175 replies to this topic

[Ixodes]

Tormund Midgetsbane, on 08 May 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

HAHAHAHAHA I LOVE BEING RIGHT




The line to start admitting that I am smarter than you forms here.

Mental note:  If CIA asks me to take part in the fight against terrorism, say "No."  Run, hide.

That anthrax is an interesting little problem.  Did you catch that Frontline a little while back where they reviewed the suspect who killed himself?  Hmmm.

[Ser Robin Hill]

My only gripe with the CIA is that it never seems to be able to keep operational details of an operation out of the hands of the media.  I'd really like the sources of these leaks to be found and never heard from again.

[Tormund Midgetsbane]

Quote

My only gripe with the CIA is that it never seems to be able to keep operational details of an operation out of the hands of the media. I'd really like the sources of these leaks to be found and never heard from again.

So we're skipping over "I was totally wrong" and right back to KILL THE SHIT OUT OF EVERYONE.  Do you light a candle to Stalin when you get up in the morning?

Also, the CIA is involved in a plot to kill innocent people and your "Only" gripe is that you found out about it?  You really have no other gripe?

Edited by Tormund Midgetsbane, 09 May 2012 - 08:38 AM.

[Ser Robin Hill]

Tormund Midgetsbane, on 09 May 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:

So we're skipping over "I was totally wrong" and right back to KILL THE SHIT OUT OF EVERYONE.  Do you light a candle to Stalin when you get up in the morning?

Also, the CIA is involved in a plot to kill innocent people and your "Only" gripe is that you found out about it?  You really have no other gripe?

You're wrong and your definition of innocent is a joke.  My gripe is not that that the information about the new and improved diaper bomb was made known, but that how the information was obtained was made known.

[Raidne]

Tormund Midgetsbane, on 08 May 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

HAHAHAHAHA I LOVE BEING RIGHT

Reading the thread waiting for this was funny.

But you're not really right. The CIA did not make the bomb. Al Qaeda made the bomb. It was given to another party who was working with Saudi intelligence and the CIA. He turned it over to his handler and, with their help, fled the country. The FBI now has the bomb and is testing it to see if it would have passed our security procedures. What went wrong here?

It's not like anyone accidentally busted their own guy. You know as well as I do that never would have happened - he would have been accidentally bombed out of the sky by a drone, which is exactly what happened to the people he was working with. Had to pull him out without getting intel on al-Asiri though, which is too bad but probably worth it to see what cutting-edge Al Qaeda tech is these days.

What is anyone unhappy about???

[Raidne]

Source material: http://www.guardian....working-for-cia

[Tormund Midgetsbane]

Right, how this works is, the government decides there needs to be a terrorist plot.  They then get their informant to go hunt down the poor sap who's going to be framed up for this.  The informant provides all the money, and all the plans, and usually a fake bomb, then they arrest the guy.  In this case it looks like they got someone else to make the bomb for them.  There is no reason to believe that the bomb would have been made if the CIA hadn't asked for it.  It's ludicrous.

[Ixodes]

Raidne, on 09 May 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

What is anyone unhappy about???

That some person sitting in a booth in Port Columbus airport was looking at digitized pictures of my junk whilst I was standing head forward, arse out with my legs spread.  

I know it's tangential to the topic at hand but man, I loathe air travel these days.

[Raidne]

I see no evidence of any entrapment here. The guy was an informer, not an agent. Doesn't make sense to think he asked for the bomb - why on earth would he want to have to uproot his life and leave the country? Why would we want that - we want al-Asiri.

I guess all I'm saying is that you are free to think the CIA sent somebody undercover into Yemen to link up with someone who knows al-Asiri for the sole purpose of obtaining one "bomb" for a PR stunt, but I'm not going along for the ride on that crazy train. I'm not insanely pro-government or anything - there's just too much to your version that doesn't make any sense. The pieces don't fit together. The story didn't even come from the White House.

[Raidne]

Ix - I have had a sharp increase in the number of "searches" I have been subjected to (and one lewd comment on the possible need to search me) since I have taken to regularly traveling by air due to the long-distance relationship whenever I go through backscatter scanning in airports other than National in DC, but I still haven't really felt any more violated than I do by my normal day-to-day interactions with men on the street. I'd definitely say having my ass grabbed or breast brushed by strangers in public is worse. I don't want to invalidate your feelings, so I'd like to be sympathetic but it's not happening on an emotional level for me.

[Tormund Midgetsbane]

Quote

I see no evidence of any entrapment here. The guy was an informer, not an agent.

They are always informers, not agents.

http://reason.com/bl...g-terrorists-or

Quote

Doesn't make sense to think he asked for the bomb - why on earth would he want to have to uproot his life and leave the country?

He was Saudi, not Yemeni

Quote

Why would we want that - we want al-Asiri.

Sure we do.

[Ser Robin Hill]

Raidne, on 09 May 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

What is anyone unhappy about???

al Qaeda now knows who it was that penetrated their operation.  While the person is not named, it is not rocket science to look around and notice who is no longer there.  Once they know that, it is easy for them to determine how he entered their organization, who was close to him and eliminate any other possible agents in their midst.

Tormund Midgetsbane, on 09 May 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

Right, how this works is, the government decides there needs to be a terrorist plot.  They then get their informant to go hunt down the poor sap who's going to be framed up for this.  The informant provides all the money, and all the plans, and usually a fake bomb, then they arrest the guy.  In this case it looks like they got someone else to make the bomb for them.  There is no reason to believe that the bomb would have been made if the CIA hadn't asked for it.  It's ludicrous.

