Mohamed Osman Mohamud Convicted..why are we not talking about this?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
What if the FBI decides to arm the next radical with a real bomb while they fade into the shadows. Has this already happened before? 9/11 anybody. Regardless of who's idea it was, Law Enforcement/FBI shouldn't supply criminals with equipment, just to make them look guilty. Regardless of what you think, Intent without means isn't a crime. Now if you aquire the means to do it, thats different. The FBI supplying the means should be criminal on there part. If we can't aid and abet terrorist, neither should they.




posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

You commend a loss of freedom. Fair enough.



I have lost the freedom to try to blow people up?


Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Why did the FBI go through all of this, when they could have just as easily held him based on the patriot act?



The Patriot Act provides for the arrest and detention of terrorists. It doesn't provide for their conviction.

Let's face it. Someone who contacts recruiters for Al Qaeda and then tries to blow up shoppers is clearly a terrorist.

Is he not?






The freedom to blow things up? No. The freedom to not be what the FBI thinks you should? Absolutely.

The patriot act does not require a conviction. Indefinite detention.

Maybe, maybe not. Does just contacting al qaeda mean someone is a terrorist? Im not so sure-as no act of terror is being committed by doing so.

It wasnt shoppers. Thanks for showing that you havent read about the case though.

The real question comes down to: Can you say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he would have sought out a bomb, and a location, and tried to detonate it without the FBI pulling his strings the whole way? Highly unlikely.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   


Very true, but does that justify the means? Are we ok with allowing our law enforcement to create crimes so as to get people off of the streets?
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


If it's going to save lives, I have to say yes. It's kind of like that reporter on Night Line who sets pedophiles up using the internet. The true pedophile will take the next step and take the bait. People that don't entertain those thoughts won't even go to those sites. You get what you deserve.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

It wasnt shoppers. Thanks for showing that you havent read about the case though.



My apologizes.

There are so many Islamic terrorists being convicted in the USA that it is hard to keep up.


edit on 1-2-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons



Very true, but does that justify the means? Are we ok with allowing our law enforcement to create crimes so as to get people off of the streets?
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


If it's going to save lives, I have to say yes. It's kind of like that reporter on Night Line who sets pedophiles up using the internet. The true pedophile will take the next step and take the bait. People that don't entertain those thoughts won't even go to those sites. You get what you deserve.

So let me ask you, if you have a thought about robbing a bank, does that mean you'd be okay with it if the FBI came in, gave you the information and means that you needed, offered you money to do it, and then arrested you when you moved forward?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Why did the FBI go through all of this, when they could have just as easily held him based on the patriot act?


First of all, the guy seemingly contacted an illegal organisation first, so it could be said that the onus of guilt is kinda on him, BUT for the FBI to engage in entrapment techniques is very shady and could be quite easily taken as the shape of things to come.

Their reasons...
Publicity, Publicity and most of all Publicity.

I believe they needed to justify and cement their own role in 'protecting the citizens' in the public's eye to ensure that next years 'anti-terrorism' budget would not be cut or argued with.

edit on 1-2-2013 by Severin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Malcher


This is actually very common. Just watch ID television and plenty of shows where, usually a spouse, wants to hire a hit man and somehow law enforcement gets hold of it and poses as the hit man. That is only one example, there are others that are very similar.


Thats hardly the same thing, though. In those cases, the wife commits the crime just by hiring a hitman. In this case, the FBI came to him, before he committed any crime.


She DID NOT hire a hit man, she thought she did. Cases like this are common and it happens often enough. I cant see why you dont understand the similarities though.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

So let me ask you, if you have a thought about robbing a bank, does that mean you'd be okay with it if the FBI came in, gave you the information and means that you needed, offered you money to do it, and then arrested you when you moved forward?


When you moved forward...

In other words when you planted the bomb.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Malcher


This is actually very common. Just watch ID television and plenty of shows where, usually a spouse, wants to hire a hit man and somehow law enforcement gets hold of it and poses as the hit man. That is only one example, there are others that are very similar.


Thats hardly the same thing, though. In those cases, the wife commits the crime just by hiring a hitman. In this case, the FBI came to him, before he committed any crime.


She DID NOT hire a hit man, she thought she did. Cases like this are common and it happens often enough. I cant see why you dont understand the similarities though.


its is illegal to attempt to hire a hit man. That is conspiracy to commit murder. SHE SOUGHT OUT TO COMMIT THE CRIME. Mohamud was sought out, and encouraged by the FBI to commit the crime. See the difference?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

So let me ask you, if you have a thought about robbing a bank, does that mean you'd be okay with it if the FBI came in, gave you the information and means that you needed, offered you money to do it, and then arrested you when you moved forward?


When you moved forward...

In other words when you planted the bomb.


You left out the most important part of that sentence: "in other words, when you planted the bomb THAT THE FBI PROVIDED".



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   


So let me ask you, if you have a thought about robbing a bank, does that mean you'd be okay with it if the FBI came in, gave you the information and means that you needed, offered you money to do it, and then arrested you when you moved forward?
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I would already have an incentive to do it if I had thoughts of robbing a bank. If I thought that way, than I probably wouldn't have to wait for the FBI to give me the means to do it. Someone who has "thoughts" of robbing a bank would probably jump at the chance if someone gave them the means to do it. If they didn't, they probably would still rob a bank but probably at a later time when they had time to plan for it.

