6 ms·

With all the bashing FBI receives they are for the most part operating within the framework of the law. In some countries just conspiring to commit a terrorist

With all the bashing FBI receives they are for the most part operating within the framework of the law. In some countries just conspiring to commit a terrorist act can lead to a conviction, so in a way you can say that FBI is 'forced' to operate this way to get a conviction for a would be terrorist.

tehwebguy 10y ago
> In some countries just conspiring to commit a terrorist act can lead to a conviction Like the US
- ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
  To actually get this type of conviction there has to be TONS of hard evidence to the point where in layman terms things are beyond what is typically considered 'conspiring'. For example, this dude got convicted for 'conspiracy and other offences' after his buddies were 'firing assault rifles at security personnel and law enforcement officers' and ended up getting killed. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/phoenix-man-convicted-conspiracy-support-isil-and-other-terrorism-related-offenses https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/phoenix-man-convicted-conspir...
  - reptation 10y ago
    Not true, look at the Mehanna case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_Mehanna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_Mehanna or the Al-Arian case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian
    - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
      Both cases involved deliberate actions by the defendants classified as illegal, hence the conviction. Not to mention things like '...20,000 hours of dialogue from 472,000 wiretapped telephone conversations on 18 tapped lines gathered from 1994 to 2003', multiple court appearances etc etc. This just goes to demonstrate exactly why FBI is doing things the way the article describes.
Kristine1975 10y ago
>for the most part That's not enough. The FBI has to completely operate within the framework of the law, just like any other law enforcement agency.
- ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
  there are cases where the rules are determined by the way the situation is subjectively perceived by the person involved. their actions can later be deemed to be lawful or not depending on whether their perception is justified. for example - the use of lethal force has to be justifiable (this applies to everyone not just the FBI obviously), one's justification after the fact can be considered valid or not depending on circumstances.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> In some countries just conspiring to commit a terrorist act can lead to a conviction One of those countries would be the US: conspiring to commit any federal crime is, itself, a federal crime [0], and the US federal terrorism statute (which only applies to acts outside of the United States, though acts of terrorism within the United States are covered by other criminal statutes) also especially criminalizes attempts and conspiracies. [1] [0] 18 USC Sec. 371; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 [1] 18 USC Sec. 2332(b); https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332
wfo 10y ago
I don't think any of the bashing the FBI gets is about suggesting they are breaking the law. Rather, the suggestions are that the law is limitlessly broad and allows nearly anything so it is nearly impossible for them to break the law in the first place (they can, for example, set up entire laboratories dedicated to fabricating evidence and send trained experts who lie on the stand as standard operating procedure with no repercussions). And given that their powers are so broad and immense, we rely on them acting in good faith and morally (we must, because we have nothing else), so we criticize them when they do not do that. Preying on mentally ill Muslims and concocting elaborate schemes which exploit their inability to function normally to trick them into "taking part" in (sometimes little more than just 'agreeing to') some sort of plot that doesn't exist and then patting themselves on the back for "getting a terrorist" and locking the mentally ill person in jail for decades is, well, sick, and not a shining example of 'acting morally', so the criticism is well-deserved.
- ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
  That specific case - yes it was a stretch, although this brings a question of a mental health -related detention which is a huge can of worms in and of itself. Also there are no specific details on the mental disease he was allegedly struggling with. Dissolving ppl in acid and burning women refusing to have sex with you is a 'mental disease' in my book which is what isis is doing. Should they be exempt from prosecution? That said : "Of 508 defendants prosecuted in federal terrorism-related cases in the decade after 9/11, 243 were involved with an FBI informant, while 158 were the targets of sting operations. Of those cases, an informant or FBI undercover operative led 49 defendants in their terrorism plots, similar to the way Osmakac was led in his." So now 49 cases out of 508 were 'led' by the FBI, not clear how many of those had to do with mentally unfit individuals or if Osmakac was the only one.

tehwebguy 10y ago

> In some countries just conspiring to commit a terrorist act can lead to a conviction Like the US

ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
To actually get this type of conviction there has to be TONS of hard evidence to the point where in layman terms things are beyond what is typically considered 'conspiring'. For example, this dude got convicted for 'conspiracy and other offences' after his buddies were 'firing assault rifles at security personnel and law enforcement officers' and ended up getting killed. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/phoenix-man-convicted-conspiracy-support-isil-and-other-terrorism-related-offenses https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/phoenix-man-convicted-conspir...
- reptation 10y ago
  Not true, look at the Mehanna case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_Mehanna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_Mehanna or the Al-Arian case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian
  - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
    Both cases involved deliberate actions by the defendants classified as illegal, hence the conviction. Not to mention things like '...20,000 hours of dialogue from 472,000 wiretapped telephone conversations on 18 tapped lines gathered from 1994 to 2003', multiple court appearances etc etc. This just goes to demonstrate exactly why FBI is doing things the way the article describes.

Kristine1975 10y ago

>for the most part That's not enough. The FBI has to completely operate within the framework of the law, just like any other law enforcement agency.

ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
there are cases where the rules are determined by the way the situation is subjectively perceived by the person involved. their actions can later be deemed to be lawful or not depending on whether their perception is justified. for example - the use of lethal force has to be justifiable (this applies to everyone not just the FBI obviously), one's justification after the fact can be considered valid or not depending on circumstances.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> In some countries just conspiring to commit a terrorist act can lead to a conviction One of those countries would be the US: conspiring to commit any federal crime is, itself, a federal crime [0], and the US federal terrorism statute (which only applies to acts outside of the United States, though acts of terrorism within the United States are covered by other criminal statutes) also especially criminalizes attempts and conspiracies. [1] [0] 18 USC Sec. 371; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 [1] 18 USC Sec. 2332(b); https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332

wfo 10y ago

I don't think any of the bashing the FBI gets is about suggesting they are breaking the law. Rather, the suggestions are that the law is limitlessly broad and allows nearly anything so it is nearly impossible for them to break the law in the first place (they can, for example, set up entire laboratories dedicated to fabricating evidence and send trained experts who lie on the stand as standard operating procedure with no repercussions). And given that their powers are so broad and immense, we rely on them acting in good faith and morally (we must, because we have nothing else), so we criticize them when they do not do that. Preying on mentally ill Muslims and concocting elaborate schemes which exploit their inability to function normally to trick them into "taking part" in (sometimes little more than just 'agreeing to') some sort of plot that doesn't exist and then patting themselves on the back for "getting a terrorist" and locking the mentally ill person in jail for decades is, well, sick, and not a shining example of 'acting morally', so the criticism is well-deserved.

ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
That specific case - yes it was a stretch, although this brings a question of a mental health -related detention which is a huge can of worms in and of itself. Also there are no specific details on the mental disease he was allegedly struggling with. Dissolving ppl in acid and burning women refusing to have sex with you is a 'mental disease' in my book which is what isis is doing. Should they be exempt from prosecution? That said : "Of 508 defendants prosecuted in federal terrorism-related cases in the decade after 9/11, 243 were involved with an FBI informant, while 158 were the targets of sting operations. Of those cases, an informant or FBI undercover operative led 49 defendants in their terrorism plots, similar to the way Osmakac was led in his." So now 49 cases out of 508 were 'led' by the FBI, not clear how many of those had to do with mentally unfit individuals or if Osmakac was the only one.