They did show him another way – instead of going in with an easily testable usable weapon, they talked him into using a dummy device he couldn’t test ahead of time.
But you go – turn everybody into see-something, say-something vigilantes.
I’m not trained for that.
um… I’m suggesting people continue to call the FBI, and maybe try giving a fuck about their neighbors instead of radically projecting their own fears around.
Knock it off bro. That’s twice in two days you’ve made shit up. I am explicitly agains vigilantism, and pro-humanist priorities in out government and our communities,
Go say hi to your neighbor. If he says he want to burn down a church, call the FBI.
Call your senator and tell them that you want the FBI to behave otherwise than they have here.
Those are suggestions. Willfully misunderstand them if it helps today.
But the strong should help the weak, not mislead them. Right?
You need to change coffees.
OTOH, it’s demonstrably provable that I am the single sole solitary person that has any trouble understanding you – so it must be me.
You need to change diapers. Please chill out.
It would help if you stuck to what I wrote. I’ll assert my own thoughts, thanks for the help
so it must be me.
Hack no, most people make assumptions and jump to conclusions. Some of them are even humble about their mistakes. Others, less so.
Maybe and speaking of humility, don’t pull information from PMs into public conversations. It’s pretty poor form. It’s not assertive communication, it’s aggressive boundary crossing. Enjoy our new ones.
It’s not cynical. The FBI does not have a great track record on things like this. We’ve got plenty of recent examples of this happening - people with mental illnesses and/or cognitive disabilities who got hooked up with FBI agents who planned out some action for them and supplied them with fake bombs. So people who would have been all (semi-coherent) talk on their own got set up to look like terrorist masterminds. When you look at the history of the FBI, it gets even worse. I know people involved in leftist causes in the '60s (and later) who said it became really easy to spot the undercover FBI agents - they were the ones constantly pushing everyone else to do something illegal.
My guess is he’s just a crazy antisemite. It’s frightening to see how many of these there are these days.
But until he actually attempts to go to the church with matches and gasoline, the FBI can’t do anything – that’s speech, and (IANAL) unless spoken publicly with a threat to intimidate, protected.
Now, if the FBI talked him into going to the church with a fake bomb, then they could apprehend him and get him off the streets.
Is that what really happened here? I have no idea. (See posts with the word “ambivalent” in them.)
Schneier didn’t quote the rather key § 2332a(a), which exempts those using a weapon of mass destruction under “lawful authority”. Military personnel acting under orders are definitely covered.
So, under that reasoning, if Saddam Hussein acting as the lawful ruler of his country orders the use of WMDs (even against the U.S.) they are not considered WMDs and the action would be lawful?
See, that’s the problem with these sort of things. The ridiculousness of it becomes obvious when you begin to dig.
What about the “monitored by TVs” part that nobody seems to talk about?
Wouldn’t it be cheaper to have this guy go to counselling on tax payers expense instead of paying a team of FBI agents for several weeks, the cost of a trial and then his incarceration for however long?
Might not as much fun and no gotcha moment, but a much better use of resources.
Saddam Hussein wouldn’t have been covered under US criminal code anyway, unless he was in the US at the time.
Words mean different things in different contexts. The fact that WMD in US law is defined to cover basically anything that doesn’t require you to pull a trigger at least once for each person you kill is weird, but not relevant to the WMDs as a justification for war.
U.S. Code § 2332a is domestic criminal law. If Saddam Hussein blew up something that wasn’t American the US wouldn’t have jurisdiction and it wouldn’t apply. If as an act of open warfare Hussein ordered grenades thrown at American soldiers it wouldn’t apply as that would indeed have been a lawful act by a foreign head of state. If Hussein ordered the bombing of a nightclub that targeted and killed a bunch of off-duty American soldiers it might apply on the basis that the act was unlawful terrorism. If Hussein ordered a sarin attack on a bunch of Americans that would not be lawful as it would violate both the Geneva Protocols, which Iraq acceded to in 1931, and traditional international law.
And remember, WMD in domestic criminal law =/= WMD in international diplomacy.
YES.
But – who has the authority to apprehend him and get him to go to counseling?
Until he walked into the synagogue with a bomb - he hadn’t done anything actionable.
That version of events certainly sounds like they did a good thing. Convincing someone to use a fake bomb instead of a real gun is a job well done.
Even if that is true (and, like you, I’m not entirely convinced about the FBI’s commitment to truth) it still reminds me other other cases where it seems pretty clear they* groomed vulnerable people to pad some kind of key performance indicator.
* “They” being FBI agents who are presumably completely different FBI agents than the “they” who were involved in this case
Well, that wasn’t my intent, but I see it was unclear why I posted that clip. Ever since people started using “Daesh” for what is (still) commonly called ISIS, I would get weird deja vu whenever I heard it, and I think after reading “Daesh” and “young men blowing shit up” it finally clicked (that clip is actually unrelated to terrorism, in the film both characters are US agents).
Yes, I was meandering on a riff. Recently I was discussing with someone how aspects of popular culture seem to predict or prefigure world events (there are some weird conspiracy theories around 9/11 based on this)-- something about an Arab character named “Desh” who sets off a bomb just prodded my brain a funny way.
Less than a month ago I went to a synagogue in Paris. To get in I had to be buzzed through the outer doors, be wanded by two burly men and then there was a squad of soldiers with automatic weapons at the courtyard doors.
Years ago going to a synagogue in Sydney involved similar passage through several layers of physical security.
Its not that uncommon for synagogues in the US to have off duty police or private security teams outside.
I figure some places are lucky that they dont actually require heavily armed military forces to guard synagogues against would be attackers, that law enforcement is proactive enough to remove these threat agents before hand.
I also figure that non-Jews are very lucky that their places of gathering dont have to worry about this stuff and instead they can enjoy speculating how law enforcement is probably the one in the wrong when it comes to these things.
But for the pushing part I’d be down with that.
The sticky bit is that anyone that can be pushed & cajoled to violence can, once located, be as or more easily pushed the other way.
So with all the grooming, in each instance the FBI has made a choice to be inhumane, in a way that serves Daesh as much as it serves anti-muslim narratives as much as it serves the police state as much as it serves the news cycle as much as it serves the fear agenda adopted by so many.
Through that lens the FBI is doing hella damage, just not to who they say.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
