Comment by raganwald | Hacker News Reader

Comment by raganwald | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think it's in society's best interests to roll these people up. I have absolutely zero qualms about taking people off the chess board that think it's a great idea for everyone to pile into the van and visit the bomb site.

Hunh, I think that’s the same argument to be used for illegal wiretapping, slapping GPS transmitters on cars, and on an on. "We’re after nasty people, so society’s best interests are served by having us use every tool at our disposal and letting us choose who, when, and why without oversight.” And yes, the answer may be easy for you, but it’s also easy for me. I don’t think the fact that these people may be nasty has any bearing on what should or shouldn’t constitute due process. I also don’t think that discovering their nastiness after the fact justifies the police actions before the fact of their nastiness has been established.

I suspect there are deep, deep philosophical divides at work here. For your reading interest, I present something that happened during the a long-ago spate of successful domestic terrorism events:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Which leads naturally to a group of actually nasty people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)

I almost forgot. As a Canadian, I am especially interested in this difficult moral case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_crisis

No. It's really not at all.

And you're taking the same mischaracterization that an above post takes: I do not feel this was okay because "these are nasty people", as if my delicate sensibilities cringe at the idea of "icky people", people that are different than me or have different view than I have.

That is a false representation of my views.

I think it's okay to roll up on these people because they think it's okay to blow up bridges, and because they took all necessary actions to indicate intent, which would clearly and unequivocally be a crime.

Due process? They will get their day in court. If it turns out that they were just minding their business, being upstanding citizens in our society until an FBI agent kidnapped them and forced them to participate in a bomb plot, then I will gladly eat crow and be on the side of their exoneration and justice.

I am sure there are many things our government does that would not stand up with respect to a hard, realistic look at constitutionality. I am not naive enough to believe that "because the government does it, it's not illegal" nor am I for the wrongful persecution of political or religious organizations "just because I don't like them".

But here is my bottom line: people that plot to blow up pieces of American infrastructure and who then take steps to follow out that plan are criminals. I'm kind of amazed I even have to state this.

people that plot to blow up pieces of American infrastructure and who then take steps to follow out that plan are criminals. I'm kind of amazed I even have to state this.

I’m amazed you are stating this because it isn’t the argument against what the police are doing. The argument solely concerns what measures are appropriate for identifying and gathering evidence about criminals.

We can agree that they are criminals. My point is, I have questions about the way in which the police are conducting their “investigation,” and I don’t care whether they people being investigated turn out to be criminals. I get that you think they are criminals and you have no sympathy for criminals.

It goes back to my example of the police beating a confession out of a shoplifter. Or a murderer. Or torturing a terrorist. The guilt of the suspect is not the issue to me whatsoever.

And just so you know, I want domestic terrorists caught and convicted. We’re simply discussing how society should go about it.

"My point is, I have questions about the way in which the police are conducting their “investigation,” and I don’t care whether they people being investigated turn out to be criminals."

So what are your questions about police conduct during the investigation?

My point is, I have questions about the way in which the police are conducting their “investigation,”

I don't, in this case. We can take a few things as given, yes?

1) There is no legitimate reason for an individual to attempt to blow up a piece of domestic infrastructure.

2) Any person who, given the materials, has no qualms committing the act in 1, is a criminal and should be taken off the streets.

This isn't even like most other stings. Drugs, speeding, whatever. There are legitimate reasons, law notwithstanding, to do both of those things. However, a person who takes steps to blow up a building and kill a bunch of people.. nope. There's zero question in my mind about someone who would do that. There is no legitimate reason. I suspect that the FBI will have a 100% success rate with these actions, and zero false positives.

What are the chances someone will be innocently caught in this dragnet? Pretty much zero. So where is the harm to society?

What of the harm to peaceful protesters who aren't going to be arrested? Should they be allowed to organize and plan peaceful actions without police officers continually derailing their discussions by trying to incite violence? What of the people scared away from protesting peacefully by that scary guy in the corner who keeps talking about blowing shit up? Should they be continually fearing that any expression that can be taken out of context as indicating they're advocating violence (Such as riffing off a Batman quote http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/some-men-just-want-to-watch-th... )

Which might be moot if I believed any of the groups mentioned would have committed these acts without the involvement of police officers or informants. But I don't, so.

[edit: Looking up another reference, I found a case you might find troubling.

"In the case of the Fort Dix Five, which involved a fake plan to attack a New Jersey military base, one informant's criminal past included attempted murder, while another admitted in court at least two of the suspects later jailed for life had not known of any plot." from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/20/fbi-informant , more info at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449728,00.html ]

>Should they be allowed to organize and plan peaceful actions without police officers continually derailing their discussions by trying to incite violence?

This is what's called harassment, and it's illegal. Furthermore, I challenge you to find a record of any such ongoing such actions.

In the Guardian link I posted it lists a mosque gaining a restraining order against a FBI infiltrator. They also reported him to the FBI, but as the FBI was employing him, they didn't do anything about it.

Ah.. that's what I get for not clicking.

In any case, the FBI was out of control.. (as usual it seems..) - But they got a restraining order. Isn't that what you're supposed to do when someone won't leave you the hell alone?

I'd rather have a government that you don't need to get restraining orders against.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com