Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

Moving a serious conversation about blowing up "a bridge" versus a "cargo ship" using bleach explosives to a "big bridge" using C4 isn't "inventing terrorists".

View on HN

It may not have been a serious conversation. I've met a few "anarchists" in college, and the limit to what they can usually accomplish is a bit of graffiti.

They'd need leadership, training, and materials to actually accomplish anything.

I'm sure you could find a few people here who talk about ways they could hack into banks, but they aren't bank robbers. If you came up with a great plan (designed by a bank security specialist), and egged them on, then you might be able to convince a few to join you.

They'd need leadership, training, and materials to actually accomplish anything.

I just find it ironic that self proclaimed anarchists require leadership to function.

Not that I disagree, just, it's a bit funny is all.

Being "lead" isn't the same as being bossed around. As long as the leader doesn't claim some authority over the other members, it can still be "anarchist" leadership.

When I was in college, our floor's resident anarchist ran for (and won) a seat on student council. We found it rather entertaining.

Wow, did he even try to justify it? Maybe he's destroying the system from the inside? http://abstrusegoose.com/456 :)

This argument is fallacious.

Would you expect conservatives in 1970s britain to avoid using gas, electricity, trains, the telephone and so on, because they were publicly owned?

Do you expect socialists in modern america not to ever use commercial businesses?

Avoid using? No. Avoid running for office on a "I'd like to run the nationalized train system once I get elected" platform? Yes.

Surely the anarchist would have dismantled the power structure and put some kind of heterarchical system in its place, assuming he had the power to do so. If he was just planning to sit in his special chair and laugh it up, then yes, that is ridiculous.

If one is promoting a system radically different to the status quo, one inevitably has to compromise to some extent to make progress, unless you're planning a violent coup or something.

They'd need leadership, training, and materials to actually accomplish anything.

Great point... The FBI is taking what is basically a thought crime and pushing that person along until they commit an arrestable offense.

Like all government agencies, the FBI (and all departments within it) has to continue to prove it's usefulness in order for everyone to keep their jobs and keep getting nice government salaries and bonuses.

So, if there isn't a real terroristic threat, they'll just invent one.

If every conversation among people of all political persuasions was exploited, you'd see a very different picture. You really think conversations among Tea Partiers, Democratic party drones, and other mainstream-type groups never bring up fantasies of violence on their supposed enemies? Or do you think there are no unstable and insecure people who could be turned among these political blocs?

In particular, it seems like it'd be pretty easy to entrap some of the gun-show types who talk about "second amendment solutions", goading them into making more specific statements. I'm not sure it makes sense to lock up everyone who has a very generalized idea of using violence, though, especially if it takes coaching to get them to articulate it with any specifics.

It's not illegal to fantasize. It is illegal to attempt to blow up a bridge. Federal law is remarkably consistent on this, whether you vote Democrat, Republican, or Ron Paul.

It is illegal to attempt to blow up the bridge. But if you do so when led by an agent of the state, having been convinced by an agent of the state to perform the act, and with the necessary materials provided by the state, then you ought not be convicted of a crime.

The more worrying part of this article is the targeting of certain groups and certain ideologies. Even if this particular case wasn't entrapment, that the FBI is specifically targeting certain groups and egging them on to commit acts of violence, is undemocratic and just plain evil.

Conspiracy to commit foo, is illegal for many foo. So, it is illegal to fantasize out loud.

Conspiracy to commit foo generally means you are planing to commit foo, not talking about the best way to commit foo.

Only if you take real action towards committing foo. Talking about it does not constitute real action.

That isn't how conspiracy to commit works. There has to have been foo (or an attempt at foo), and demonstrable knowledge of that act of foo (or highly probable knowledge), and actions to further the committing of foo (direct or indirect I believe). Just exploring stuff in the hypothetical is completely legal.

Google 'entrapment "ruby ridge"'

Agreed. These guys have lawyers and will be tried in front of a judge. If they can prove entrapment, then the charges will be dismissed.

The gov't isn't stupid about this, they want convictions, they have their own lawyers (prosecutors). No doubt many conversations were had about avoiding entrapment and ensuring that the party in question committed a crime.

I'm not saying that there aren't abuses, but the gov't (ATF, DEA, etc) have been doing this for decades. This is nothing new.

fantasy of violence != violence

former is protected under 1st amendment, latter is a criminal offense.

How many times, though, have you jokingly said to a close friend that you should blow X up to solve the world's problems? It's akin to saying we should ship all of X type of people to some third world country. It doesn't mean you want to act on the thing. It might be a joke in bad taste, but words do not equal action. This guy apparently felt "pressured" by this agent to go through with an act. I don't know what that means, but it surely casts doubt on the ethics of the investigating agency.

The problem is getting the authorities to see the funny side, e.g. Paul Chambers and the airport: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8673196.s...

You assume they weren't just talking shit. Are there recordings of the conversation?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com