Government Morality (or lack of)

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:24 pm

Ill post the article later after Ive heard some replies.

The government sets up a sting operation in the name of rooting out terrorists.

It purposefully seeks out people wishing to become affiliated with a terrorist organization. It also gets the word out to these people that weapons are available for sale.

These people on their own werent actively looking to partner with or be affiliated with any such organization until they were approached and coerced.

None the less they succumbed for whatever reason to coersions by the government.

Now they are being charged with the crime of actively joining a terror group.

Have they commited a crime ?

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:27 pm

I think that is called "entrapment". It is done all the time...in all levels of law enforcement.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:32 pm

along-for-the-ride;740301 wrote: I think that is called "entrapment". It is done all the time...in all levels of law enforcement.

Is it valid ?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:34 pm

Much as I loathe entrapment stings, in this one case, I'd say yes. I mean, these are thinking adults who would willingly go to the enemy if that were the case.

What am I missing, Nomad? Do you think their actions weren't criminal?

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:41 pm

It's misapplied, the people concerned were no danger to anyone.

I'd happily see entrapment used in white-collar circles, such as offering bribes to politicians or cartel pricing arrangements between CEOs. I'm not holding my breath.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:47 pm

It purposefully seeks out people wishing to become affiliated with a terrorist organization.

Spot, how do you figure that people willing to become terrorists are not hurting anyone, yet white collar crime is a detriment??

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:11 pm

RedGlitter;740310 wrote: Much as I loathe entrapment stings, in this one case, I'd say yes. I mean, these are thinking adults who would willingly go to the enemy if that were the case.

What am I missing, Nomad? Do you think their actions weren't criminal?

The arrangement was a farce. It wasnt real. The govt organization isnt a terrorist organization so can these people be charged with joining a group that isnt a threat to security ?

In other words how can a crime have been commited if there were no means for harm to have been played out ?

Also arent we concerned about a govt that fabricates scenarios in order to appease their lust for persecution of people that might think bad things or snaring weaker minded people by coercing them into a situation they might not have thought up on their own ?

Arent we concerned about a govt that thinks they themselves are above the law all the while being hell bent on crushing our liberties in search of people that might be persuaded into breaking laws ?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:15 pm

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... s_of_laws/

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:25 pm

jimbo;740358 wrote: that is scary buddy

i wonder if he will figure out a way to stay in power longer

:(

Its a family thing.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:25 pm

Nomad;740348 wrote: The arrangement was a farce. It wasnt real. The govt organization isnt a terrorist organization so can these people be charged with joining a group that isnt a threat to security ?

In other words how can a crime have been commited if there were no means for harm to have been played out ?

Also arent we concerned about a govt that fabricates scenarios in order to appease their lust for persecution of people that might think bad things or snaring weaker minded people by coercing them into a situation they might not have thought up on their own ?

Arent we concerned about a govt that thinks they themselves are above the law all the while being hell bent on crushing our liberties in search of people that might be persuaded into breaking laws ?

It goes to criminal intent. You probably know how anti-government I am normally, but in this particular case I don't think it matters that there really was no terrorist group...these people were willing to become part of a group that if real, had the potential to harm us. Similar to road checks for drunk drivers. I'm open to hear other arguments on this, but at this point that's what I think....

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:28 pm

Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.

Wow. There should be no room for him to assert any of his beliefs- aren't these things written in stone?? And why have we allowed him to get away with it??

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:34 am

RedGlitter;740362 wrote: It goes to criminal intent. You probably know how anti-government I am normally, but in this particular case I don't think it matters that there really was no terrorist group...these people were willing to become part of a group that if real, had the potential to harm us. Similar to road checks for drunk drivers. I'm open to hear other arguments on this, but at this point that's what I think....

Similar to road checks for drunk drivers? Road checks for drunk drivers are stopping drivers with cars to see if they're drunk! It's like prosecuting drunks who say "If I had a car I'd drive home" after offering them a car!

Testing the corruptibility of politicians and CEOs is testing the corruptibility of people who've put themselves forward as incorruptible. The man in the street has made no such commitment.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:06 am

RedGlitter;740362 wrote: It goes to criminal intent. You probably know how anti-government I am normally, but in this particular case I don't think it matters that there really was no terrorist group...these people were willing to become part of a group that if real, had the potential to harm us. Similar to road checks for drunk drivers. I'm open to hear other arguments on this, but at this point that's what I think....

