Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 74
  1. #26
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    Didn't really pay attention to the thread. 3D printing is a cool technology for prototyping but not so much for manufacturing IMHO.
    So far.

    Manufacturing costs will come down as the technology matures, just like anything else.

    My gut says this will change a lot o things, but I will remain cautiously skeptical until I see a bit more about what people actually do with it. Too new to really say much conclusive about its impact.

  2. #27
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    That was the best effort of Eric Holder to personify the Great White Terror Threat. He has to distract attention from what the real Islamic sucker terrorists have been up to.

    Check it out. Look if you dare. It's ing ugly.

    http://cryptome.org/2013-info/04/bos...ston-bombs.htm
    2. The suspect allegedly had militia ties and believed in conspiracy theories

    According to NBC News' Pete Williams and Daniel Arkin, Rogers has ties to an as yet unidentified militia group. ABC News, citing Montevideo Police Chief Adam Christopher, said Rogers had formed an organization called the Black Snake Militia.

    According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Rogers has a social media footprint that's heavy on conspiracy theories about big government taking away citizens' rights.

    From the Star Tribune:

    "The NWO [New World Order] has taken all your freedoms the right to bear arms freedom of speach freedom of the press ..." read one profanity-punctuated message.

    "ever one better get your guns ready cuz there comeing FEMA" and "The war is here tsa agents are doing random cheeks and shooting people for no reson," read others.

    Photos in his Facebook account show him with various firearms, along with several people with guns and wearing clown makeup. [Star Tribune]

    A neighbor of Rogers' who spoke with the Star Tribune added that Rogers sometimes talked about "white supremacist stuff."
    As noted elsewhere, the Southern Poverty Law Center has noted a huge upswing in militia groups.

    I'm sure you want to play apologist for the right wing whackadoos, but there are more of them than you realize, or would seem to care to admit.

  3. #28
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    @ trying to categorize this as Chechnyan insurrection.
    We will get to find out a bit more as time goes on. Don't be so quick to simplify or dismiss, we are still learning exactly why.

  4. #29
    Moss is Da Sauce! mouse's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    26,358

  5. #30
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,570
    Lots of these type of plots are disrupted and we never hear about it.
    The NSA fudges: http://www.propublica.org/article/cl...ck-of-evidence

  6. #31
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    I would be willing to bet that the bar for what cons utes "terrorist attack thwarted" is low.

  7. #32
    2nd Verse Same as the 1st Oh, Gee!!'s Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Post Count
    8,869
    this is good news.(?)

  8. #33
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,570
    Nearly ninety-five percent of individuals on a Justice Department list of “terrorism and terrorism-related convictions” from 2001-2010 included some elements of preemptive prosecution, according to a study by attorneys which they say is the first to “directly examine and critique preemptive prosecution and its abuses.”

    The study is called “Inventing Terrorists: The Lawfare of Preemptive Prosecution” [PDF]. It was released by Project SALAM, which stands for Support and Legal Advocacy for Muslims, and the National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms (NCPCF), a coalition of groups that “oppose profiling, preemptive prosecution and prisoner abuse.”


    While Mother Jones has already published extensive work on the entrapment and prosecution of “terrorists” since the 9/11 attacks examining the Justice Department’s list, this study is noteworthy because it advances the journalism to outline how the government has perverted the criminal justice system through practices that have become popular especially against Muslims.
    http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/201...-prosecutions/

  9. #34
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,570
    The concept of preemptive prosecution is defined as “a law enforcement strategy, adopted after 9/11, to target and prosecute individuals or organizations whose beliefs, ideology, or religious affiliations raise security concerns for the government.” (However, the authors do acknowledge that the practices bear resemblance to tactics used by the FBI as part of COINTELPRO.)


    Criminal charges are pretext. For example, someone charged with “material support for terrorism” may be charged with that to criminalize “free speech, free association, charity, peace-making and social hospitality.” Someone may be charged with “conspiracy” for having friendships or simply being part of an organization the government doesn’t like.


    Agents provocateurs may be sent in to entrap a target into participating in a plot manufactured and controlled by the government every step of the way. The government may also choose to use “minor ‘technical’ crimes,” such as errors on immigration forms, an alleged false statement to a government official, gun possession, tax or financial issues, etc., to go after someone for their “ideology.”
    same

  10. #35
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    ISH. This kinda makes my skin crawl.

