...since February 2015, roughly 67% of prosecutions involving suspected ISIS supporters include evidence from undercover operations, according to The New York Times.
In many cases, agents will seek out people who have somehow demonstrated radical views, and then coax them into plotting an act of terrorism - often providing weapons and money. Before the suspects can carry out their plans, though, they're arrested.
[...] "They're manufacturing terrorism cases," Michael German, a former undercover agent with the FBI who now researches national-security law at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, told The Times. "These people are five steps away from being a danger to the United States."
Stephen Downs, an attorney and founding member of Project Salam , which gives legal support to Muslims, told Business Insider that " the government has developed a technique of engaging targets in conversations of a somewhat provocative nature, and then trying to pick up on things the target says, which might suggest illegal activity - and then trying to push them into pursuing those particular activities."
Downs also said that the FBI often targets particularly vulnerable people, such as those with mental disabilities.
[...] A recent study cited by BuzzFeed examined undercover operations for signs of entrapment by looking at terrorism prosecutions dating back to 9/11. [...] The vast majority of the 317 cases involving undercover operations contained signs of entrapment.
[...] While no case has ever been thrown out on the basis of this kind of entrapment, judges have taken notice and raised concerns over the danger of entrapping otherwise innocent individuals in sting operations.
"I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that there would have been no crime here, except the government instigated it, planned it and brought it to fruition," Judge Colleen McMahon of the US District Court in Manhattan said in 2011.
[...] Karen Greenberg, author [...] believes that the "tension between security and liberty" that can result from these tactics is a good thing.
"The amount of money, time, and resources that have been put into rethinking law enforcement since 9/11 has made us safer," she told Business Insider in an interview. "And now we're sort of trying to figure out where the lines are."
Michael Steinbach, who leads the National Security Branch of the FBI [...] told The Times that "we're not just going to wait for the person to mobilize on his own time line," adding that the FBI couldn't "just sit and wait knowing the individual is actively plotting."
Source: Business Insider
[ed: what say you, AC?]
(Score: 1) by milsorgen on Saturday June 11 2016, @01:32AM
Each news story that features more unchecked government actions makes me fear the future more and more.
On the Oregon Coast, born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 11 2016, @02:17AM
Really? Are you just a handgun and $5000 away from committing a crime? that's a scary fricken thought. Personally I'd tell whoever to go F themselves and report them to the cops, but that's just me.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday June 11 2016, @03:15AM
You would think that if the government could turn this on its head and entrap the smart and truly dangerous individuals the knuckle draggers would out themselves. But finding idiots pads the budget.
Other than that this seems counter productive to cleanse the gene pool of simpletons leaving the smart ones to go about their business.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday June 11 2016, @06:44AM
Yep. Any person savvy enough to be a real danger, is going to be very aware of these types of tricks.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by quintessence on Saturday June 11 2016, @04:53AM
Dude! This has been going on for a while now. The only difference is it is starting to filter up from the average low-lifes to "respectable" citizens.
There are tons of people in prison on conspiracy charges, which essentially is hearsay evidence. Even better: conspiracy typically has longer sentences than doing the actual crime.
Most people don't anticipate getting caught up in the web of the judicial system and figure only people who deserve it are there.
And then the line moves ever so closer to them and they get a taste, and they realize the dark abyss that is justice in America.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/11/16/death-by-deadline-part-two#.QfgF16vnP [themarshallproject.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 11 2016, @01:33AM
How the fuck have any of the conversations since 9/11 been a *GOOD* thing? It seems like all this BS has been getting substantially worse and sliding further downhill. We're back to the 60s now, complete with entrapping the brown man (Sand)nigger who is getting too uppity for Whitey's comfort.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Francis on Saturday June 11 2016, @02:15AM
I wouldn't expect any improvement in the foreseeable future. Both Clinton and Trump are being advised by Kissinger and both of them have no stated respect for human lives.
I think our best hope would be either for Clinton to actually get indicted prior to the convention or a vote for Gary Johnson. I'm not really on board with the degree to which he'd want to deregulate things, but most of the other stuff like decriminalizing marijuana and not starting wars in foreign countries I'm somewhere between tolerating and fully supporting. He's certainly more worthy of the Presidency than either Clinton or Trump.