Is preventing terrorism the proverbial line in the sand then ? Are there any other lines nearby that should be considered ?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:11 am

Nomad;740507 wrote: Is preventing terrorism the proverbial line in the sand then ? Are there any other lines nearby that should be considered ?

Good question, Nomad. The first thing that came to mind was pedophilia. You know, the Dateline "set-em-ups." Technically they didn't touch the underage person but the intent was there. Should we let those people go because we tricked them into thinking they were talking online with a 13 year old? That's not rhetorical. I'm really asking.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:31 am

RedGlitter;740511 wrote: Good question, Nomad. The first thing that came to mind was pedophilia. You know, the Dateline "set-em-ups." Technically they didn't touch the underage person but the intent was there. Should we let those people go because we tricked them into thinking they were talking online with a 13 year old? That's not rhetorical. I'm really asking.

Im compiling a list.

What else ?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:35 am

Well there are the prostitution stings which I do not support because I think prostitution should be legal and a personal choice.

There's the booze entrapment. I got caught selling beer to a minor once who looked of age. I didn't card her and I had to go to court over it. I lost. I thought that was pretty shifty.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:25 pm

Nomad;740348 wrote: The arrangement was a farce. It wasnt real. The govt organization isnt a terrorist organization so can these people be charged with joining a group that isnt a threat to security ?

I was under the impression that the US government was a terrorist organisation - just like the UK one.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:58 pm

There is no "in this circumstance". Allowing entrapment paves the road to thought crimes.

drumbunny1 · Post by **drumbunny1** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:32 pm

Nomad;740348 wrote: The arrangement was a farce. It wasnt real. The govt organization isnt a terrorist organization so can these people be charged with joining a group that isnt a threat to security ?

In other words how can a crime have been commited if there were no means for harm to have been played out ?

Also arent we concerned about a govt that fabricates scenarios in order to appease their lust for persecution of people that might think bad things or snaring weaker minded people by coercing them into a situation they might not have thought up on their own ?

Arent we concerned about a govt that thinks they themselves are above the law all the while being hell bent on crushing our liberties in search of people that might be persuaded into breaking laws ?

How about when police act as a minor and catch these child molesters online? Even though they are lying and I guess this could be "entrapment" do you think its wrong to send those men/women to jail...even if there was no actual crime commited? I think the point is to stop the crime before it really hurts someone.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:25 pm

drumbunny1;742371 wrote: How about when police act as a minor and catch these child molesters online? Even though they are lying and I guess this could be "entrapment" do you think its wrong to send those men/women to jail...even if there was no actual crime commited? I think the point is to stop the crime before it really hurts someone.
Then let's arrest everybody and lock them up until we can prove they don't bear ill will toward the government .... um, I mean society of course.

I'm with Koan on this one.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:01 pm

Bravo Koan I agree with you 100%.

[QUOTE]There is no "in this circumstance". Allowing entrapment paves the road to thought crimes.[/QUOTE]

drumbunny1 · Post by **drumbunny1** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:44 pm

Accountable;742385 wrote: Then let's arrest everybody and lock them up until we can prove they don't bear ill will toward the government .... um, I mean society of course.

I'm with Koan on this one.

They didn't just ARREST them and lock them up on just a whim...they proved that these people had the real intentions of doing harm...possibly on a large scale. And people are yelling and making a fuss because they didn' DO anything...but the whole thing would have had a different tune if these people really did commit a horrific terrorist attack..then people would be screaming for their blood, entrapment might have saved several lives...

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:10 pm

drumbunny1;742778 wrote: They didn't just ARREST them and lock them up on just a whim...they proved that these people had the real intentions of doing harm...possibly on a large scale. And people are yelling and making a fuss because they didn' DO anything...but the whole thing would have had a different tune if these people really did commit a horrific terrorist attack..then people would be screaming for their blood, entrapment might have saved several lives...

I saw no evidence that "these people" intended to do anything before they were provoked into agreeing.

There are good reasons why entrapment is not a valid technique.

drumbunny1 · Post by **drumbunny1** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:45 pm

Nomad;740295 wrote: Ill post the article later after Ive heard some replies.

The government sets up a sting operation in the name of rooting out terrorists.