    There is a balancing act going on between worrying about really abusing the rights of muslims, and the fact that the fighting in Syria is starting to attract muslims from western countries that brings up some rather disturbing questions:

    ISIS militants with US passports?
    http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27844749
    Follows on to a bunch of other articles
    Not really sure how credible to put this stuff:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...andrew-g-doran
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ence-says.html

    Daily beast and national review citing anonymous sources does not strike me as overly credible, but one can find a couple of instances where there were confirmed cases of US citizens joining jihadi movements.


    Walking a line between respecting rights and preventing whackjobs with AK-47s carrying out (more) attacks.

    I will find it sadly ironic, that if/when any radicalized westerners carry out such attacks, the right will not be asking for the common sense solution of limiting the availability of assault weapons, but will freely give up all sorts of other rights.

  11. #36
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    How Joe Montana refused to play ball when FBI tried to sting him

    The FBI sent an undercover agent posing as a real estate investor to meet with Joe Montana in an attempt to lure the 49er great into a sting, according to a defense attorney in the Leland Yee case who was made privy to certain details of the government's investigation.

    "It shows the deepest lack of judgment I can imagine," said the attorney, James Brosnahan.

    The undercover agent set up the meeting to discuss a possible investment in Montana's planned hotel development next to the 49ers' new stadium in Santa Clara, Brosnahan said.


    He said he didn't know if the agent was wearing a wire when he met with Montana a couple of years back at a South Bay restaurant, though the feds regularly did that during the investigation that resulted in the indictments in March of Yee, the now-suspended state senator from San Francisco, and 28 others.


    The agent "presented himself as an honest businessman who wanted to invest in Montana's hotel," Brosnahan said.


    There is no indication that Montana was asked to do anything illegal, and we're told he showed no interest in taking on a new partner.


    In the end, Brosnahan said, the government backed off because it "wasn't going to fund investments in a hotel."


    The Montana meeting was part of a four-year investigation in which the FBI pointed undercover agents at a variety of targets, including Yee and Brosnahan's client, former San Francisco school board President Keith Jackson, to try to ferret out corruption.


    "In a sting, they have real reason to believe someone is committing a crime," Brosnahan said. "But here they fanned out all over California to see who would talk to them about anything."


    The U.S. attorney's office, which is prosecuting Yee, Jackson, Chinatown tong leader Raymond "Shrimp Boy" Chow and the other 26 defendants, declined to comment on the apparent targeting of Montana. And neither the FBI nor Montana's attorney, Rob Mezzetti, returned our calls.


    Brosnahan said the FBI meeting with Montana is evidence of how far the feds were ready to go to make a case.


    "Who decided to take Joe to lunch and cast a cloud on Northern California's greatest sports hero?" he said. "Nobody was exercising any judgment about the scope of this thing."


    It should be noted that Montana's partner in the 9.5-acre development deal near Levi's Stadium, Kurt Wittek, was convicted of bank fraud by a federal jury in 1992 after he helped a business associate secure an illegal loan to buy a North Carolina savings and loan. He later got part of the case tossed on appeal, and his five-year prison sentence was reduced to probation.


    As we first reported last month, fear that Montana's name would bubble up as part of the FBI's corruption probe was among the reasons U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer issued a protective order barring prosecutors and defense attorneys from disclosing certain evidence to the public, including wiretaps and recordings.


    Brosnahan said he wasn't violating the order because none of his comments "come from any of the protected evidence."

    It was Brosnahan - one of the defense lawyers assigned to negotiate the terms of the protective order - who alerted his colleagues that Montana was among those the government was looking to shield.


    Brosnahan had earlier declined our request to talk about the Montana matter. But now he's speaking up, in what appears to be a defense strategy to paint the feds as overzealous in their campaign to root out public corruption.


    http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-r...BI-5554528.php



  12. #37
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,570
    Lots of these type of plots are disrupted and we never hear about it.
    perhaps because the vast majority were LE sting operations targeting more or less inept perps, contrived to create the impression that terrorism is a much bigger threat than it actually is.
    Last edited by Winehole23; 01-17-2015 at 01:07 PM.

  13. #38
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,570
    Consider the truly remarkable (yet not aberrational) 2011 prosecution of James Cromitie, an impoverished African-American Muslim convert who had expressed anti-Semitic views but, at the age of 45, had never evinced any inclination to participate in a violent attack. For eight months, the FBI used an informant – one who was on the hook for another crime and whom the FBI was paying - to try to persuade Cromitie to agree to join a terror plot which the FBI had concocted. And for eight months, he adamantly refused. Only when they dangled a payment of $250,000 in front of him right as he lost his job did he finally assent, causing the FBI to arrest him. The DOJ trumpeted the case as a major terrorism arrest, obtained a prosecution and sent him to prison for 25 years.