But, I'd rather see Bernie team up with Jill Stein and take back the country for sane people that actually think that the government can be a tool to help people rather than just beat them down.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday June 11 2016, @02:18AM
Boy, our comments posted within in a minute of each other sure have some striking similarities. I think we're in some kind of echo chamber!!!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Francis on Saturday June 11 2016, @02:31AM
I don't think that people need to be very bright to see where this is going. Most people know where it's going and enough of them seem to be enthusiastic enough about it that we're likely to go there.
It's really time that we took back our Democracy. It doesn't much matter whether one is conservative or progressive, we need both voices to be heard in order to have some semblance of Democracy. Regardless of whether Clinton gets indicted and Sanders is able to take the nomination that he should have had, it's really time to start buying our own politicians.
One of the great things to come out of the current election cycle is that Sanders has enabled the people to buy politicians so that they're not beholden to anybody other than the American people. I think it's been about a half dozen so far. All of the progressives, but I think that if people started doing that with conservative politicians we might finally see some measure of sanity return to the capital.
And there's groups like wolf pac that are aimed at getting money out of politics so that it's not the weapons manufacturers that are deciding whether or not we get involved in wars, it's actual people that are beholden to their constituents rather than interest groups and contractors.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday June 11 2016, @08:09PM
Seems all your examples are on the left, as if you believe salvation only comes from there. (They've been running things for 30 years and look where it got us).
The guy who financed his own campaign up to this point seems to get not even a mention.
t doesn't much matter whether one is conservative or progressive, we need both voices to be heard in order to have some semblance of Democracy.
So much for both voices...
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday June 11 2016, @09:26PM
They've been running things for 30 years and look where it got us
I look back to 1980 and see a shift away from the liberal capitalism that ran America through its most prosperous years back to the laissez faire capitalism that brought about the Great Depression. As a result the middle class has been getting hammered. It has not mattered which party is in charge, other than when conservatives have held the strings the things have deteriorated faster.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 12 2016, @12:02AM
I look back to 1980 and see a shift away from the liberal capitalism that ran America through its most prosperous years back to the laissez faire capitalism that brought about the Great Depression. As a result the middle class has been getting hammered. It has not mattered which party is in charge, other than when conservatives have held the strings the things have deteriorated faster.
Back in 1980, my family rented their telephone, swore off dangerous and costly US cars, and watched four fuzzy channels on the TV. I see a modest shift away from stagnation and corruption due to laissez faire capitalism.
And of course, you miss the huge reason the US middle class has been hammered - labor competition with the rest of the world. Laissez faire capitalism didn't create more than seven billion people many of which now compete with developed world labor for a fraction of the cost.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:53AM
Back in 1980, my family rented their telephone, swore off dangerous and costly US cars, and watched four fuzzy channels on the TV. I see a modest shift away from stagnation and corruption due to laissez faire capitalism.
2016 is more advanced than 1980? You can compare any two points 35 years apart, particularly after the start of the 20th century, and the technology is going to have advanced. By your argument I can compare 1980 with 1945 and claim liberal capitalism resulted in massive improvements in technology.
And of course, you miss the huge reason the US middle class has been hammered - labor competition with the rest of the world. Laissez faire capitalism didn't create more than seven billion people many of which now compete with developed world labor for a fraction of the cost.
The reason labor competition has so greatly increased is that the restraints against it have been removed piece by piece as a result of, you guessed it, the shift back to laissez faire capitalism started by Reagan. History shows laissez faire capitalism always leads to boom and bust cycles in which a few winners come out on top and the rest have to essentially start over. There can be no large middle class in that system.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:40AM
2016 is more advanced than 1980? You can compare any two points 35 years apart, particularly after the start of the 20th century, and the technology is going to have advanced. By your argument I can compare 1980 with 1945 and claim liberal capitalism resulted in massive improvements in technology.
Why don't you do that then for the technologies I mentioned? I think the exercise would be very instructive.
