5 ms·

"This isn’t a question of sympathy, it’s a question of what types of behaviour on the part of the police are in society’s best interests. I don’t have sympathy

"This isn’t a question of sympathy, it’s a question of what types of behaviour on the part of the police are in society’s best interests. I don’t have sympathy for a shoplifter, but if the police beat a confession out of him, I am troubled by their actions. The world where the police can suggest targets to a group and supply the materials for action is also a world where you can take your taxes to an accountant, have him suggest some “aggressive” reporting of expenses, and when you agree you are arrested when it turns out the accountant was an undercover fraud squad officer." You're right, it's not about sympathy. It's exactly as you said, what is the in the best interests of society. But the scenario you present of an accountant is a totally incorrect comparison in my view. An accountant is executing a complex task on your behalf presumably in good faith. We hire accountants because they are masters of a certain domain of knowledge, experts that guide us. Your scenario uses totally ambiguous language, and it would be understandable for the client of the accountant to be confused as to whether "aggressive" means "I'm using all my tools to save you money in a good faith effort" or "I'm going to pull one over on Uncle Sam". What is NOT AT ALL ambiguous is the idea that someone has an intent to BLOW UP A BRIDGE, a desire to harm the infrastructure of this country and waste millions of dollars IN THE BEST CASE SCENARIO. At worst, loss of life and death to our fellow Americans. I can't even begin to understand how these two scenarios are in any way similar. The FBI agent that guided these people through a process they willingly participated in is not comparable to an accountant. This is not some ambiguous undertaking where a poorly chosen phrasing of words can lead to a misunderstanding where an illegal action could potentially take place. The world is not black and white, but when you get to the point where you are actively participating in an effort that is frantically scanning the pages of the Anarchist Cookbook to produce explosives... I'd suggest that this scenario is pretty easily understood as wrong. And the original poster is 100% correct: "That's not entrapment. Any sane, law abiding person would react viscerally and negative to such a suggestion." This is not a movie. This is real life. This is not V. You don't get to run around executing on a plan to blow things up, regardless of who is leading you and their intentions, without some real serious consequences and without the FBI taking you down. This isn't about me, or my sympathy's or tolerances (of which I have none and little, respectively) but it is about what we will tolerate as a society and what is in our best interests. As you suggested. I think it's in society's best interests to roll these people up. I have absolutely zero qualms about taking people off the chess board that think it's a great idea for everyone to pile into the van and visit the bomb site. These are grown adults, not children. It's not about my pop-psychology either, but I think if we all think about it for a moment, it's not hard to imagine that these people already had the core of this in them. Anyone who vacillates on whether or not building bombs to blow things up is right or wrong... These are super well balanced people who were led astray and corrupted in a series of weeks? "Summary: yes, these people are unsympathetic. But also yes, it’s important to ask questions about the choices the police are making to prosecute them." Ask away. In my view, it's easily answered. If you don't find it to be an easy answer, I can say that I honestly can't begin to understand your perspective, but I'd be interested in your response.

raganwald 14y ago
I think it's in society's best interests to roll these people up. I have absolutely zero qualms about taking people off the chess board that think it's a great idea for everyone to pile into the van and visit the bomb site. Hunh, I think that’s the same argument to be used for illegal wiretapping, slapping GPS transmitters on cars, and on an on. "We’re after nasty people, so society’s best interests are served by having us use every tool at our disposal and letting us choose who, when, and why without oversight.” And yes, the answer may be easy for you, but it’s also easy for me. I don’t think the fact that these people may be nasty has any bearing on what should or shouldn’t constitute due process. I also don’t think that discovering their nastiness after the fact justifies the police actions before the fact of their nastiness has been established. I suspect there are deep, deep philosophical divides at work here. For your reading interest, I present something that happened during the a long-ago spate of successful domestic terrorism events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO Which leads naturally to a group of actually nasty people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization) I almost forgot. As a Canadian, I am especially interested in this difficult moral case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_crisis
- gavinlynch 14y ago
  No. It's really not at all. And you're taking the same mischaracterization that an above post takes: I do not feel this was okay because "these are nasty people", as if my delicate sensibilities cringe at the idea of "icky people", people that are different than me or have different view than I have. That is a false representation of my views. I think it's okay to roll up on these people because they think it's okay to blow up bridges, and because they took all necessary actions to indicate intent, which would clearly and unequivocally be a crime. Due process? They will get their day in court. If it turns out that they were just minding their business, being upstanding citizens in our society until an FBI agent kidnapped them and forced them to participate in a bomb plot, then I will gladly eat crow and be on the side of their exoneration and justice. I am sure there are many things our government does that would not stand up with respect to a hard, realistic look at constitutionality. I am not naive enough to believe that "because the government does it, it's not illegal" nor am I for the wrongful persecution of political or religious organizations "just because I don't like them". But here is my bottom line: people that plot to blow up pieces of American infrastructure and who then take steps to follow out that plan are criminals. I'm kind of amazed I even have to state this.

raganwald 14y ago

I think it's in society's best interests to roll these people up. I have absolutely zero qualms about taking people off the chess board that think it's a great idea for everyone to pile into the van and visit the bomb site. Hunh, I think that’s the same argument to be used for illegal wiretapping, slapping GPS transmitters on cars, and on an on. "We’re after nasty people, so society’s best interests are served by having us use every tool at our disposal and letting us choose who, when, and why without oversight.” And yes, the answer may be easy for you, but it’s also easy for me. I don’t think the fact that these people may be nasty has any bearing on what should or shouldn’t constitute due process. I also don’t think that discovering their nastiness after the fact justifies the police actions before the fact of their nastiness has been established. I suspect there are deep, deep philosophical divides at work here. For your reading interest, I present something that happened during the a long-ago spate of successful domestic terrorism events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO Which leads naturally to a group of actually nasty people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization) I almost forgot. As a Canadian, I am especially interested in this difficult moral case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_crisis

gavinlynch 14y ago
No. It's really not at all. And you're taking the same mischaracterization that an above post takes: I do not feel this was okay because "these are nasty people", as if my delicate sensibilities cringe at the idea of "icky people", people that are different than me or have different view than I have. That is a false representation of my views. I think it's okay to roll up on these people because they think it's okay to blow up bridges, and because they took all necessary actions to indicate intent, which would clearly and unequivocally be a crime. Due process? They will get their day in court. If it turns out that they were just minding their business, being upstanding citizens in our society until an FBI agent kidnapped them and forced them to participate in a bomb plot, then I will gladly eat crow and be on the side of their exoneration and justice. I am sure there are many things our government does that would not stand up with respect to a hard, realistic look at constitutionality. I am not naive enough to believe that "because the government does it, it's not illegal" nor am I for the wrongful persecution of political or religious organizations "just because I don't like them". But here is my bottom line: people that plot to blow up pieces of American infrastructure and who then take steps to follow out that plan are criminals. I'm kind of amazed I even have to state this.