Terrorism plotting question
- Thread starter zanket
- Start date
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
Not much of deference at all.
I recently mused to my sister that the guards at work are old and deaf, and that I could easily sneak a canceled weapon past them, then hop onto a tram, and take it to the airplane hanger where I can then take an airplane and fly it into downtown Louisville. The best part about the planes in the airplane hanger is that people wouldn’t be on them. No one there to hold me down, no one around to report my actions, and all that's left to do is takeoff.
It didn’t make me feel bad that I had thought that. What made me feel bad was that it’s possible.
By coming up with these scenarios we prevent them from happening.
I recently mused to my sister that the guards at work are old and deaf, and that I could easily sneak a canceled weapon past them, then hop onto a tram, and take it to the airplane hanger where I can then take an airplane and fly it into downtown Louisville. The best part about the planes in the airplane hanger is that people wouldn’t be on them. No one there to hold me down, no one around to report my actions, and all that's left to do is takeoff.
It didn’t make me feel bad that I had thought that. What made me feel bad was that it’s possible.
By coming up with these scenarios we prevent them from happening.
I would tend to think that no crime is committed until it is actually committed. Talking about it is one thing doing it is another,
It's a bit like being married and fantazising about the young girl next door....is this a crime? hmmmm me thinks not....although the wife may think so. (domestic law is so fickle)
I think in legal terms when one plots a crime and there is intent to commit to that criminal act then and only if there is intent to carry it out would it be deemed criminal.
It all comes down to intent. Clancy had no intent attached to his story (my assumption). However if he was intending it to be applied then he is guilty I would think.
It's a bit like being married and fantazising about the young girl next door....is this a crime? hmmmm me thinks not....although the wife may think so. (domestic law is so fickle)
I think in legal terms when one plots a crime and there is intent to commit to that criminal act then and only if there is intent to carry it out would it be deemed criminal.
It all comes down to intent. Clancy had no intent attached to his story (my assumption). However if he was intending it to be applied then he is guilty I would think.
you know, the one time I ever saw Tom Clancy on TV he was wearing a pink shirt. How do you like that? The guy spends all his time researching and writing about all sorts of terrorism/counterterrorism, military hardware, and manly fighting men, and when I see him on TV he is wearing a pink shirt.
Interesting reading°
The classic American question from the 1990's:
- "The Turner Diaries" (Wikipedia)
- "Q&A on The Turner Diaries" (Anti-Defamation League)
- "The Turner Diaries" (Rotten.com)
After the ridiculous lawsuits against Ozzy Osbourne, Judas Priest, and others, the American tendency to hold music or books or movies responsible for people's conduct came to an interesting mutation when the 1978 snoozer The Turner Diaries, a white-supremacist novel about Aryan revolutionary stuff, turned up among the possessions of convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.
Now, to me there's no question that the book influenced McVeigh's actions. One need not look to the short comparisons between the Murrah bombing and the actions of the character in The Turner Diaries, which is a shorter list than the Kennedy-Lincoln list. But the thing is that McVeigh did what he did; we can no more hold a reprehensible character like Dr. William Pierce (founder of the National Alliance) responsible for the actions of Timothy McVeigh--unless, of course, such inspiration was among Pierce's quiet intentions--than Ozzy's "Suicide Solution" can be held responsible for an idiot teenager that allegedly thinks the song is telling him to kill himself.
And if we can't hold Pierce responsible (well, he's dead, so there's that) for the actions of Timothy McVeigh, or the author of the Anarchist Cookbook responsible for some idiot with a pipe bomb, then we certainly cannot hold someone like Tom Clancy responsible for his projections anymore than we can hold "MacGyver" responsible for some dumbasses in the United States who hurt themselves trying to be like "Mac".
And in terms of the larger issue--yes, the administration is obviously excessive with the scope of its vision. Yes, there will someday be a reason to challenge the law. Yes, that challenge will win. But the potential violation is a hard thing to make a court pay attention to . The violation must occur, somebody must notice, that somebody must care enough to do something about it, and the problem can be overcome according to liberty and justice for all.
