Big Brother is Watching You

[O Really]

Snowden wants to return to the US if he gets "a fair trial." http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/law ... ar-BBic5cx

I have no idea what he would consider a "fair trial" but I vote for him to live with his life choices in Russia.

[rstrong]

I have no idea what he would consider a "fair trial" but I vote for him to live with his life choices in Russia.

Perhaps "fair by pre-9/11 standards."

Daniel Ellsberg was charged in 1971 under the Espionage Act as well as for theft and conspiracy for copying the Pentagon Papers. The trial was dismissed in 1973 after evidence of government misconduct against him, including illegal wiretapping, was introduced in court.

For the two years he was under indictment, he was free to speak to the media and at rallies and public lectures.

Today, the government actions that got the case thrown out of court are legal. Today, Snowden would not be allowed out on bail. Instead, he would be in a prison cell like Bradley Manning, incommunicado, in total isolation conditions described by the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Torture as “cruel, inhuman and degrading.”

That realistic prospect, by itself, is grounds for most countries granting Snowden asylum, if they could withstand bullying and bribery from the United States.

BTW, Russia wasn't one of his "life choices." He was transiting Russia for South America when the US trapped him there by cancelling his passport.

But of course the government won't give Snowden a fair trial by any standard. It would raise the question of trials for those he blew the whistle on.

[O Really]

BTW, Russia wasn't one of his "life choices." He was transiting Russia for South America when the US trapped him there by cancelling his passport.

Understood. But his life choices got him stuck over there instead of making a nice living in the US. However, if he still wants to go the South America, I'd vote to punch his ticket for some nice restful place like Venezuela or Colombia.

[Mr.B]

Those sound more like questions that would be asked on a welfare application.

[O Really]

I'm of a mixed mind on that one. Generally, I oppose entrapment, including cops posing as drug dealers and ho's. I think there's something inherently missing in the evidentiary trail when you charge somebody with a prostitution offense when there was no real prostitute, no real sex, just a cop being a pretend ho trying to attract attention. On the other hand, being willing to seriously discuss and consider being a bomb-carrying ISIS-joining terrorist would take a little bit different person than somebody being willing to accept (and pay for) a blow-job from the lady on the corner. I'm fine with the right-wing loonies using their freedom of speech to yammer about collecting guns to protect against the time when the jack-boots come to take them away. But if a guy conducts a real conversation about, for example, blowing up a specific target, and appears by a reasonable standard actually willing to do it, then I don't really care if the person getting him/her into the conversation was a real terrorist guy or a cop pretending.

[O Really]

The devil is in the details of the specific "terrorists" being "caught". There seem to be a lot that never would have acted without the government's "help", or are so witless that they would have been caught before acting, anyhow.

Without the "government's help" - or somebody's help. Let's say I yammer about doing a through-hike on the AP. It's all a pipe dream, I've got other obligations, not good enough shape, yada, whatever. But I really would like to do it. If somebody (government pretender or real) shows me a way, gives me encouragement, helps me prepare... I might actually try it. Conversely, I'd say there is no government pretender on earth that's going to get O Really or Vrede to engage in a serious conversation where we might plan to blow up the Biltmore.

[O Really]

Speak for yourself. I could tell you some stories about a younger Vrede . . .

Also, though I never hurt or threatened to hurt people, there are fighters against tyranny elsewhere that I had/have no problem with.

I was SDS, not Weathermen, but Bernadette's poster was on my wall.. I don't think any cop pretending to be a Weatherman could have got me to agree to toss a bomb into a building - evacuation warning or not. That wasn't my style or my way of thinking of how to effect change. On the other hand, at some time in another life in a galaxy far away, I probably would have gone along happily with sabotaging trees scheduled for cutting, burning uninhabited "developments" in sensitive areas, or strip centers being built in filled-in wetlands. I didn't, but I might have, with a catalyst. Does it really matter if the catalyst is cop or not? Am I less guilty?

[O Really]

I own or have owned FMLN, Sandinista and Zapata stuff, and honor the spirits of Geronimo and Crazy Horse.

... On the other hand, at some time in another life in a galaxy far away, I probably would have gone along happily with sabotaging trees scheduled for cutting, burning uninhabited "developments" in sensitive areas, or strip centers being built in filled-in wetlands. I didn't, but I might have, with a catalyst. Does it really matter if the catalyst is cop or not? Am I less guilty?

Everyone has unpopular or unsavory fantasies. If you did not do those things but would have with a catalyst cop then it's the theoretical cop that's guilty. I'm sure you had plenty of access to people more radical than you, as I have, but none of them pursued you with the time, energy and money that a provocateur cop does. Plus, as the article points out, it's usually more vulnerable and incompetent people that are targeted than you or I.

