3 ms·

The trouble I have with this article is that it seeks to remove any personal responsibility from the person it claims is the "target" and victim of the sting.

The trouble I have with this article is that it seeks to remove any personal responsibility from the person it claims is the "target" and victim of the sting. Any bad decisions made by Osmakac are written off as having been coached, or a result of his being "Schizo-affective"[0]. The article title claims the FBI "created a terrorist", but then presents these things as factual: - He travelled to Saudi Arabia to get holy water, but later claimed he actually wanted to end up in Iraq or Afghanistan to fight American troops. - He argued with Dabus (the Palestinian shop owner) that Islam and democracy were incompatible. - He physically attacked the street preachers outside the Lady Gaga concert. ...all of which happened before the FBI got involved. Furthermore, the FBI only got involved because Dabus, the shop owner who Dennison had suggested he meet, turned Osmakac in. And why did Dabus do that? Because he felt that: ...he was doing his civic duty in reporting Osmakac and the young man’s interest in acquiring weapons... As terrible as the Patriot act is, this all sounds like the government got this one right. In particular, the article doesn't show that Osmakac would have behaved any differently if instead of being handled by the government, he had found an actual small arms dealer and weaseled some guy into giving him $300. And personally, I think we jump too quickly to the "he's just crazy" defense [1]. I don't want to live in a world where acting out on a dream you had absolves you of personal responsibility for your actions in the real world, which is apparently what The Intercept wants to believe. [0] http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/schizoaffective-disorder/basics/definition/con-20029221 http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/schizoaffectiv... [1] I'm not a psychiatrist, but I play one on The Internet [edit: formatting]

dalke 12y ago
"if instead of being handled by the government, he had found an actual small arms dealer and weaseled some guy into giving him $300." I believe that this quote from the article: > Osmakac was, in the FBI’s own words, “a retarded fool” who didn’t have any capacity to plan and execute an attack on his own. That was a challenge for the FBI. is supposed to mean that he wouldn't be able to go through the planning of doing as you suggest. If he has poor ability to plan, then your point #1 could be interpreted as another example. He wasn't able to go through the planning to get the holy water, or work around the visa issues, or manage the funding. Or figure out how to get to Afg Point #2 is protected free speech. As for point #3, another interpretation is that he's willing to fall into things in front of his face, so long as they don't require non-trivial planning. I know people who talk big, but can't actually pull anything off, so I wouldn't discount that possibility. Even if he 'weaseled some guy into giving him $300', it doesn't seem that he would find a small arms dealer willing to sell him "six grenades, a fully automatic AK-47 with magazines, a handgun and an explosive belt". Checking various auction sites, the minimum price for an AK-47 is $400, and those are semi-automatic, not an illegal fully automatic. Assuming $100 for the handgun, $10/grenade and I have no idea how much for he explosive belt, the real cost is likely over $1,000. (That's a wild-ass guess; but it's certainly over $500 in hardware, plus extra to cover risk on the dealer's side.) I don't think it's easy to find a dealer for this sort of equipment. I wouldn't know where to start and have 'no concept of what weapons cost on the black market.' I suspect that if I start asking around, someone is likely to call the cops on me. Also, why did you mention the Patriot Act? It's only mentioned once in the article, concerning someone else. I don't see mention that Patriot Act powers were used or potentially misused.
- notdonspaulding 12y ago
  > ... he wouldn't be able to go through the planning... The article goes out of its way to make this point. Namely, that Osmakac had no capacity to plan an attack, therefore he wasn't a terrorist until the FBI made him into one. If you happen upon a gun on the sidewalk, then use it to carry out your desires to murder an old enemy, is your guilt or innocence determined by the details surrounding how the gun got to the sidewalk? That's the point I'm getting at. > Point #2 is protected free speech. > As for point #3, another interpretation is that he's willing to fall into things in front of his face And? I wasn't suggesting that he be arrested for those things. I was pointing out his actions and behaviors prior to the FBI getting involved were sufficient to warrant civilians turning him in to the FBI. The FBI wasn't looking to make a terrorist out of some "retarded fool" for kicks. They were following up on assertions made to them about the danger of an individual, and they determined those assertions to be credible based on whatever they knew or were able to uncover about his past. That's just police work. > Also, why did you mention the Patriot Act? Mea culpa. I was using "The Patriot Act" as a stand-in for "The Over-reaching Federal Intelligence Community". I think the Patriot Act is a poorly-aimed law used to justify whatever the government wants it to. My point was that even though I do believe the US' three-letter organizations are overstepping their bounds in some areas, this doesn't smell like one of them to me.
  - dalke 12y ago
    > is your guilt or innocence determined by the details surrounding how the gun got to the sidewalk? Yes. Entrapment is a valid defense against criminal liability. The article tries hard to argue that this should be viewed as entrapment, and that information that might have swayed the court, such as background words of the investigators, wasn't available during the trial. Your scenario is hypothetical. If the police set up the circumstances so he was convinced that his neighbors were being robbed and kidnapped right in front of him, and a planted gun were at his feet, after being invited to a half-day presentation on the moral righteousness of Florida's Stand-your-ground law, and he picked up the gun to protect his neighbors, who are actually police officers in disguise, then yes, the circumstances are very important in judging his guilt under the law. Or, if he came across the button that would trigger a nuclear bomb to blow up NYC, he might press it. That doesn't mean he would actually be able to get access to that button, assuming such thing exists. Nor does it mean that he should be manipulated into believing that it exists, and is in front of him, so that after making a speech about destroying all the running dog capitalists on Wall Street he presses the button, and then is arrested for the attempted murder of 9 million people. Regarding being turned into the FBI; that's a huge amount of resources spent on something where the best scenario for the FBI is that he's put into jail, where we as taxpayers have to spend even more money. Imagine if we instead spent 10% of that money on psychiatric services for him instead. Was this really the best place to spent the money? Then again, the FBI and other places get a lot of money to track down terrorists. That's high on their mission list. I don't think of it as something they do for "kicks", but something which helps justify their jobs, or because they want to 'protect the homeland', but because there are so few terrorists, they have little experience to judge who is an actual terrorist vs. someone talking big, or the experience in how to handle these sorts of cases.

