4 ms·

Suppose I went out and sought out people who I think might have a beef with the american government, proposed a terrorist plot to them, and supplied them with t

by nirvana 14y ago

Suppose I went out and sought out people who I think might have a beef with the american government, proposed a terrorist plot to them, and supplied them with the tools to do it (and the FBI has supplied real explosives in the past to these groups).. and then they do it and all die in the process, but cause death of innocents as well. If I did all that, would I be guilty of something? Probably conspiracy and a dozen other crimes. Ok, now, if I'm doing the exact same actions, but I'm a member of the government, does that make my actions less of a crime? If something is a crime, does the criminality of it change depending on who is doing it? Is it ok for the president to murder someone but not for a distraught spouse? Is it ok for an FBI agent to set up a terrorist plot that gets foiled, but not ok for a truck driver? Imagine in both cases, before the plot can be put in motion, that law enforcement swoops in. The plot hasn't occurred yet, so they haven't actually committed an act of terrorism. But they did plan one and engage in a conspiracy to do it. In that case, isn't the FBI agent legally as guilty as anyone else in the conspiracy? How can the law be relative and let certain members of society off the hook- especially if, as it appears, those members were the primary conspirators, and without whome nothing would have happened? Whether this is "entrapment" or not is besides the point here-- if participating a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act is itself a crime, then isn't organizing the same also a crime? And shouldn't' criminality apply to anyone, no matter what their profession. If the law starts treating certain members of society differently than others, you don't have the rule of law so much any more and you start having two classes- the untouchables and the common. Police getting away with speeding doesn't always hurt society (thought it does cause wrecks) but over time, it seems natural that more and more laws will apply to the common folk and not to the "elite" and the elite will come to use their powers more and more for their own advantage. This disconnect is corruptive in nature, I believe.

bryze 14y ago
I think you make a strong argument. Here's a question: What happens when the smart anarchist turns in the snitch to the local police department with full documentation of conspiracy to commit a terrorist act?
- DasIch 14y ago
  The same thing that happens when it wouldn't be a snitch. What happens to that person should be decided in court by a judge/jury not by the police.
  - bryze 14y ago
    I agree, in principle, but I wonder if the Feds would make a trip downtown to bail out their snitch first.
  - baltcode 14y ago
    The only problem is, the state attornies/feds don't press criminal charges on the person if they don't want to.
- v21 14y ago
  It's happened! They ended up having to get a restraining order against him. "Yet, far from succeeding, Monteilh eventually so unnerved Orange County's Muslim community that that they got a restraining order against him. In an ironic twist, they also reported Monteilh to the FBI: unaware he was in fact working undercover for the agency." -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/20/fbi-informant http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/20/fbi-informant
  - bryze 14y ago
    What a great read; thanks for posting it. While the reported outcome differed from the Rolling Stone article, the FBI's modus operandi appear the same.
Zak 14y ago
Mental state is an element of most crimes. Conspiracy, for example requires that the conspirator intend for the object of the conspiracy to be carried out. A detective posing as a hit man might arrange with a woman to murder her husband for $5000[0], but can clearly demonstrate he had no intent to carry out the murder. An informant can sell a terrorist fake explosives and clearly demonstrate he had no intention of blowing anything up. I, as a private citizen could do the same thing, though I might end up having to argue to a jury that my intentions were pure if the police stepped in halfway through. [0] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/dalia-dippolito-cops_n_976053.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/dalia-dippolito-cop...
JumpCrisscross 14y ago
Suppose I take someone I find disagreeable and put them in a room and say I'll take basic care of them but that they can't leave for 5-7 years. If I did this it would be illegal. If the government does it it is not. Yet incarceration is not championed as a violation of the rule of law. The accused will still get a fair trial. The reason entrapment isn't besides the point is covert police activity checked by laws against entrapment are part of a long tradition of legally admissible police behaviour - there is nothing evidently abnormal about this case. I do not believe in exceptionalism - if I were in the wrong social group I cannot say for certain I could not, eventually, be re-conditioned in a socially destructive way. Whether it is the individual's or the movement's or society's fault that a young person is found seriously contemplating (a threshold with judicial precedent that the FBI is and the jury will be made aware of) blowing up bridges is irrelevant from the perspective of justice as much as a shooter's peers bullying him is to his sentencing. Those factors, instead, inform reform discussions going forward. Thinking about a crime is not - and should not - be a crime. Actively planning one is. The line between conception and execution is blurry. That does not mean we need to watch and wait for someone to blow up a bridge before we can arrest them.
smsm42 14y ago
> Is it ok for the president to murder someone but not for a distraught spouse? It's not OK for the President to murder someone, but it may be OK to kill someone if it's within President's powers as chief executive and commander in chief. These powers are vast, that's the reason people carefully examine candidate's abilities, experience, moral standing, ability to take right decisions, etc. and do not base their choice on catchy bumper stickers and amount of money the candidate promises to extract from other people and give to them. Or at least they should be doing this if they don't want surprises later...
- maxharris 14y ago
  > These powers are vast We need to increase the number of checks and balances in our government. They've been eroding steadily over the last century, resulting in the overly powerful executive branch we have today. For example, there was a time when the president did not have the ability to wage war without legislative approval. The progressives (circa 1900) were not the first group that wished to diminish checks and balances, but they were the most consistent opponents of that system. And because they had a complete, systematic ideology, they succeeded in their goals, even though they were incorrect. See the following paragraph from Woodrow Wilson's book, "The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People": "The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live. On the contrary, its life is dependent upon their quick co-operation, their ready response to the commands of instinct or intelligence, their amicable community of purpose. Government is not a body of blind forces; it is a body of men, with highly differentiated functions, no doubt, in our modern day, of specialization, with a common task and purpose. Their co-operation is indispensable, their warfare fatal. There can be no successful government without the intimate, instinctive co-ordination of the organs of life and action. This is not theory, but fact, and displays its force as fact, whatever theories may be thrown across its track. Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop." (from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14811/14811-h/14811-h.htm http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14811/14811-h/14811-h.htm)