For example, consider automobiles. The only significant safety device introduced during that 35 year period was the seat belt. 1945 saw the creation of Kaiser Motors, the last attempt at building a major automobile manufacturer (prior perhaps to Tesla Motors). I can't tell for sure how many significant US auto manufacturers there were in 1945, but the number appears to be around 8-12, including Kaiser Motors, the Big Three (GM, Ford, Chrysler), Studebaker, Nash-Kelvinator, and Hudson Motors. That number had collapsed to the Big Three manufacturers by 1980. There was a profound stagnation in ideas and ambition.
I think without the impact of the Japanese auto manufacturers, our cars today would look much as they did in 1945 and would have similar performance and quality, perhaps more fuel efficient in the wake of the various oil and environmental crises, but otherwise little changed. That's the fruit of liberal capitalism.
Since 1980, we have the introduction of a large number of safety devices such as air bags, anti-lock brakes, rear view cameras, etc; radical redesign of the automobile's aesthetics; important new or improved vehicle categories such as the minivan, SUV, and hatchback; a vast improvement in the quality of manufacture and safety; and a variety of labor saving or entertainment options. The laissez faire economy combined with globalism and increased competition did remarkable things that wouldn't have happened with the liberal economy.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:35AM
The reason labor competition has so greatly increased is that the restraints against it have been removed piece by piece as a result of, you guessed it, the shift back to laissez faire capitalism started by Reagan. History shows laissez faire capitalism always leads to boom and bust cycles in which a few winners come out on top and the rest have to essentially start over. There can be no large middle class in that system.
First, why is labor competition considered bad? This hostility towards labor competition is the core of the economic suicide that the developed world is slowly undergoing right now. Rather than saying, "The Chinese are eating our lunch, we better step up our game." it's more like "Those greedy employers are lucky to have us. If they want to leave, then we don't want them!" That has lead to the predictably foolish outcome of a half century of decline throughout the developed world in anything that can be moved to or competes directly with the developing world.
And I hear nothing useful about the supposed solutions to this labor competition. A common one is some variation on protectionism. The only protectionists who had growing economies did so by giving their workers massive haircuts on wages and freedoms. Maybe you don't mind being like Meiji Japan in 1860 or Paraguay in 1840, or the modern miracles of the past 50 years, but you do have to realize they got there by considerable sacrifice on the part of their workers. Is the US, when it undergoes this bout of protectionism going to get the required sacrifice from its workers? Hell no. There's no answer to the stagnation of the liberal economy era. We'll just hope it doesn't happen again.
Moving on, you claim that boom and bust cycles happen to laissez faire economies. While true, boom and busts also happen to liberal economies. For example between 1945 and 1980, the US went through seven such cycles (starting and ending with eight recessions) and has only undergone four such cycles since 1980! The distinction seems to be that in the earlier time, the cycles were shorter and shallower (somehow managing, I might add to build a middle class majority despite all these ups and downs) with nothing to compare to the dramatic declines of 2000 and 2008 in particular. I think what happened is the advent of Keynesian strategies for interfering with the business cycle. They prolonged the good times, but they also deepen the declines when they occur.
And that brings me to my final point. The US isn't a true laissez faire economy when it comes to business cycles. There's a considerable and incompetent technocracy managing the US's economy and business environment. They come up with numerous ploys to sex up US economic activity (measuring the economy primarily by GDP creates serious vision problems) and bail outs of politically connected firms when the economy goes south. This has led to the exaggerated business cycles of recent decades. Meanwhile the era of the liberal economy had a more hands-off approach to business cycles. This leads to the peculiar observation that one of your primary concerns is caused by problems that no one tried hard to fix in the 40s, 50s, and 60s and for which economic growth was greater than today.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Sunday June 12 2016, @03:04PM
We haven't had a single liberal in the White House since carter. This country has moved so far to the right through decades of conservative social and fiscal policy that the solutions are to the left of where we're at. You'd be hard pressed to find more than a couple examples where the solution to our problems is more conservative or even more of the same conservatism.
I'm in my mid-30s and apart from a few months at the tail end of the Carter administration I haven't lived through any liberal or progressive administrations. Neither Obama nor Clinton are liberals or progressives. Obama made a big deal about being progressive, but the only progressive thing he did was Obamacare and even that was to the right of Nixon.
