On Dec 15, 4:53*pm, Han wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote innews:XJSdnWpVa5AlwnfTnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@earthlink. com:





In article ,
*Han wrote:

I snipped a lot ... *Here in the New York City area there were some
cases that came close to being entrapment and/or encouraging someone
shooting his big mouth off. *Too lazy to go look for specifics, OK?
The (perhaps hypothetical) point is that if the President or his
designee says this person is an UEC, there is no way under this law
that we can hear about it - the person just disappears. *As I
said,I'm in favor of having the army deal with UEC, but there should
be a public process that designates him/her as such.

I have worked enough investigations to know that in something like
this, yo HAVE to take it seriously. The papers, CongressCritters, and
people on Usenet can say things like this is the gang that couldn't
shoot straight. But one thing I know from personal experience is that
every once in awhile, the idiots screw things up and get it right.
When that happens people die. And the papers, CongressCritters, and
people on Usenet have a fit about how the cops coulda stopped it.

Yes, I do want the cops to catch the bad guys.
But why would that make it impossible to detain the guy(s) following a
public trial, or at least a public determination that he is an UEC? *The
guy who wasn't caught in time, but whose bomb did NOT go off in Times
Square, was subjected to public trial and put away. Etc, etc. *We don't
need another McCarthy era destroying innocent people (who may or may not
have unpalatable ideas).

The case you just cited isn't the one we want. It disproves your
case.
You claimed that the new bill that HomeGuy is harping about again
could lead to some fool who is just shooting his mouth off being taken
off
to Guantanamo by the military.

First, as the excerpt I posted from the law clearly states, the law
specifically excludes US citizens and resident aliens. It only
applies
to someone that is AL-Qaeda and participating in an attack or
attempted attack on the USA. That alone demolishes HomeGuy's
BS that says it applies to Americans. And this is the second time
in a month he has started the same BS thread to fool people.
If there is somewhere in the bill that says what he
claims it says and what you fear it says, then one of you should
post it.

As to some fool being falsely entrapped, I have not seen anything
coming even close to that. I have seen excellent law enforcement
work that has lead to undercover agents nailing guys that had
clear intentions of committing terrorists acts. They probably are
fools too, given how half-assed they went about it and how dumb
they are. But an incompetent bank robber is still a bank robber,
aren't they?

Two of the cases locally that come to mind were Fort Dix and
NYC. In the Fort Dix case, the Feds were alerted by a store
clerk that was transferring videos to CD for a guy. He saw
that it contained suspicious activity and alerted police.
Through undercover work, the FBI established that they had
automatic weapons, were doing training with them, had
surveiled Fort Dix to figure out how to best attack it, etc.
They put together enough of a case to convince a jury and
the whole bunch of them are in jail. Fools? Yes, but dangerous
terrorist fools. Entrapment? I don't think so and neither did
the courts.

Another case was in NYC where Muslim extremists were
planning on planting a bomb at a synagogue. FBI got wind
of it and hand an undercover agent supply them with bomb
material that was fake, but they thought was real. They
were arrested on their way to plant the bomb. Again, I'd
say they were fools, but it sure wasn't entrapment.

So, if you have a case of this alleged entrapment, please
present it. Otherwise I'd say you're just taking an extreme
hypothethical position. On that basis, I could come up
with reasons that just about any new law could be used
in dishonest ways.

As Kurt said, we've done an excellent job in avoiding another
attack.... so far. But a lot of it has been pure luck and we
aren't going to be lucky forever. The
skunk that tried to blow up the Northwest flight near Detroit
being a prime example. But for the fact that the bomb
didn't work it would have succeeded. That skunk was:

A - Clearly working with Al Qaeda

B - A foreign national

He would fit the definition under the new bill.
I would have no problem with him being taken off that plane,
handed to the military, and taken off to Gitmo to join the
other Al-Qaeda scum to face interrogation and a military tribunal.







Note that the cops catch those idiots (dangerous or just idiotic) who have
contacts with others. *They have great difficulty catching lone wolfs.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -