FBI Sting or Entrapment?

[Texsox]

But lawyers for the defendants have raised questions about where a government sting ends and entrapment begins. Not only did government informants provide money and a meeting place for Batiste and his followers, but they also gave them video cameras for conducting surveillance, as well as cellphones, and suggested that their first target be a Miami FBI office, court records show

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...?referrer=email

 

These cases are always tough. FBI agents hand a do it yourself terrorist kit to a group of extremists and then arrest them.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...?referrer=email

 

These cases are always tough. FBI agents hand a do it yourself terrorist kit to a group of extremists and then arrest them.

I'm OK with pretty much all of that, except for the "suggestions" as to targets and tactics. That is active promotion of a dangerous activity, not to mention engineering an act for the subjects to follow. That was too far. Otherwise, as far as getting equipment they sought, I'd say that is part of the role.

[Texsox]

I am troubled when law enforcement becomes a co conspirator. Providing materials that they might not have gotten any other way, seems to step over a boundry.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I'm OK with pretty much all of that, except for the "suggestions" as to targets and tactics. That is active promotion of a dangerous activity, not to mention engineering an act for the subjects to follow. That was too far. Otherwise, as far as getting equipment they sought, I'd say that is part of the role.

IIRC, in the 93 WTC bombings, the FBI had an informant in there who was promoting the building to bomb, where, how to bomb it, when etc. The FBI even gave them real explosives instead of dummy stuff and knew the date where the bombing would occur but felt the intelligence gained by keeping the guy in would outweigh the deaths at the WTC.

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/P...OK/wtcbomb.html

 

And this story was also printed in the Chicago Tribune so we can avoid the NY Slime crap from muddying up the thread.

[NorthSideSox72]

I am troubled when law enforcement becomes a co conspirator. Providing materials that they might not have gotten any other way, seems to step over a boundry.

If they were seeking it, they may or may not have gotten it. I'm OK with that aspect.

 

See, part of this whole thing (in my view) is that we do need to give the FBI as much room to breathe as possible. The scary things to me that law enforcement and intelligence have been doing under BushCo are the blatant disregards for personal freedoms in the U.S. To me, this doesn't violate that - its people who are already going bad. You just want to make sure you put them away for good when they reach that point of no return. That doesn't violate innocent peoples' freedoms, in my view. These people, simply put, are not innocent.

 

Sometimes, in law enforcement, you can't wait for the fence sitters to move. You need to force their hand, and get them to back off or go over.

 

EDIT: Further clarification here. I do not agree with purely promoting crime with a subject. I believe in forcing them to choose one. Give them the opporunity (in this case, equipment and support) to decide if they are serious or not. If they back down, great - just keep an eye on them. If they go for it, then they ar toast.

 

IIRC, in the 93 WTC bombings, the FBI had an informant in there who was promoting the building to bomb, where, how to bomb it, when etc. The FBI even gave them real explosives instead of dummy stuff and knew the date where the bombing would occur but felt the intelligence gained by keeping the guy in would outweigh the deaths at the WTC.

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/P...OK/wtcbomb.html

 

And this story was also printed in the Chicago Tribune so we can avoid the NY Slime crap from muddying up the thread.

That is certainly the danger. Those sensitive operations need to be taken very, very seriously. And since we hadn't seen that sort of thing in the US before, its possible that FBI team didn't have their head in the game enough. I do NOT know that for a fact of course, and I am not sure I even believe some of the allegations you are referring to. But it does illustrate a very real danger.

Edited September 2, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[Texsox]

Of course this is an area that is so easy abused that only well trained officers should be involved and then under strict guidance. To me it's similar to putting a beautiful 20 something lady in front of some dumpy middle aged married guy, buying him drinks, and then seeing if he would cheat. That situation would never happen in the real world and this guy may never have cheated in his life. We have to avoid the "testing people" aspect. That should not be a bonafide method of law enforcement.

[NorthSideSox72]

Of course this is an area that is so easy abused that only well trained officers should be involved and then under strict guidance. To me it's similar to putting a beautiful 20 something lady in front of some dumpy middle aged married guy, buying him drinks, and then seeing if he would cheat. That situation would never happen in the real world and this guy may never have cheated in his life. We have to avoid the "testing people" aspect. That should not be a bonafide method of law enforcement.

Except the more correct analogy in this case is that this dumpy middle aged married guy (who hopefully is not me) was already browing adds on swinger sites and was seen schmoozing and trying to woo women out at the bar late at night. For the wife, that might be considered probably cause, and I'd say she may have a right to see which side of the fence her husband would fall on.

 

These dudes were found because their activities were already headed this direction.

[Texsox]

Under that scenario, I could see it. But the officers must be careful and not become a coconspirator