It purposefully seeks out people wishing to become affiliated with a terrorist organization. It also gets the word out to these people that weapons are available for sale.

These people on their own werent actively looking to partner with or be affiliated with any such organization until they were approached and coerced.

None the less they succumbed for whatever reason to coersions by the government.

Now they are being charged with the crime of actively joining a terror group.

Have they commited a crime ?

Has the original article been posted? I would like to read it and maybe see a little further into "succumbed for whatever reason to coersions by the govt." I mean, what reasons are we talking here? That the govt paid these people or threatened them? I believe these people maybe weren't "actively" looking, but they sure as hell agreed to buy illegal weapons for the use in a terror act, or else they wouldn't have been charged with a crime!! Again, I would like to read the whole article..so would Nomad post it PleasE?:D

drumbunny1 · Post by **drumbunny1** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:47 pm

Bryn Mawr;742805 wrote: I saw no evidence that "these people" intended to do anything before they were provoked into agreeing.

There are good reasons why entrapment is not a valid technique.

How were they provoked? Even if they were provoked...if they were truly innocent, harmless citizens..they wouldn't have agreed to anything! I know I sure wouldn't!

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:18 pm

Bryn Mawr;742805 wrote: I saw no evidence that "these people" intended to do anything before they were provoked into agreeing.

There are good reasons why entrapment is not a valid technique.

I don't see any provoking. I mean who twisted their arms? Whatever they were promised, they were obviously willing.

I hate entrapment as a general rule, but in this case, I can't say I see any harm in it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:47 pm

drumbunny1;742778 wrote: They didn't just ARREST them and lock them up on just a whim...they proved that these people had the real intentions of doing harm...possibly on a large scale. And people are yelling and making a fuss because they didn' DO anything...but the whole thing would have had a different tune if these people really did commit a horrific terrorist attack..then people would be screaming for their blood, entrapment might have saved several lives...
How and why did they target these people? What reason did they have to entrap them in the first place? If they started with simple random "net casting" then it is completely wrong, imo.

Nomad?

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:45 am

koan;742332 wrote: There is no "in this circumstance". Allowing entrapment paves the road to thought crimes.

Thats what I was thinking!

I can see how it could be useful, but im more concerned about the slippery slope of allowing entrapment to be used.

I believe its not admissable in the UK. Someone correct me if im wrong

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:02 am

koan;742332 wrote: There is no "in this circumstance". Allowing entrapment paves the road to thought crimes.

I've been trying to figure out how that could happen and so far no luck. As far as I can see, these people in question were entrapped and with or without coaxing, were willing to do harm to others. It wasn't just the consideration of such, it was the intent of carrying out action. Intent is more than just thinking about it. Intent is the impetus of action.

Just as I do not believe in or accept the crazy notion of "hate crimes" I can't accept the notion of "thought crimes." These people weren't just thinking about it. Evidently they were in the no man's land between thinking and doing. A lot of us at FG have said "Michael Vick? Yeah, I hope he gets gutted in a dark alley." None of us have made plans to arrange that though. That's the difference.

Slightly off topic, I'm wondering Koan...you don't believe in thought crime, yet you believe in the concept of hate crime...hate is a thought, a feeling. Merely feeling hate or thinking hateful things about someone does not warrant violent action, nor really any action and certainly not a crime until action is carried out. What is the difference then between hate crime and thought crime? They're both thoughts. Both inconcrete. I realize that's probably another topic but I wanted to bring it up while it was fresh on my mind.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 5:46 am

If proof of will is a crime, then you support thought crime. Many people who would go in a group to commit a crime would stand passively if left alone. Stirring up a mob to commit a crime then arresting them for being stirred up ... sorry I can't support that.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:24 am

RedGlitter;742902 wrote: I don't see any provoking. I mean who twisted their arms? Whatever they were promised, they were obviously willing.

I hate entrapment as a general rule, but in this case, I can't say I see any harm in it.

Do you have any details of how this was done? What was said to them etc?

I must admit to flying in the dark here because I do not know what led to the arrests - not just not knowing what actually went on, I don't even know the official version of the story.

I can certainly see ways to persuade people to agree to do things that they would never have considered doing without the persuasion. At that point it passes beyond protection of the state.

In all of the prior discussion it is being assumed by most that the people arrested were budding terrorists but :-

If they were, indeed, actively considering aiding and abetting the terrorist cause then, I dislike the tactics but I can understand them.