Yeah, I know. I said I was conflicted. But I really do have problems with anybody who can be talked into (by anybody) strapping on a bomb and hanging out at the finish line of the Assault on Mt. Mitchell. Maybe not so much if they were talked into visiting the contract "DMV" office , but still. I'd rather catch them before they killed a bunch of people rather than after. If a person willing to set pressure cooker bombs at the end of the race gets a technical deprivation of First or Second Amendment rights, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

[O Really]

Maybe if they spent more time preventing terrorism and less time creating it out of thin air.

Well, I think infiltrating a group of evil-doers, getting one or more to do something illegal and then getting them to roll over on their fellow evil-doers is "preventing" more than "creating." I don't really think an undercover cop (or a real terrorist) is going to be very successful just picking up accountants having a beer at happy hour and getting them to agree to blow up themselves/others, or ship out to ISIS land. So somewhere between those extremes is a degree of workable practicality that makes the odds fairly high that the evil-doer you catch is or would be a real evil-doer. I think a lot of the time we (collectively) tend to focus on the screw-ups without considering the validity of the theory. Sorta like you used to hear so much about the "lousy" postal service because somebody's letter took two years to get delivered. Sure, that makes a fun entry into the parade of horribles, but is the percentage of late/lost deliveries enough to call the service lousy? Nowhere close. Look at Blue Bell ice cream - been in business over a hundred years, no listeria, no recalls. Had a problem with one unit and "everybody" thinks their product is poison. Again, I don't support entrapment for minor stuff. I think maybe any guy in the right circumstances might be convinced to take the offered servicing. I think a person who might like to get a little illegal weed might not necessarily do so unless you make it ridiculously easy. But I think anybody who can be talked, encouraged, wheedled, or paid to commit terrorist acts is a real terrorist - even if he didn't wake up this morning thinking so.

[neoplacebo]

Maybe if they spent more time preventing terrorism and less time creating it out of thin air.

Well, I think infiltrating a group of evil-doers, getting one or more to do something illegal and then getting them to roll over on their fellow evil-doers is "preventing" more than "creating." I don't really think an undercover cop (or a real terrorist) is going to be very successful just picking up accountants having a beer at happy hour and getting them to agree to blow up themselves/others, or ship out to ISIS land. So somewhere between those extremes is a degree of workable practicality that makes the odds fairly high that the evil-doer you catch is or would be a real evil-doer. I think a lot of the time we (collectively) tend to focus on the screw-ups without considering the validity of the theory. Sorta like you used to hear so much about the "lousy" postal service because somebody's letter took two years to get delivered. Sure, that makes a fun entry into the parade of horribles, but is the percentage of late/lost deliveries enough to call the service lousy? Nowhere close. Look at Blue Bell ice cream - been in business over a hundred years, no listeria, no recalls. Had a problem with one unit and "everybody" thinks their product is poison. Again, I don't support entrapment for minor stuff. I think maybe any guy in the right circumstances might be convinced to take the offered servicing. I think a person who might like to get a little illegal weed might not necessarily do so unless you make it ridiculously easy. But I think anybody who can be talked, encouraged, wheedled, or paid to commit terrorist acts is a real terrorist - even if he didn't wake up this morning thinking so.

Hell, there's lots of things I could possibly be talked into or persuaded to do that maybe aren't "good" but putting on a bomb shirt or trying to get someone else to put one on aren't among those things. Now I might be interested in those "right circumstances" in which "...the offered servicing" is prepared to go immediately. That ridiculously easy weed is also tempting. You're not a cop, are you?

[O Really]

... Again, I don't support entrapment for minor stuff. I think maybe any guy in the right circumstances might be convinced to take the offered servicing. I think a person who might like to get a little illegal weed might not necessarily do so unless you make it ridiculously easy. But I think anybody who can be talked, encouraged, wheedled, or paid to commit terrorist acts is a real terrorist - even if he didn't wake up this morning thinking so.

They're not a "real terrorist" until they do real terrorism or take some positive step towards without being yanked by a cop, and all entrapment used to be illegal. Too many of these are armchair radicals and never would have been anything else.

Maybe, but here's one for you. Orlando news says the local gendarmes arrested a bunch of guys in an underage sex sting. The people arrested did not have any sex or any contact at all with an underage girl. But they thought they were going to. They agreed to hook up with a girl from online contact who they believed to be under 16. Crime or no crime?

[O Really]

It depends on how they got to that point. What website did the perp and fake victim meet on, was the perp steered to that website by a cop, who first proposed sex, did the perp make any real world effort to meet or just say he would, did a cop buy him the condoms and booze and then drive him to the fake meet-up, etc.? All of these are analogous to some supposedly foiled terror plots.

