapment if he is arrested and she is an under cover officer. So, if it were known that these men were seeking connections to al qaeda and the FBI provided a fake one is that entrapment? Do you know what level of invovlment the undercover person had? If he came in and became the ring leader of the group and led them by the hand then yes, that would probably be going too far, but do you know that for a fact? If you don't then your assertions are just speculative at best. You make a good point. Would you mind if I address this a bit later? I Sorry if I seemed a little rude, but I have friends and relatives who were living in NY in 9/11 and I lost some other relatives in the terrorist attack. As you can imagine, I have no patience for all this terroristy BS. As you can see, I may have a little too much emotional attachment to the subject of terrorism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:43 pm
Not to inturupt, but can I move this to "IDT"? biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:01 pm
Aiyah... just dump this on my lap, why don't you? stare
Okay, Strideo, katsu, let me see if I can smooth things out.
The issue here is whether or not it was entrapment or not. The government (and Strideo's) argument is that these men were seeking support from al-Queda, and the government intercepted them with an undercover agent who claimed to be from the organization. This would not be entrapment, because the men were actively seeking to commit a terrorist act.
On the other side with katsu, these could have been just disgruntled Americans who were approached with someone they believed to be connected with al-Queda, and followed him because they believed that he could help them commit a terrorist act. Assuming they never came in contact with the FBI agent, they would have never commited any terrorist act, nor would they have had any serious plans to do so.
The main dispute is how likely the men would have been to commit an act of terrorism had they never met the undercover FBI agent, who we know was purposefully sent by the government to ring in these people. The government's actions can only be explained with one of a few reasons:
1.) They believed that these men were already in contact with other potential terrorists, and sent the undercover agent in hopes of finding these other terrorists, then having more suspects to arrest and question for more information. Judging by the size of the catch, it is my opinion that they were probably wrong about this matter, giving more support for katsu's argument, and that they made the arrest to have a patsy and not look like idiots.
2.) They believed that the men were seeking support from al-Queda and were about to make contact with a real operative from the organization, and sent the FBI agent to intercept them before that happened. This argument also doesn't make a great deal of sense, since it would probably be more advantageous to plant an undercover agent as one of the normal members than as a leader, in order to gain access and information from he actual al-Queda agent.
I'm sure there are probably other potential reasons, and I'll try and come up with some more, along with some thoughts on whether it's feasible or not. Thoughts on the potential arguments so far?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:30 pm
Mrs Nightshade Was reading the news and I heard terrorists were going to bomb down the Sears tower in Illinois but someone from their group told on them and the terrorists got sent to jail.
Good if they went to jail. My mom lives in Illinois I don't want to hear anything bad happen to her, we live right around chicago, well she does with my family. I live with my boyfriend in Massachusetts. Imagine hearing that.
What would you do if you heard something like that? Our world is becoming shittier and shittier. They were going to do something to pennsylvania as well but they went to jail.
What would you do if you heard something like this? I think our world is getting doomed each and every day. I'm so sick of hearing crap like this all the time. WTC! I didn't hear about that! I live like, RIGHT by Chicago. Crap! This world is dying in many ways because of people.I'm tired of it. it's all for money or power
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[Kegan]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/32/d0/3e9c16b12dd032_flip.png?t=1509381123_6.00_11)