If it was more that they were passive supporters of the terrorist's aims then you are into the realms of the Thought Police and in no way should we be going there.

If, however, they had not previously considered giving material support to the terrorists then I would say that an active crime had been committed against them.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:08 am

RedGlitter;744535 wrote: I've been trying to figure out how that could happen and so far no luck. As far as I can see, these people in question were entrapped and with or without coaxing, were willing to do harm to others. It wasn't just the consideration of such, it was the intent of carrying out action. Intent is more than just thinking about it. Intent is the impetus of action.

Just as I do not believe in or accept the crazy notion of "hate crimes" I can't accept the notion of "thought crimes." These people weren't just thinking about it. Evidently they were in the no man's land between thinking and doing. A lot of us at FG have said "Michael Vick? Yeah, I hope he gets gutted in a dark alley." None of us have made plans to arrange that though. That's the difference.

Slightly off topic, I'm wondering Koan...you don't believe in thought crime, yet you believe in the concept of hate crime...hate is a thought, a feeling. Merely feeling hate or thinking hateful things about someone does not warrant violent action, nor really any action and certainly not a crime until action is carried out. What is the difference then between hate crime and thought crime? They're both thoughts. Both inconcrete. I realize that's probably another topic but I wanted to bring it up while it was fresh on my mind.

I looked for an article on government entrapment and terrorism and did find a reference to a case that wasn't all that recent, so I wasn't sure if it's the one Nomad meant but I can try to find it again.

In the description of events, two guys that had been police informants were down on their luck and came up with a scheme to get the government to give them funds allowing them to live in a hotel with meals paid for and a petty cash fund. The proposal was that they try to root out terrorists. The people that they talked into joining their fake group were also in the poverty range and were offered money for joining the group. One guy managed to get $50 out of them to buy something they would need for the activities and he spent it on food for his family. They seem to have been planning on getting their money in advance and then abandoning the group.

These are the men that were charged with terrorism.

An example of thought crime would be buying a large item from a store that broke down all the time then saying that someone should blow up that department store because you think their products suck and finding yourself arrested for it.

Hate speech, to me, is when a person vocally advocates the killing of people because of their associations, race, religion etc. Just saying that one dislikes a person or group is not hate crime. Trying to organise a campaign against them which puts another person's safety at risk violates their rights and then becomes a crime. I believe that "Do As Thou Wilt" is the only legitimate law but applies to all equally. It carries "but harm no other" as an inherent extension. When a person uses their right to free speech to bring harm to another then they have crossed the boundaries of their own rights to infringe on others.

I have personally been prepared to kill someone if he showed up on my front door in the past. I even wanted to buy a gun and practice at a firing range so I'd be ready. I did not go around telling other people why the person should die, nor did I end up buying a gun and trying to lure the person into my presence, though I was, at the time, a murderer in waiting. Since I actually did not follow through on my thoughts I committed no crime. If someone had offered me a gun I would have taken it. I highly doubt I would have used it but I could easily have been entrapped into owning a gun with the hopes that I would have the opportunity to kill. These people actually just wanted the money. They didn't even have the willpower to commit the crime. I am more guilty than they were.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:20 am

I think the story in question is about the "Liberty City Seven" discussed here

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:39 pm

koan;745928 wrote: I think the story in question is about the "Liberty City Seven" discussed here

That fairly well defines why entrapment should not be used.

History buff · Post by **History buff** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 1:14 am

There is certainly immorality in government, but the "legal" definition of entrapment is FAR from a personal one.

Online stings to catch pedophiles who agree to engage in relations with a person under the age of consent or federal law (interstate) is an extremely productive law enforcement tool. I have never seen a state that has an AOC lower than 14 for a female, most are 16.

If one is not predisposed to commit a crime, they 99% of the time will not.

The crimilization of thought crimes is unconstitutional. No actus reus, no crime, most generally.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:46 am

Accountable;744366 wrote: How and why did they target these people? What reason did they have to entrap them in the first place? If they started with simple random "net casting" then it is completely wrong, imo.

Nomad?

Yea uhh seems I forgot about the thread. I was really enraged and indignant too. Ill have to dig for the writings tonight.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:49 am

Ok I dug.

koan;745928 wrote: I think the story in question is about the "Liberty City Seven" discussed here