If a Muslim believed in Sharia law but lived in the states, chances are he would probably keep it to himself since the majority in the U.S. wouldn't stand for it. However, if a large group of Muslims started protesting because they wanted the U.S. to institute Sharia law, than that would be the incentive for that particular Muslim to join the group and protest. The incentive was always there. When the carrot is presented to them, they bite, they're responsible for their own actions.

Here's another example: What about spouses who want to hire a hit man to kill their better half. When an undercover police officer poses as a hit man and the spouse takes him up on the offer, does it mean she wouldn't have found another hit man if the police officer didn't present himself at the time? Again the incentive is there. The deed was just done at an earlier time because the ideal time presented itself.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 


Youre the second to pose the 'hitman' scenario, and I still hold to my first response-they are not parallels. In the 'hitman' scenario, the woman has already committed the crime by attempting to hire a hitman. She sought him out.

in this case, mohamud made no attempt to seek out a bomb, until prompted to by the FBI.

A far more similar scenario would be an undercover agent posing as a hitman, finding the wife, then encouraging a wife to hire him to kill her husband...then arresting her for it.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Yeah.. I understand all the arguments.
Here's the thing though.. he was a teen and we don't know his personal circumstances. Is it not possible that the FBI could have talked him into taking a different direction? What if he was trying to connect to people and took a wrong turn? Someone that is so easily manipulated may very well have been able to be swayed in another direction. We don't know the extent of the FBI's manipulation. Same with those "anarchists" in Ohio.

We can't say for certain whether he would have gone that far without the FBI and even more we don't know that he would have ever been able to make a bomb or have someone make it. Also there are the details that make the sensationalism so prevalent. For example say the FBI makes a one thousand lb fake bomb and give it to him. Then when he tries to detonate the arrest him and say in the paper "fbi foils threat, 1000 lb bomb!" then they say "a bomb this big would have blown up half the city!" or some other non sense. They never reference the fact that THEY chose the size of the bomb. They could have given him a one pound bomb, since they weren't real they were both going to cause the same amount of damage. So the FBI is in control of this aspect and can basically set themselves up with a bigger win and also make the story much more than it actually was.

Obviously this kid was a danger, but why not keep tabs on him? What if he would have fallen out of it and had a life?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


I would keep close tabs on them. Maybe even scare them a little and let them know, but maybe not, maybe just watch. Who knows what direction he would have taken if he wasn't being pressured and goaded into it. He might have even been intimidated or scared to back out. We don't know.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by geldib
 


A lot of speculation about that might having happened during the underwear bomber.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Riiiiight almost one for every 1000th abusive cop shooting/tasering a civilian.

If the FBI spent half the time weeding out corrupt/power tripping cops out as they did turning potential terrorists into definite terrorists.. i'd feel a lot safer.
edit on 1-2-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

I heard about it on NPR. I remember when it happened.

I want someone to set up the FBI ask to meet them for bomb parts and then have the police waiting to arrest the FBI. Then maybe sue them for attempted entrapment.


The difference would be that the FBI would have no criminal intent, unlike Mohamed Osman Mohamud who was trying to blow people up in the name of Al Qaeda.




Have you researched this story? He was prompted to do this. He did not seek out the bomb on his own. He was encouraged by the FBI to find a bomb, pick a target, and try to blow it up.

Ironic, really, when you think about it, that the FBI was encouraging him to do something in the name of al qaeda.


Were you there Cap? Did you have the intel that this muslim was spouting off on how much he hated Americans? Were you with the informant in the mosque when the desire to cause harm to Christians, was rendered?
I didn't think so.
You would much rather, like Sec Clinton, close the barn door after the horses got out, and proudly proclaim how quickly you went running to the barn.
Pathetic.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


??? No, I wasnt there. I do know, however, what was testified to in court, which is exactly what I have stated. He was prompted to do these things by the FBI. You cannot prove, in any way, that he would have done it without FBI prompting. Period. To claim otherwise is an outright lie.

I do love that people on here whine and cry about the loss of their freedoms every day, then turn around and defend it when it is actually done in practice.

Nice play with the political trolling, while you were at it. What, exactly, does Hillary have to do with this subject?
edit on 1-2-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Yep! I forgot about him. How many plots over the course of the American Law Enforcement's history have been real, helped along, or maybe even planned by them? We will never truly know. Another problem is, judges go along knowing fullwell whats happening and the D.A.'s/Prosecuting Attorney. There is too much incentive to put people away. A judge isn't doing his job unless he is sentencing criminals, the D.A./P.A. isn't doing their job unless they're prosecuting criminal cases and winning, and L.E. arn't doing their job unless they are arresting bad guys. No one ever assumes that the lack of any of these things are a sign of less crime. So they have to do these things often to advance in their field, and to prove they are needed. Now this doesn't mean that I'm advocating anarchy, just that they need to find the middle ground and stay there.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Well if the guy was trying to plot a bombing to start with then I think there is nothing wrong with this. Seeing whether he would follow through with a fake bomb is certainly better than letting him get hold of a real bomb and killing innocent people. When they start doing this to ordinary people, then we have a big problem. If anything, they got a better understanding of what that person was capable of doing.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join