    The federal judge presiding over his case, Colleen McMahon, repeatedly lambasted the government for wholly manufacturing the plot. When sentencing him to decades in prison, she said Cromitie “was incapable of committing an act of terrorism on his own,” and that it was the FBI which “created acts of terrorism out of his fantasies of bravado and bigotry, and then made those fantasies come true.” She added: “only the government could have made a terrorist out of Mr. Cromitie, whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in scope.”


    In her written ruling upholding the conviction, Judge McMahon noted that Cromitie “had successfully resisted going too far for eight months,” and agreed only after “the Government dangled what had to be almost irresistible temptation in front of an impoverished man from what I have come (after literally dozens of cases) to view as the saddest and most dysfunctional community in the Southern District of New York.” It was the FBI’s own informant, she wrote, who “was the prime mover and instigator of all the criminal activity that occurred.” She then wrote (emphasis added):


    As it turns out, the Government did absolutely everything that the defense predicted in its previous motion to dismiss the indictment. The Government indisputably “manufactured” the crimes of which defendants stand convicted. The Government invented all of the details of the scheme - many of them, such as the trip to Connecticut and the inclusion of Stewart AFB as a target, for specific legal purposes of which the defendants could not possibly have been aware (the former gave rise to federal jurisdiction and the latter mandated a twenty-five year minimum sentence). The Government selected the targets. The Government designed and built the phony ordnance that the defendants planted (or planned to plant) at Government-selected targets. The Government provided every item used in the plot: cameras, cell phones, cars, maps and even a gun. The Government did all the driving (as none of the defendants had a car or a driver’s license). The Government funded the entire project. And the Government, through its agent, offered the defendants large sums of money, contingent on their participation in the heinous scheme.


    Additionally, before deciding that the defendants (particularly Cromitie, who was in their sights for nine months) presented any real danger, the Government appears to have done minimal due diligence, relying instead on reports from its Confidential Informant, who passed on information about Cromitie information that could easily have been verified (or not verified, since much of it was untrue), but that no one thought it necessary to check before offering a jihadist opportunity to a man who had no contact with any extremist groups and no history of anything other than drug crimes.


    On another occasion, Judge McMahon wrote: “There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that James Cromitie could never have dreamed up the scenario in which he actually became involved. And if by some chance he had, he would not have had the slightest idea how to make it happen.” She added that while “Cromitie, who was desperately poor, accepted meals and rent money from [the informant], he repeatedly backed away from his violent statements when it came time to act on them,” and that “only when the offers became outrageously high–and when Cromitie was particularly vulnerable to them, because he had lost his job–did he finally suc b.”
    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...ny-skepticism/

  14. #39
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,570
    The known facts from this latest case seem to fit well within a now-familiar FBI pattern whereby the agency does not disrupt planned domestic terror attacks but rather creates them, then publicly praises itself for stopping its own plots.

    First, they target a Muslim: not due to any evidence of intent or capability to engage in terrorism, but rather for the “radical” political views he expresses. In most cases, the Muslim targeted by the FBI is a very young (late teens, early 20s), adrift, unemployed loner who has shown no signs of mastering basic life functions, let alone carrying out a serious terror attack, and has no known involvement with actual terrorist groups.


    They then find another Muslim who is highly motivated to help disrupt a “terror plot”: either because they’re being paid substantial sums of money by the FBI or because (as appears to be the case here) they are charged with some unrelated crime and are desperate to please the FBI in exchange for leniency (or both). The FBI then gives the informant a detailed attack plan, and sometimes even the money and other instruments to carry it out, and the informant then shares all of that with the target.

    Typically, the informant also induces, lures, cajoles, and persuades the target to agree to carry out the FBI-designed plot. In some instances where the target refuses to go along, they have their informant offer huge cash inducements to the impoverished target.


    Once they finally get the target to agree, the FBI swoops in at the last minute, arrests the target, issues a press release praising themselves for disrupting a dangerous attack (which it conceived of, funded, and recruited the operatives for), and the DOJ and federal judges send their target to prison for years or even decades (where they are kept in special GITMO-like units).
    same

  15. #40
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,570
    perhaps because the vast majority were LE sting operations targeting more or less inept perps, contrived to create the impression that terrorism is a much bigger threat than it actually is.
    the hits keep coming: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...grave-threats/

  16. #41
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,570
    Once again, we should all pause for a moment to thank the brave men and women of the FBI for saving us from their own terror plots.