Clinton was willing to go along with DADT, branded almost an entire generation of minorities as criminals and destroyed the black community. The black community has always had issues due to the way society treated them, but Clinton was particularly destructive.
The whole idea that conservatives have anything to offer at this point requires a substantial amount of evidence as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's been a very, very long time since they even had a proposal that wasn't more of the same. So, to suggest that they have any ideas to fix any of their messes is questionable. At least progressives have some new ideas for solving the problems.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday June 11 2016, @02:16AM
I have seen bootlickers who, when presented this kind of information about the FBI "solving" most of their terrorism cases by entrapment, continue to defend it. We're getting delusional young potential terrorists off the streets!
The depths to which Americans will allow themselves to sink have not been reached yet. Bashing Snowden when even Eric Holder of all people thinks he did a public service, defending torture because Jack Bauer needed to catch the bad guys on 24, supporting Hillary, who was integral in causing Obama's "worst mistake" [vanityfair.com], over Bernie. The public is largely ignorant about surveillance, Stingray/IMSI catchers, license plate readers, FBI entrapment, etc. Things are only going to get worse. Clinton or Trump will be elected President (sorry Gary Johnson, you need to hit 15% to get into the debates, not just 10%). The winner will milk ISIS for all it's worth.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Saturday June 11 2016, @03:55AM
Actually we have reached the depths to which Americans will sink. Just not all have gone with them. Events may get worse, they are spinning their BS harder than is sustainable and will create more problems before the hypnotized wake up. This election looks likely to be a catalyst. Trump will enrage those who see him as a liar, Clinton will enrage those who see her as a criminal. Sanders is the only candidate who will keep this ball rolling even somewhat smoothly with his record of honesty. He will be the next Carter, who many do not believe was a "great" president, but who pardoned draft dodgers and helped heal the nation's wounds. I think he was one of the best presidents in recent history for doing something solely to help the people.
Ok, after some skim reading (so I don't know much about him) I'd even take Gary Johnson over the two talking heads.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Saturday June 11 2016, @04:10AM
Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. I've seen her interview with the Young Turks and she's a lot like Bernie except she's going even further. For example, not just free college in the future, but canceling student loans that are already out there.
From what I can tell, Johnson is more or less what you'd expect out of a Libertarian. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I'm not personally comfortable with the idea of letting corporations manage themselves, but he's a huge step above Clinton and Trump, but probably a step below Sanders and Stein in my view. But, he's probably got a better chance at winning than Stein does.
If you're concerned about this sort of thing, you might consider taking a look at wolf-pac.com and just get the money out of politics. Trump was a bit of an odd happening, but Clinton would never have made it this far without the corrupting money that we need to get out of the system. Not only can they briber her via campaign contributions, but speaking fees, donations to her husband's foundation as well as his speaking fees. I'm not aware of any candidate with so many options for influencing. And AFAIK, she hasn't taken any money illegally, even if laundering it through the state parties ought to be illegal.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 11 2016, @05:27AM
Voting for a third party in the US isn't about making them win, but to scare the main parties into becoming more like the prominent third party by using the perception of the spoiler effect. The sooner this is recognized, the sooner the goal can actually be accomplished.
(Score: 2) by J.J. Dane on Saturday June 11 2016, @12:29PM
History has shown that whenever mankind sinks to what is believed to be the lowest depths, someone is going to make a bundle selling shovels.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:40PM
Johnson is aware of the 15% rule. He mentioned it on "The Late Show [youtube.com]." DNC+RNC don't want another Perot or Nader. If Johnson or his kind got to 15% they'd change the rule or commission a phony survey.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 11 2016, @01:45AM
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday June 11 2016, @03:35AM
He shaped the organization completely around himself. I'm not sure if his shade is haunting the place or not but he's the type specimen for the kind of paranoid, vengeful, sadistic asshole who likes working in these alphabet-soup shadow government agencies. The whole outfit reeks.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Gaaark on Saturday June 11 2016, @02:23AM
LANA! Can we bring back phrasing?!