by nirvana 14y ago

bryze 14y ago

I think you make a strong argument. Here's a question: What happens when the smart anarchist turns in the snitch to the local police department with full documentation of conspiracy to commit a terrorist act?

DasIch 14y ago
The same thing that happens when it wouldn't be a snitch. What happens to that person should be decided in court by a judge/jury not by the police.
- bryze 14y ago
  I agree, in principle, but I wonder if the Feds would make a trip downtown to bail out their snitch first.
- baltcode 14y ago
  The only problem is, the state attornies/feds don't press criminal charges on the person if they don't want to.
v21 14y ago
It's happened! They ended up having to get a restraining order against him. "Yet, far from succeeding, Monteilh eventually so unnerved Orange County's Muslim community that that they got a restraining order against him. In an ironic twist, they also reported Monteilh to the FBI: unaware he was in fact working undercover for the agency." -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/20/fbi-informant http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/20/fbi-informant
- bryze 14y ago
  What a great read; thanks for posting it. While the reported outcome differed from the Rolling Stone article, the FBI's modus operandi appear the same.

Zak 14y ago

Mental state is an element of most crimes. Conspiracy, for example requires that the conspirator intend for the object of the conspiracy to be carried out. A detective posing as a hit man might arrange with a woman to murder her husband for $5000[0], but can clearly demonstrate he had no intent to carry out the murder. An informant can sell a terrorist fake explosives and clearly demonstrate he had no intention of blowing anything up. I, as a private citizen could do the same thing, though I might end up having to argue to a jury that my intentions were pure if the police stepped in halfway through. [0] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/dalia-dippolito-cops_n_976053.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/dalia-dippolito-cop...

JumpCrisscross 14y ago

Suppose I take someone I find disagreeable and put them in a room and say I'll take basic care of them but that they can't leave for 5-7 years. If I did this it would be illegal. If the government does it it is not. Yet incarceration is not championed as a violation of the rule of law. The accused will still get a fair trial. The reason entrapment isn't besides the point is covert police activity checked by laws against entrapment are part of a long tradition of legally admissible police behaviour - there is nothing evidently abnormal about this case. I do not believe in exceptionalism - if I were in the wrong social group I cannot say for certain I could not, eventually, be re-conditioned in a socially destructive way. Whether it is the individual's or the movement's or society's fault that a young person is found seriously contemplating (a threshold with judicial precedent that the FBI is and the jury will be made aware of) blowing up bridges is irrelevant from the perspective of justice as much as a shooter's peers bullying him is to his sentencing. Those factors, instead, inform reform discussions going forward. Thinking about a crime is not - and should not - be a crime. Actively planning one is. The line between conception and execution is blurry. That does not mean we need to watch and wait for someone to blow up a bridge before we can arrest them.

smsm42 14y ago

> Is it ok for the president to murder someone but not for a distraught spouse? It's not OK for the President to murder someone, but it may be OK to kill someone if it's within President's powers as chief executive and commander in chief. These powers are vast, that's the reason people carefully examine candidate's abilities, experience, moral standing, ability to take right decisions, etc. and do not base their choice on catchy bumper stickers and amount of money the candidate promises to extract from other people and give to them. Or at least they should be doing this if they don't want surprises later...

maxharris 14y ago
> These powers are vast We need to increase the number of checks and balances in our government. They've been eroding steadily over the last century, resulting in the overly powerful executive branch we have today. For example, there was a time when the president did not have the ability to wage war without legislative approval. The progressives (circa 1900) were not the first group that wished to diminish checks and balances, but they were the most consistent opponents of that system. And because they had a complete, systematic ideology, they succeeded in their goals, even though they were incorrect. See the following paragraph from Woodrow Wilson's book, "The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People": "The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live. On the contrary, its life is dependent upon their quick co-operation, their ready response to the commands of instinct or intelligence, their amicable community of purpose. Government is not a body of blind forces; it is a body of men, with highly differentiated functions, no doubt, in our modern day, of specialization, with a common task and purpose. Their co-operation is indispensable, their warfare fatal. There can be no successful government without the intimate, instinctive co-ordination of the organs of life and action. This is not theory, but fact, and displays its force as fact, whatever theories may be thrown across its track. Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop." (from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14811/14811-h/14811-h.htm http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14811/14811-h/14811-h.htm)