[Polpolion]

That is indeed the point, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Entrapment is a well-defined and pretty thoroughly tested legal condition. If you are willing to enter the detonation code for a bomb with intent to kill, you're well past the point where an entrapment defense will stand. It's not like you just bought some weed for an undercover cop, you agreed to kill people with extensive premeditation.

I would definitely have qualms in the case of the mentally ill, or if you're dealing with a lesser offense like minor drug purchases or Prohibition-era **** (when the government was much, much more actively hostile to its citizenry than today).

I don't think its a question of the subject's guilt as much as a question of whether or not the FBI is prioritizing and carrying out its investigations properly. If they need to expend so much resources to convince the subject to commit the act is it really worth it? I'm not try to be a conspiracy nut here I'm just not clear on what these investigations typically entail. I mean obviously the FBI isn't just picking a dude up from a gas station and try to get him to blow stuff up, but I would like to know how far they would go to get a suspect.

[NGTM-1R]

If they need to expend so much resources to convince the subject to commit the act is it really worth it?

I don't think that those resources were spent convincing. Making it possible, perhaps.

[Polpolion]

It took 11 months of meandering discussion and a promise of $250,000 to lead him, with three co-conspirators he recruited, to plant fake bombs at two Riverdale synagogues.

This is what I'm getting at, from the article thaeris linked to. The judge seems to have similar feelings. It just seems like all this guy would've been without the fbi's nudging was a bigot. The FBI could turn a lot of bigots into terrorists if it wanted to, how do they choose who to investigate? I guess I should take it with a grain of salt since it's from an opinion piece but it comes off as a bit thoughtpolice-ish.

[General Battuta]

Yeah I can see what you're getting at there, I think it's something worth discussing. But even that's quite a ways from the story Thaeris wants to tell where this is all government puppetry. It's not a big surprise that this guy was under surveillance, nor that his parents (who are, according to their profoundly hilarious television interviews, a bit nutty) think the goobermint put them up to it.

[SpardaSon21]

Hey, I don't think we can call this Goober's fault.

[karajorma]

In other news, GOP senator says **** the constitution, let's hold him as an enemy combatant while we figure out if he's an enemy combatant.

[Beskargam]

He's an idiot. I saw this that yesterday and the article I read said that that had no chance of passing with current US law. It was domestic terrorism and will be treated as such. I thought it was weird that they were invoking the clause (i can't remember the name of it) that allows them to not read the prisoner the Miranda rights and interview him without the presence of a lawyer, but it seems likely that that was just to see if there was anybody else involved besides the two brothers

[Suongadon]

He's an idiot. I saw this that yesterday and the article I read said that that had no chance of passing with current US law. It was domestic terrorism and will be treated as such. I thought it was weird that they were invoking the clause (i can't remember the name of it) that allows them to not read the prisoner the Miranda rights and interview him without the presence of a lawyer, but it seems likely that that was just to see if there was anybody else involved besides the two brothers

Public safety, and I believe it was because there could be other bombs somewhere. Not that the reasoning matters much when he can't give answers to any questions, even if he wanted to.

Apparently he's awake now. Time will tell if all the hand-wringing and chest-thumping over the no-Miranda bit will amount to anything.

[Mongoose]

I don't mind the concept of withholding Miranda rights at first, but as time passes the "imminent threat to public safety" portion of it kind of vanishes by default, so at this point it'd hardly be worth it.

[MP-Ryan]

I don't understand this fear that some US politically-affiliated persons have of providing suspects of criminal activity with their guaranteed rights.  If we are that convinced they are guilty, there should be ample evidence to convict without illegally-obtained or coerced statements.

Now, if they want to pass a law stating that those who are convicted of a criminal offense related to certain terrorism offenses may be subjected to coercive interrogation in order to gather further information related to intelligence, I really don't have a problem with that, particularly in cases where the death penalty can and likely will be sought.

But seriously.  Read the ****er his rights, give him a lawyer, and convict his ass properly.  Once we've established - fairly - that he's guilty of everything he's alleged of doing, then put him through the wringer for every scrap of information he has, but not one second sooner.

[The E]

I would like some hard data on the efficacy of torture before making any such proclamations.

[MP-Ryan]

I would like some hard data on the efficacy of torture before making any such proclamations.

I said coercive interrogation, not [physical] torture.  I'm talking about those tactics that fall outside the realm of the judicial sense of fair play in standard police interrogation, but do not run afoul of the Geneva conventions - of which there are many.

[NGTM-1R]

I would like some hard data on the efficacy of torture before making any such proclamations.

There are any number of things that don't qualify as torture by any reasonable standard but will still get your interrogation tossed by a judge. Something as simple as excessive length of questioning can do it sometimes.

[General Battuta]

I would like some hard data on the efficacy of torture before making any such proclamations.

I've been reading the excellent Dirty War by Scahill, and he's got a great story from the immediate post-9/11 period. A key terror suspect was arrested in Afghanistan by, oddly enough, the FBI. The FBI director gave firm orders that he be treated with every legally required procedure - every T crossed, every I dotted - so the FBI could maintain the moral high ground. He was actually prepared to cooperate when the CIA grabbed him from the FBI, moved him to a black site, and tortured him until he 'confessed' that Al Qaeda had assisted Iraq in enriching uranium. The administration really wanted to hear this, because almost from the moment the first plane struck the tower, administration figures were explicitly interested in using the attack as an excuse to invade Iraq.

[deathfun]

Gotta love social media

http://imgur.com/a/Nx8EU

I'm curious as to what you guys have to say about this
For me, usual "internet is being internet" stuff

[Mongoose]

What is that I don't even.

[Ashrak]

Gotta love social media

http://imgur.com/a/Nx8EU

I'm curious as to what you guys have to say about this
For me, usual "internet is being internet" stuff

when i first heard the news about the bombing i thought "Well i guess the US wants to get stricter laws again" so it's no surprise that the "attack" might have been staged

[The E]

.... seriously?

Internet conspiracy theories and those who believe them are the most stupid idiots to walk this earth. If your proof is a bunch of photos with lines on them, screencaps from TV news stations known for unreliability, and your own preconceptions about what the evil government wants to do, then you have no proof.

[General Battuta]

The parts of that that aren't conspiracy bull**** are factual bull****. They try to claim that the 'first suspect' was taken into custody, but the picture they claim is him is just some innocent jogger or pedestrian the cops arrested and later released.

[Mongoose]

Yeah, that's the biggest thing that jumped out at me too.  Like, you couldn't even bother to get the easiest part correct?