It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Convicting based on just possession of knowledge seems a bit harsh.
They ought to allow entrapment to act as evidence in court (only in terror cases). They should get infiltrators to see if they can "recruit" the suspect into a bombing raid... except on the day when he shows up to conduct what he thinks is an act of terror, he is captured by the police and then put before a trial.
Originally posted by Sonya610
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Convicting based on just possession of knowledge seems a bit harsh.
They ought to allow entrapment to act as evidence in court (only in terror cases). They should get infiltrators to see if they can "recruit" the suspect into a bombing raid... except on the day when he shows up to conduct what he thinks is an act of terror, he is captured by the police and then put before a trial.
That is a good idea. That is what they would likely do in the U.S.
If someone tries to hire a hitman they send a wired FBI agent over to play the hitman and gather evidence. The kid is only 18, it would have in all likelihood been easy to gather stronger evidence.
Originally posted by mmariebored
This is already in effect. I tested this theory by typing "suicide" into Google and got, on the FIRST page, an advertisement for bombers ensuring your "family will be taken care of"...entrapment. The thing is, it traps people who are not very bright or just curious and not everyone can smell a trap a mile away, most people trapped by these baits are probably young people seeking help with their depression. I wonder where the lines are drawn when it comes to online entrapment. It seems to me people are guided into ideas that would never have crossed their minds in a million years, without sickos leading them there.
(I never clicked the link, btw, oh hell no)
[edit on 21-9-2008 by mmariebored]
Originally posted by Merriman Weir
What I found the most intriguing is that Munshi's grandfather is a well-known Islamic scholar.
It's strange and more than a little sad that someone who is obviously well-versed in Islam, and whose views are obviously respected amongst the Muslim community, wasn't more of an influence than two idiots on Munshi. Now, to an extent, most teenagers are easy prey to older, forceful personalities, but it doesn't say much for Munshi if he was still influenced despite his grandfather's standing.
I bet the grandfather feels especially bad about this. Imagine being a respected scholar in a particular field and a member of your family would rather take up a stranger's ideas on the internet than yours. That's a kind of helplessness I wouldn't want to experience.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Also dont forget that those most likely to be brainwashed are those with weak minds and frail intellects. As such, targeting the stupid via such moves may not be a bad idea.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
A 15 year old boy signs up for a terrorist act, seeks out indoctrination and recruitment by extremists. Can society ever take the risk of giving such a child the benefit of doubt? Also despite the child's purported lack of mental development, we have to acknowledge that his behavior was entirely out of the norm of what is an "acceptable deviance".