4 ms·
This seems like a tragic situation. There are some strong indications that personal and social problems are what drove Mohamud to embrace Islam, and that theref
by rtl49 11y ago
This seems like a tragic situation. There are some strong indications that personal and social problems are what drove Mohamud to embrace Islam, and that therefore these are in some sense responsible for making him susceptible to becoming 'radicalized.'
However, unlike some others in this thread, I don't find myself privately rejoicing that a legal technicality has now presented him with a chance of freedom. Whatever the causes of his antipathy toward the United States, and however you feel about the surveillance state and general disregard among law enforcement for our constitutional rights, Mohamud demonstrated a very clear intention to kill many people whom he never met. This cannot be attributed to entrapment, even if it is ultimately shown that his constitutional rights have been violated.
I hope Mohamud has overcome whatever psychological state led him into this situation. If it could be shown that he is truly better, I would have no objection to his return to society. But there is something absurd about the possibility that a person with a demonstrated propensity for mass violence might be returned to society at large without any legal restrictions, psychological treatment, or period of supervision.
- DennisP 11y agoThe appeal isn't about entrapment, it's about wholesale warrantless surveillance of American citizens. > Mohamud is the very first criminal defendant to challenge the FAA before a court of appeals, which opens the door for a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. The appeal has widespread implications: The controversial law provides the legal framework for the mass surveillance programs that Edward Snowden revealed in 2013. > “It’s not an exaggeration,” Patrick Toomey, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney, told BuzzFeed News, “to say that the privacy rights of millions of Americans potentially hang in the balance of his case.”
- rtl49 11y agoI didn't claim it was about entrapment. I was anticipating a potential objection, that Mohamud was 'radicalized' by the agents involved in this situation, which another comment implied. I understand the legal implications. If only our legal system were not organized such that one must invest so much effort into proving 'standing,' perhaps we could respond to the situation rationally instead of choosing between two potentially negative outcomes.
- aidenn0 11y agoI think it is a good balance. Cops do not want to let bad guys off the hook, so knowing that if they improperly collect evidence it will do so aligns the incentives well.
- tremon 11y agoCops are as susceptible to rationalization as anyone else. If they improperly collect evidence but are not punished directly for it, they will not view it as their error: they will view it as "the system" has failed to follow through on their hard work. This might then lead to more cops taking matters in their own hands rather than handing the suspect over to the prosecution.
- eru 11y ago> The appeal isn't about entrapment, it's about wholesale warrantless surveillance of American citizens. Why should they have it any better than the unAmerican citizens of the world?
- rtl49 11y agoI don't believe he or she claimed they should, only that this was the basis of the appeal.
- jedmeyers 11y agoThe Constitution of the United States only protects US persons (not citizens) from unreasonable surveillance. Spying on "unAmerican citizens of the world" is the direct duty of many of the US spy agencies, of which there are 17.
- freehunter 11y agoIt's hard to find joy in this, but these cases are very important to protecting our freedoms, more important than someone who was falsely accused and is easy to relate to. Forcing the government to let someone go even though they know that person wishes to do harm to the country is the ultimate test of the checks and balances that keep our country in line. These agencies need to know there is someone watching over them. They need to know there are limits. And, god forbid, the worst happens and he commits a crime after he is released, these agencies need to know that the blood is on their hands, because they royally fucked up. If you want to convict someone and have it stick, it has to be done by the books. In this case, the FBI is the real threat to the American people.
- rtl49 11y agoI agree on the importance of the rule of law in criminal investigations. I just wanted to point out, from a bird's eye perspective, the silliness of this situation. Because of the rigid insistence on legal standing, the only way to curtail the FAA on this issue is to release a person who has displayed a tendency for mass violence. It would seem that there should be a better way to organize our legal system so society isn't faced with dilemmas of this sort.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago> Because of the rigid insistence on legal standing, the only way to curtail the FAA on this issue is to release a person who has displayed a tendency for mass violence. You're seeing an interaction between two rather unintuitive rules. Standing is required because legislature is supposed to make the law, not the courts. The courts only "make law" when they're forced to because there is already a "case or controversy" and it has to be decided under the law in effect when the events occurred, not whatever Congress might decide to pass tomorrow. Only then do the courts decide what the ambiguous, vague, contradictory text Congress passed actually means. Then that decision stands as precedent and effectively becomes the law until the legislature disagrees in the form of passing contrary legislation (or a constitutional amendment). But the thing you're really objecting to is the exclusionary rule. Letting bad people go free is the mechanism by which the exclusionary rule operates, because it's something the police don't want, which means it can be used as punishment for the police when they break the rules. The exclusionary rule is weird. When you see it in operation your instinct is to think that something is malfunctioning, but that's how it's supposed to work. You think it isn't working because you want the same thing as the police and its method of operation is to do something the police don't want. The problem is the exclusionary rule does what it's designed to do surprisingly well in practice, and the alternatives don't.
- kiiski 11y ago> But there is something absurd about the possibility that a person with a demonstrated propensity for mass violence might be returned to society at large without any legal restrictions, psychological treatment, or period of supervision. There is nothing illegal in wanting to kill people. There is nothing illegal in having radical religious (or other) beliefs. Free societies don't punish thought crime. The only thing the law enforcement/legal system can legally and morally do, is to mark him as a potential threat (and increase surveillance) like they would with any other suspected terrorist.
- simonh 11y ago> There is nothing illegal in wanting to kill people True, but actively planning and taking concrete steps to prepare to actually kill people and trying to trigger a bomb to do so absolutely is illegal, and it appears that this is what he did.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]