dalke 12y ago

"if instead of being handled by the government, he had found an actual small arms dealer and weaseled some guy into giving him $300." I believe that this quote from the article: > Osmakac was, in the FBI’s own words, “a retarded fool” who didn’t have any capacity to plan and execute an attack on his own. That was a challenge for the FBI. is supposed to mean that he wouldn't be able to go through the planning of doing as you suggest. If he has poor ability to plan, then your point #1 could be interpreted as another example. He wasn't able to go through the planning to get the holy water, or work around the visa issues, or manage the funding. Or figure out how to get to Afg Point #2 is protected free speech. As for point #3, another interpretation is that he's willing to fall into things in front of his face, so long as they don't require non-trivial planning. I know people who talk big, but can't actually pull anything off, so I wouldn't discount that possibility. Even if he 'weaseled some guy into giving him $300', it doesn't seem that he would find a small arms dealer willing to sell him "six grenades, a fully automatic AK-47 with magazines, a handgun and an explosive belt". Checking various auction sites, the minimum price for an AK-47 is $400, and those are semi-automatic, not an illegal fully automatic. Assuming $100 for the handgun, $10/grenade and I have no idea how much for he explosive belt, the real cost is likely over $1,000. (That's a wild-ass guess; but it's certainly over $500 in hardware, plus extra to cover risk on the dealer's side.) I don't think it's easy to find a dealer for this sort of equipment. I wouldn't know where to start and have 'no concept of what weapons cost on the black market.' I suspect that if I start asking around, someone is likely to call the cops on me. Also, why did you mention the Patriot Act? It's only mentioned once in the article, concerning someone else. I don't see mention that Patriot Act powers were used or potentially misused.

notdonspaulding 12y ago
> ... he wouldn't be able to go through the planning... The article goes out of its way to make this point. Namely, that Osmakac had no capacity to plan an attack, therefore he wasn't a terrorist until the FBI made him into one. If you happen upon a gun on the sidewalk, then use it to carry out your desires to murder an old enemy, is your guilt or innocence determined by the details surrounding how the gun got to the sidewalk? That's the point I'm getting at. > Point #2 is protected free speech. > As for point #3, another interpretation is that he's willing to fall into things in front of his face And? I wasn't suggesting that he be arrested for those things. I was pointing out his actions and behaviors prior to the FBI getting involved were sufficient to warrant civilians turning him in to the FBI. The FBI wasn't looking to make a terrorist out of some "retarded fool" for kicks. They were following up on assertions made to them about the danger of an individual, and they determined those assertions to be credible based on whatever they knew or were able to uncover about his past. That's just police work. > Also, why did you mention the Patriot Act? Mea culpa. I was using "The Patriot Act" as a stand-in for "The Over-reaching Federal Intelligence Community". I think the Patriot Act is a poorly-aimed law used to justify whatever the government wants it to. My point was that even though I do believe the US' three-letter organizations are overstepping their bounds in some areas, this doesn't smell like one of them to me.
- dalke 12y ago
  > is your guilt or innocence determined by the details surrounding how the gun got to the sidewalk? Yes. Entrapment is a valid defense against criminal liability. The article tries hard to argue that this should be viewed as entrapment, and that information that might have swayed the court, such as background words of the investigators, wasn't available during the trial. Your scenario is hypothetical. If the police set up the circumstances so he was convinced that his neighbors were being robbed and kidnapped right in front of him, and a planted gun were at his feet, after being invited to a half-day presentation on the moral righteousness of Florida's Stand-your-ground law, and he picked up the gun to protect his neighbors, who are actually police officers in disguise, then yes, the circumstances are very important in judging his guilt under the law. Or, if he came across the button that would trigger a nuclear bomb to blow up NYC, he might press it. That doesn't mean he would actually be able to get access to that button, assuming such thing exists. Nor does it mean that he should be manipulated into believing that it exists, and is in front of him, so that after making a speech about destroying all the running dog capitalists on Wall Street he presses the button, and then is arrested for the attempted murder of 9 million people. Regarding being turned into the FBI; that's a huge amount of resources spent on something where the best scenario for the FBI is that he's put into jail, where we as taxpayers have to spend even more money. Imagine if we instead spent 10% of that money on psychiatric services for him instead. Was this really the best place to spent the money? Then again, the FBI and other places get a lot of money to track down terrorists. That's high on their mission list. I don't think of it as something they do for "kicks", but something which helps justify their jobs, or because they want to 'protect the homeland', but because there are so few terrorists, they have little experience to judge who is an actual terrorist vs. someone talking big, or the experience in how to handle these sorts of cases.