13 ms·

Perhaps we aren't seeing the term 'generate' in exactly the same way. I took your meaning to be "the government hatched a kidnapping plot and suckered some libe

Perhaps we aren't seeing the term 'generate' in exactly the same way. I took your meaning to be "the government hatched a kidnapping plot and suckered some libertarians into going along with it". You understand this is a much different scenario from "the FBI let confidential informants play their part as militia members but let the conspirators fully bake their plan." > If the best counterpoint is another crackpot conspirator had allegedly the initial mere idea (which, depending how it is conveyed, may not even be illegal Seems like exactly the reason the feds would have to allow the conspiracy to develop. What would you have them do? Give them a stern warning and let them know who their informants were?

mothballed 1y ago
The government hatched a large part of the plot, it seems though, then roped a bunch of people into court who jurors found not guilty. I think it impossible to know who came up with the mere idea first. You'd have to prove a negative that no one else did which seems impossible. So the assertion regarding Musico is questionable, at best you could assert he did utter the idea at some point. >eems like exactly the reason the feds would have to allow the conspiracy to develop You're speaking of alternate reality. Fed assets trained , funded, planned, and encouraged it. They weren't 'allowing it' -- they were actively creating it. No i dont condone that.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  > The government hatched a large part of the plot Which parts? > You'd have to prove a negative that no one else did which seems impossible. That is a weird way to operate, particularly since you just assigned "a large part" of the creation of the plot to informants without proving that no one else on earth thought of it beforehand. > Fed assets trained , funded, planned, and encouraged it They were also militia assets with a pretty strong incentive to not act abnormally. You are welcome to be opposed to undercover work, most of the country is not. In the end, they key figures were convicted and the kidnapping didn't happen.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    Loop to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45216655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45216655. >st assigned "a large part" of the creation Stated as generation/"generating violent conspiracies", not initial conception of mere idea which by itself might not even be illegal activity. You can't even have a conspiracy without an overt act, which FBI extensively aided and generated. We're just looping now. End of loop.
    - cosmicgadget 1y ago
      You cannot legally have a conspiracy conviction without an overt act. Clearly the plot to kidnap the governor was an actual criminal enterprise from its inception. The FBI did a great job exposing a violent militia.

mothballed 1y ago

The government hatched a large part of the plot, it seems though, then roped a bunch of people into court who jurors found not guilty. I think it impossible to know who came up with the mere idea first. You'd have to prove a negative that no one else did which seems impossible. So the assertion regarding Musico is questionable, at best you could assert he did utter the idea at some point. >eems like exactly the reason the feds would have to allow the conspiracy to develop You're speaking of alternate reality. Fed assets trained , funded, planned, and encouraged it. They weren't 'allowing it' -- they were actively creating it. No i dont condone that.

cosmicgadget 1y ago
> The government hatched a large part of the plot Which parts? > You'd have to prove a negative that no one else did which seems impossible. That is a weird way to operate, particularly since you just assigned "a large part" of the creation of the plot to informants without proving that no one else on earth thought of it beforehand. > Fed assets trained , funded, planned, and encouraged it They were also militia assets with a pretty strong incentive to not act abnormally. You are welcome to be opposed to undercover work, most of the country is not. In the end, they key figures were convicted and the kidnapping didn't happen.
- mothballed 1y ago
  Loop to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45216655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45216655. >st assigned "a large part" of the creation Stated as generation/"generating violent conspiracies", not initial conception of mere idea which by itself might not even be illegal activity. You can't even have a conspiracy without an overt act, which FBI extensively aided and generated. We're just looping now. End of loop.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    You cannot legally have a conspiracy conviction without an overt act. Clearly the plot to kidnap the governor was an actual criminal enterprise from its inception. The FBI did a great job exposing a violent militia.