Just seemed an odd sentence: Like autistic boy also said the FBI often targets particularly vulnerable people, such as those with repetitive flapping.
And yes, i know, people with Downs are not automatically mentally disabled, anymore than all autistic people flap.... calm down. It's just a 'phrasing' joke. :)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 11 2016, @02:47AM
Don't quit your day job.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 11 2016, @03:44AM
Seriously!
You can bet that the FBI has a different take on things.
Is the FBI putting a gun to their head and saying they must be terrorists? Unless so, then it sure looks as if some truly dangerous rotten-to-the-core assholes are getting put away. I'm 100% fine with that.
Note: The FBI wouldn't be doing this if we hadn't allowed these people into our country. That was our first mistake. There is no avoiding the fact that most will not leave the culture, and that the culture regularly produces deadly trouble. We let in a pair that are not intent on terrorism, they raise a kid in that culture, and the US-born kid decides to make his 72-virgin fantasy come true.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 11 2016, @04:40AM
> then it sure looks as if some truly dangerous rotten-to-the-core assholes are getting put away. I'm 100% fine with that.
Assholes, maybe but dumbasses is more like it.
And "truly dangerous" - nope. At a minimum none of them had the means - the FBI always provides that. And even then many of them required serious goading to go from talking shit to actually doing shit.
> The FBI wouldn't be doing this if we hadn't allowed these people into our country.
Many of them were born here. Not to mention all the white nationalists who actually do kill on a fairly regular basis without any help from the FBI.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday June 11 2016, @05:41AM
You can bet that the FBI has a different take on things.
You mean the organization that has been corrupt since its very inception? The organization that blackmailed political opponents and activists, conducted all sorts of illegal spying, and tried to get MLK to commit suicide? This might just be me, but considering all this, I don't care about what such an organization has to say about this matter, especially since they would never provide any evidence for any claims they did make and would resort to the "national security" excuse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 11 2016, @09:41AM
Is the FBI putting a gun to their head and saying they must be terrorists? Unless so, then it sure looks as if some truly dangerous rotten-to-the-core assholes are getting put away. I'm 100% fine with that.
These people aren't assholes, and certainly not rotten to the core. If they weren't going to do anything without the FBI pushing them into it they can't be that bad. It's the FBI that are "truly dangerous rotten-to-the-core assholes".
What a good person should do in the situation where they encounter one of these easily manipulated vulnerable people, is to help them, give them support and try to set them on a path that keeps them out of trouble. The FBI are doing the exact opposite, and it's fucked up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:51PM
Robert Lewis Dear, Jr. was born in Charleston, South Carolina. Theodore John Kaczynski was born in Evergreen Park, Illinois. Terry Lynn Nichols was born in Lapeer, Michigan. Timothy James McVeigh was born in Lockport, New York.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 11 2016, @03:54AM
If you're just noticing now that the FBI is in the business of inventing terrorism for its own benefit then you are an idiot.
(Score: 4, Funny) by CirclesInSand on Saturday June 11 2016, @05:16AM
Ye$, but what po$$ible reas$on could the FBI have to want to manufacture terrori$m ca$e$? I can't think of any.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 11 2016, @05:55AM
Its a power trip thing. This has been going on for a long time
http://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/10/us/hustler-publisher-tells-judge-delorean-tape-was-a-fake.html [nytimes.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gravis on Saturday June 11 2016, @07:26AM
the part i don't like about this is not that they are setting up situations to catch these people but the fact that they are reportedly coaxing people into it. it's one thing to provide them with an opportunity to commit a crime, it's another to actively work to get someone to take that opportunity. however, on the flip side of things, would an actual terrorist be less aggressive in their tactics? it's all very disconcerting because the truth is that we don't know if these people would eventually become terrorists. i do think one should keep in mind that each person they arrest could have said "no" and just turned off their computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 11 2016, @08:48AM
You could be a terrorist in the future too. And they are all saying they are not terrorists. So, just in case, you know, in the name of national security…
(Score: 2) by http on Saturday June 11 2016, @04:57PM
Given:
Isn't that the definition of entrapment?
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 11 2016, @11:16PM
search + see!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 14 2016, @12:55PM
This! This! This!