6 ms·

Even with the panic that has happened regarding the revelations of mass-surveillance I don't think the public at large truly realizes how screwed up this situat

Even with the panic that has happened regarding the revelations of mass-surveillance I don't think the public at large truly realizes how screwed up this situation is. The common defense of sweeping surveillance is that it serves an important purpose, finding terrorists, and it has succeeded in that purpose. Ignoring the very serious problems with framing the debate in such a way it's also fundamentally misleading. There have been many cases of "terrorist plots" within the US having been foiled over the last few years, but many if not most of these are not as serious as most would believe. A stereotypical "foiled terrorist plot" begins with a radicalized individual who somehow comes to the attention of the authorities. Then the FBI spins up an elaborate sting to essentially entrap the radicalized individual into committing to some sort of attack, often providing fake bombs in the process. And just before they go through with their planned "attack" the FBI arrests them. Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amine_El_Khalifi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amine_El_Khalifi and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Osman_Mohamud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Osman_Mohamud and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farooque_Ahmed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farooque_Ahmed and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Osmakac http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Osmakac Meanwhile, the FBI, NSA, TSA, et al have failed to foil many much more serious attacks, such as the Boston bombings, the Fort Hood shooting, the "underwear bomber", the failed 2010 Times Square bombing attempt, etc.

Wingman4l7 13y ago
Another example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rezwan_Ferdaus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rezwan_Ferdaus
- dbbolton 13y ago
  This article doesn't really tell us much about the FBI's involvement other than they arrested him.
  - Wingman4l7 13y ago
    It's not a very good article. Google his name and you can find the FBI affidavit and more information; it's a textbook "entrapment" case as the OP described.
    - InclinedPlane 13y ago
      http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/11/01/rezwan-ferdaus-ashland-sentenced-years-terror-plot/KKvy6D6n2PfXfbEfA4iMwJ/story.html http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/11/01/rezwan-ferdaus-as... Basically Ferdaus made statements that he supported terrorism and had some vague idea of an attack using RC airplanes, FBI agents posing as terrorists got in touch with him and coaxed him into more than just words. They gave him money which he used to buy guns, explosives, and model planes. Without FBI assistance his "plans" would likely never have gone anywhere.
      - Wingman4l7 13y ago
        Also note that the [dud] guns and explosives were provided entirely by the FBI.
stewbrew 13y ago
This sort of "entrapment" is legal in the US? But maybe they wouldn't care. Anyway, wouldn't it be more useful to invest the time, money and energy in facilitating social integration of these individuals. Just asking.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  First off, the vast majority of folks snatched up in these stings end up pleading guilty. It's simple logic, a certainty of spending 20 years in prison is vastly better than the chance of serving a life sentence or being executed. However, from the strictest legal perspective it's questionable how much the entrapment defense could be used in these cases. From a practical perspective much of this is clearcut entrapment. However, from a legal perspective you have folks who very clearly make strong statements saying they are willing to commit acts of terror and then when presented with the opportunity (in an elaborate masquerade put on by federal agents) they follow through. I can't imagine many lawyers salivating at the prospect of defending that.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  No, it's very much illegal in the US. But the government has to show results for all this irrational fear they've inspired so they're not above breaking their own laws and imprisoning mentally unstable people to accomplish their goals.
LatvjuAvs 13y ago
Meanwhile, some other events are happening and we are not much hearing about them. Events where a lot of people will loose lives(not that it is any sort of value). Red line crossing announcements in media did not help, so we needed distraction and suddenly everything would be such a big surprise, no one noticed it.

Wingman4l7 13y ago

Another example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rezwan_Ferdaus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rezwan_Ferdaus

dbbolton 13y ago
This article doesn't really tell us much about the FBI's involvement other than they arrested him.
- Wingman4l7 13y ago
  It's not a very good article. Google his name and you can find the FBI affidavit and more information; it's a textbook "entrapment" case as the OP described.
  - InclinedPlane 13y ago
    http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/11/01/rezwan-ferdaus-ashland-sentenced-years-terror-plot/KKvy6D6n2PfXfbEfA4iMwJ/story.html http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/11/01/rezwan-ferdaus-as... Basically Ferdaus made statements that he supported terrorism and had some vague idea of an attack using RC airplanes, FBI agents posing as terrorists got in touch with him and coaxed him into more than just words. They gave him money which he used to buy guns, explosives, and model planes. Without FBI assistance his "plans" would likely never have gone anywhere.
    - Wingman4l7 13y ago
      Also note that the [dud] guns and explosives were provided entirely by the FBI.

stewbrew 13y ago

This sort of "entrapment" is legal in the US? But maybe they wouldn't care. Anyway, wouldn't it be more useful to invest the time, money and energy in facilitating social integration of these individuals. Just asking.

InclinedPlane 13y ago
First off, the vast majority of folks snatched up in these stings end up pleading guilty. It's simple logic, a certainty of spending 20 years in prison is vastly better than the chance of serving a life sentence or being executed. However, from the strictest legal perspective it's questionable how much the entrapment defense could be used in these cases. From a practical perspective much of this is clearcut entrapment. However, from a legal perspective you have folks who very clearly make strong statements saying they are willing to commit acts of terror and then when presented with the opportunity (in an elaborate masquerade put on by federal agents) they follow through. I can't imagine many lawyers salivating at the prospect of defending that.
flyinRyan 13y ago
No, it's very much illegal in the US. But the government has to show results for all this irrational fear they've inspired so they're not above breaking their own laws and imprisoning mentally unstable people to accomplish their goals.

LatvjuAvs 13y ago

Meanwhile, some other events are happening and we are not much hearing about them. Events where a lot of people will loose lives(not that it is any sort of value). Red line crossing announcements in media did not help, so we needed distraction and suddenly everything would be such a big surprise, no one noticed it.