And you know this how?  Please don't point to some bozo's blog and cite his anti-government rant as proof.

[The Progressive]

For those not inclined to purchase ticket to board tormund's crazy train, here's what npr is reporting:

"
The double agent who authorities say infiltrated al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and ended up handing over to the FBI the bomb that AQAP wanted him to wear aboard a U.S.-bound flight, also gave American officials the information that led to a drone strike in Yemen on Sunday that killed Fahd al-Quso. He's one of the men linked to the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole.
— One of other major intelligence "coups" from the operation that thwarted AQAP's plan is the bomb itself, which is now being studied. "It's a lot easier to analyze a bomb when it's intact," rather than after an explosion, Dina told Morning Edition host David Greene."

http://www.npr.org/b...elligence-coups

[Tormund Midgetsbane]

Quote

And you know this how? Please don't point to some bozo's blog and cite his anti-government rant as proof.

Really not sure why I bother with you, but...

http://www.guardian....ke-terror-plots

http://www.cbsnews.c...62-7103284.html

http://www.guardian....t-tactics/print

http://www.motherjon...rist-informants

http://www.democracy...r_fbis_reliance

[Ixodes]

Robin Hill, on 09 May 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

And you know this how?  Please don't point to some bozo's blog and cite his anti-government rant as proof.

Did you see that linked Washington Post article on page 2 of the thread, the one Gryphon quoted a district judge saying “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,” (dunno if she is a bozo with anti-government rants, though).  

Also from that article:

“It almost seems like the government is creating a theatrical event that produces more fear in the community,” said Michael German, a senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union and a former FBI agent who worked undercover.

I don't think it's too far a jump to think that maybe, just maybe, the way the US is conducting the fight against terrorism isn't so hot.  And maybe the results of some of these victories against the "terrorists" don't really justify continued erosion of civil liberties and killing of more people.  

Being critical of the government and media coverage of policies that involve incarceration, murder, and surveillance of both US citizens and non-citizens isn't a bad thing.  You know, supposed open society and all.


Raids -- the airtravel thing is continued low grade bitching on my end, not a plea for sympathy.  I count myself very fortunate that the women in my life aren't currently subject to the same day to day degradations you experience.  That would drive me to some pretty deep levels of hatred.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

Its a fine line. On one hand, in the USA that prides itself on freedom, a person should be able to say and believe that they wish to blow up buildings, wish to kill maim and mutilate those whom they dislike or believe inferior. And indeed, a USSC court decision in 1969 affirmed a general right to speak of violence so long as it wasn't specific and did not incite or threaten to cause "imminent lawless action" (Brandenburg v Ohio) .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

But, I do think the GOVT has every right to go after those whose intent goes beyond words to the deed itself. Even when the terrorist has no way to have carried out his mission but for the FBI informant hooking him up with the FBI explosive, it still shows that the person has gone beyond merely wishing, mere words and rhetoric that should be protected, to acts which are not. However, if it can be shown that the FBI actively pushed this guy to act, and hed not have otherwise engaged in the activity, that is entrapment and that should be grounds enough to dismiss a case against the defendant.

[Ser Robin Hill]

TM,

Let me see if I get this straight.  You are saying that articles containing the opinions of opponents to the FBI practices, the accused saying he was just some poor schmuck that was conned into doing what he did, and people automatically crying, "racists", because the accused is often a Muslim, are proof?  That last strikes me as strange since I didn't realize there was a Muslim race.  What do you expect to hear from an accused in cases like this, but, "I really didn't want to do it, but they promised me a double walnut fudge sundae, so it's all their fault"?

Now, while you are fuming over that, please present any factual material you have that shows the FBI and CIA have the same operating procedures.  Or is that just guesswork, as well?

ETA for clarification as to whom I was replying to.

Edited by Robin Hill, 09 May 2012 - 02:04 PM.

[Raidne]

IC - Yeah I heard that same report this morning on NPR. Sucks to lose a field asset but when someone gives them a bomb what can you do? That's why I don't believe we set it up - it was not the best outcome for our use of that asset without factors out of our control.

For the entrapment crowd - Who's being unfairly brought up on charges here? The underprivileged coerced bomb?

[Tormund Midgetsbane]

Quote

For the entrapment crowd - Who's being unfairly brought up on charges here? The underprivileged coerced bomb?

Fortunately for the feds, it happened in Yemen so there's no need for anything so inconvenient as arrest and trial.  They just got to blow them up.

[Ser Robin Hill]

Ixodes, on 09 May 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

Did you see that linked Washington Post article on page 2 of the thread, the one Gryphon quoted a district judge saying “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,” (dunno if she is a bozo with anti-government rants, though).  

Also from that article:

“It almost seems like the government is creating a theatrical event that produces more fear in the community,” said Michael German, a senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union and a former FBI agent who worked undercover.

I don't think it's too far a jump to think that maybe, just maybe, the way the US is conducting the fight against terrorism isn't so hot.  And maybe the results of some of these victories against the "terrorists" don't really justify continued erosion of civil liberties and killing of more people.  

Being critical of the government and media coverage of policies that involve incarceration, murder, and surveillance of both US citizens and non-citizens isn't a bad thing.  You know, supposed open society and all.


Raids -- the airtravel thing is continued low grade bitching on my end, not a plea for sympathy.  I count myself very fortunate that the women in my life aren't currently subject to the same day to day degradations you experience.  That would drive me to some pretty deep levels of hatred.

You left this out.

Quote

There have been 138 terrorism or national security cases involving informants since 2001, and 51 of those have come over the past three years, according to the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School in New York. The center said the government secured convictions in 91 percent of those cases.