  17. #42
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,570
    We’re constantly bombarded with dire warnings about the grave threat of home-grown terrorists, “lone wolf” extremists and ISIS. So intensified are these official warnings that The New York Times earlier this month cited anonymous U.S. intelligence officials to warn of the growing ISIS threat and announce “the prospect of a new global war on terror.”


    But how serious of a threat can all of this be, at least domestically, if the FBI continually has to resort to manufacturing its own plots by trolling the Internet in search of young drifters and/or the mentally ill whom they target, recruit and then manipulate into joining? Does that not, by itself, demonstrate how over-hyped and insubstantial this “threat” actually is? Shouldn’t there be actual plots, ones that are created and fueled without the help of the FBI, that the agency should devote its massive resources to stopping?
    same

  18. #43
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,570
    another sting, another patsy, another call to censor the internet:

    As you may have heard, yesterday the FBI "uncovered" yet another of its own terrorist plots, the latest in a very long line of "terrorist plots" the FBI has "uncovered" -- in which the details always show that it was an undercover FBI "informant" (often doing this to get off leniently for some other issue), who more or less goads hapless, naive people, into a "plot" that had no real chance of ever happening. This appears to be the same sort of thing.


    Still, politicians never leave an opportunity like this unexploited, and so in jumps Senator Dianne Feinstein, arguing that the only proper way to deal with this is to, of course... censor the internet:

    I am particularly struck that the alleged bombers made use of online bombmaking guides like the Anarchist Cookbook and Inspire Magazine. These do ents are not, in my view, protected by the First Amendment and should be removed from the Internet.
    For what it's worth, Dianne Feinstein's "view" is wrong. The Anarchist Cookbook is very much protected by the First Amendment. While the book is banned in other countries, who don't have the equivalent of the First Amendment, it's perfectly legal in the US. The FBI/DOJ has extensively investigated the Anarchist's Cookbook in particular over the years, and as far back as 1997 directly told Senator Feinstein that she could not ban it. This is from the DOJ back in 1997:

    Senator Feinstein introduced legislation during the last Congress in an attempt to fill this gap. The Department of Justice agrees that it would be appropriate and beneficial to adopt further legislation to address this problem directly, if that can be accomplished in a manner that does not impermissibly restrict the wholly legitimate publication and teaching of such information, or otherwise violate the First Amendment.


    The First Amendment would impose substantial constraints on any attempt to proscribe indiscriminately the dissemination of bombmaking information. The government generally may not, except in rare cir stances, punish persons either for advocating lawless action or for disseminating truthful information -- including information that would be dangerous if used -- that such persons have obtained lawfully.

    And yet, Feinstein's first response to the FBI uncovering yet another of its own plots is to go back to trying to censoring the internet in direct violation of the First Amendment? Yikes.


    Oh, and even worse... in keeping with the fact that this plot was actually created by the FBI itself, guess where the two "terrorist wannabes" got the Anarchist Cookbook? From the undercover FBI agent!
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...internet.shtml

  19. #44
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    Did the Patriot act make entrapment legal?

  20. #45
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,570
    probably closer to the mark to say entrapment of feeble-minded, inept terrorist patsies, especially if they are Muslim and non-white, is politically tolerated. but yeah, it sure looks that way.

  21. #46
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    probably closer to the mark to say entrapment of feeble-minded, inept terrorist patsies, especially if they are Muslim and non-white, is politically tolerated. but yeah, it sure looks that way.
    but the Keystone Kops ignored Russian warnings about the Boston bombers.

  22. #47
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ TheSanityAnnex's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    21,376
    another sting, another patsy, another call to censor the internet:

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...internet.shtml
    Don't be surprised when congress tries to use Net Neutrality to remove content such as this.

  23. #48
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,570
    how would Congress do that?

  24. #49
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,570
    Congress had nothing to do with net neutrality rules as currently formulated, and the FCC will enforce the rules. How the Congress would "use net neutrality" to censor the internet isn't clear...

  25. #50
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    Don't be surprised when congress tries to use Net Neutrality to remove content such as this.
    net neutrality is enforced by the "INDEPENDENT" FCC, not by Congress.

    All Congress can do is around with or abolish the FCC, not enforce its regulations.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •