3 ms·

> ... 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 at

> ... 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.
- notdonspaulding 12y ago
  At this point, I think we both understand each others' positions for the most part. I just have two final questions for you, if you'll indulge me. Do you believe, given the person described in the article, that Sami Osmakac is either unwilling or unable to kill someone in the name of Islam? Do you believe that this article proves that the federal government acted in bad faith in investigating and prosecuting him?
  - dalke 12y ago
    I agree with your statement on mutual understanding. I don't believe the first question is relevant. Rather, thousands, if not millions of Americans will kill, or send others to kill, in the name of their god. We hear this in the popular press often, when people say that we need troops active in the Middle East to fight on God's side. Or when Bush, quoted by Chirac when Bush was trying to convince France to be in the Iraq war, said "This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins". That doesn't mean we prosecute people for being willing to do something. We do prosecute them (sometimes) for doing so, or for planning/conspiring to do so. Yes, I believe the federal government prosecution acted in bad faith in the following: > These transcripts were never supposed to be revealed in their entirety. The government argued that their release could harm the U.S. government by revealing “law enforcement investigative strategy and methods.” U.S. Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli not only sealed the transcripts, but also placed them under a protective order. Based on what was given, this information did not need to be classified and contained potentially mitigating information.

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.

notdonspaulding 12y ago
At this point, I think we both understand each others' positions for the most part. I just have two final questions for you, if you'll indulge me. Do you believe, given the person described in the article, that Sami Osmakac is either unwilling or unable to kill someone in the name of Islam? Do you believe that this article proves that the federal government acted in bad faith in investigating and prosecuting him?
- dalke 12y ago
  I agree with your statement on mutual understanding. I don't believe the first question is relevant. Rather, thousands, if not millions of Americans will kill, or send others to kill, in the name of their god. We hear this in the popular press often, when people say that we need troops active in the Middle East to fight on God's side. Or when Bush, quoted by Chirac when Bush was trying to convince France to be in the Iraq war, said "This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins". That doesn't mean we prosecute people for being willing to do something. We do prosecute them (sometimes) for doing so, or for planning/conspiring to do so. Yes, I believe the federal government prosecution acted in bad faith in the following: > These transcripts were never supposed to be revealed in their entirety. The government argued that their release could harm the U.S. government by revealing “law enforcement investigative strategy and methods.” U.S. Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli not only sealed the transcripts, but also placed them under a protective order. Based on what was given, this information did not need to be classified and contained potentially mitigating information.