As you know, either entrapment is okay or it isn't, and being an alleged Muslim wannabe terrorist doesn't make a difference. If it's okay for them, it's okay to entrap an atheist lawyer into jaywalking.

I think the questions posed in the article matter. If reasonable answers are come up with I'm fine with arrest and prosecution.

In this particular case, apparently the perps really did show up at a location where they expected the kid to be. Sorta like they did on Dateline a few year ago. So to me, if a 40-year old guy shows up at a house where he expects to hook up with a 15-year old, I don't really care if he got steered to a website by a cop, or if the cop got him drunk or drove him to the house. But not all "stings" or infiltration operations are "entrapment." Here's a good discussion of the issue... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... entrapment

Key is whether the cop managed to get the perp to do something he "would not otherwise done." Again, a person might not go out seeking a prostitute unless one tried to pick him up at the bar, but I'm pretty sure a person willing to commit terrorist acts might not be as pure as driven snow - even if the cop says, "hey, why don't we get drunk, get laid, and blow up the SunTrust."

[O Really]

If the cop says, "Hey, why don't we get drunk, get laid, and blow up the SunTrust," then buys the booze, rents the hookers, scouts the SunTrust and gets blueprints, and provides the "bomb", the bust is a lot sketchier. This is what has happened with some Muslim and environmental "terrorists".

I have no basis to doubt that. My question is, is that the norm or the outlier?

[O Really]

Regarding question #2 - and (adapting my favorite comment on paranoia), just because they're a loon doesn't mean they aren't real bombers, and if you're going to be a bomber, doesn't it help to be a loon?

Regarding question #1 - occasional excesses notwithstanding, you aren't really advocating that the cops sit around and wait until after the bomb is tossed to do anything, are you?

Regarding question #3 - if he'll do it for the cop, how do you know he wouldn't do it for someone else? Except for opportunity - maybe it's easier to meet an undercover cop than it is a real ISIS recruiter?

[O Really]

So Tsarvonev (sp) defense is large "my brother made me do it." Nevertheless, he did it. How is this different from the defense "the cop (or the devil) made me do it"? Other than the fact that they didn't catch Tsarvonev (sp) before he did it. Which would have been nice.

[O Really]

Who cares if the brother made him do it, the cops made him do it or the devil made him do it? I don't. And certainly in some contexts, I'd agree with you on the "higher standard" for cops. For example, I expect cops to know that drunks are likely to be rambunctious, and they should be the "adults" in the situation. But whatever the catalyst, if he did it, he did it. Or would have done it. Or said he'd do it. Whatever.

[O Really]

However, we do have laws regarding police entrapment, as we should. What they could do with free rein would harm society.

We do - and "entrapment" has a legal definition. And not all "stings" or undercover work is entrapment. Toss out the bath water - keep the baby.

And after he's convicted, I'd rather see him put away forever and eventually out of the collective mind instead of being back on the front page every year or so appealing his death sentence. Better still, I would have preferred him not to be so lucky in that boat, or the cops to have been better shots. Which reminds me - how is it that cops can manage to shoot that many holes in the boat and not hit him? Wasn't that big of a boat. And fiberglass, I think.

[O Really]

One guess without looking anything up - If he was lying in the very bottom of the hull its angle might have prevented a decent kill shot without being underneath and shooting straight up.

Too bad. Too bad also that when he came out, there weren't some pansy cops from Missouri or somewhere who "felt threatened" or "thought he was armed" or "the lighter looked like a gun." Unarmed black guys and little old looney ladies get killed - this guy walks away. (OK, gets hauled away, but still...)

[O Really]

Time to Repeal the Surveillance State! (petition)

The (bipartisan) Surveillance State Repeal Act (HR 1466) repeals the two most notorious post 9/11 surveillance measures: the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act, and institutes sweeping reforms to protect our 4th Amendment rights

No problem with the repeal of PATRIOT, but I'm not so sure about the retroactive implications of ... "(b) Destruction Of Certain Information.—The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General shall destroy any information collected under the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107–56) and the amendments made by such Act, as in effect the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, concerning a United States person that is not related to an investigation that is actively ongoing on such date."

If we get into retroactive actions, there's a long slippery road ahead.

Also, the "Title VII - Additional Provisions" seem a bit sketchy to me.

[O Really]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... picks=true

I suppose one could argue that the "former deputy director of the CIA, Michael Morell, who was among the United States’ most senior intelligence officials when Snowden began providing highly-classified documents to journalists in 2013" might have some conflicts of interest in his opinion, but still...