Gee, maybe I should smoke some pot. That sounded altogether too rosy.
In other words, though, stay tuned. The fun part of prosecuting words alone is yet to come.
Maybe I really am that boring. Some people get off watching Baghdad explode. I'd be grinning wolfishly with bong in hand if I could watch the government's antiterror measures come apart in court. I could probably even cope with Dan Abrams or Catherine Crier on the tube.
Can you imagine the play-by-play? Abrams says, "Oooh, that's gotta hurt," and around the country a cheer goes up as Ashcroft bounces desperately off the ropes.
It's coming. Stay tuned, that's my advice. Stay tuned.
A Note on the Title: No, "interesting reading" does not refer top my post per se. Ironically, it refers to The Turner Diaries, which one author calls a boring book somewhere in the pages I've linked to. And yes, maybe I am that boring. Such an inappropriate title for a post like this somehow tweaks a smile out of me.
The classic American question from the 1990's:
- "The Turner Diaries" (Wikipedia)
- "Q&A on The Turner Diaries" (Anti-Defamation League)
- "The Turner Diaries" (Rotten.com)
After the ridiculous lawsuits against Ozzy Osbourne, Judas Priest, and others, the American tendency to hold music or books or movies responsible for people's conduct came to an interesting mutation when the 1978 snoozer The Turner Diaries, a white-supremacist novel about Aryan revolutionary stuff, turned up among the possessions of convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.
Now, to me there's no question that the book influenced McVeigh's actions. One need not look to the short comparisons between the Murrah bombing and the actions of the character in The Turner Diaries, which is a shorter list than the Kennedy-Lincoln list. But the thing is that McVeigh did what he did; we can no more hold a reprehensible character like Dr. William Pierce (founder of the National Alliance) responsible for the actions of Timothy McVeigh--unless, of course, such inspiration was among Pierce's quiet intentions--than Ozzy's "Suicide Solution" can be held responsible for an idiot teenager that allegedly thinks the song is telling him to kill himself.
And if we can't hold Pierce responsible (well, he's dead, so there's that) for the actions of Timothy McVeigh, or the author of the Anarchist Cookbook responsible for some idiot with a pipe bomb, then we certainly cannot hold someone like Tom Clancy responsible for his projections anymore than we can hold "MacGyver" responsible for some dumbasses in the United States who hurt themselves trying to be like "Mac".
And in terms of the larger issue--yes, the administration is obviously excessive with the scope of its vision. Yes, there will someday be a reason to challenge the law. Yes, that challenge will win. But the potential violation is a hard thing to make a court pay attention to . The violation must occur, somebody must notice, that somebody must care enough to do something about it, and the problem can be overcome according to liberty and justice for all.
Gee, maybe I should smoke some pot. That sounded altogether too rosy.
In other words, though, stay tuned. The fun part of prosecuting words alone is yet to come.
Maybe I really am that boring. Some people get off watching Baghdad explode. I'd be grinning wolfishly with bong in hand if I could watch the government's antiterror measures come apart in court. I could probably even cope with Dan Abrams or Catherine Crier on the tube.
Can you imagine the play-by-play? Abrams says, "Oooh, that's gotta hurt," and around the country a cheer goes up as Ashcroft bounces desperately off the ropes.
It's coming. Stay tuned, that's my advice. Stay tuned.
A Note on the Title: No, "interesting reading" does not refer top my post per se. Ironically, it refers to The Turner Diaries, which one author calls a boring book somewhere in the pages I've linked to. And yes, maybe I am that boring. Such an inappropriate title for a post like this somehow tweaks a smile out of me.
As you so rightly say can we be held responsible for the interpretations of the reader.
It actually could be suggested that society has a responsibility to protect those that are weak. even if for it's own self interest.
So we have censorship laws and regulations to try and protect society from the less balanced members of that society.
The biggest problem of course is how far can you determine censorship should go? What information should be available to the public etc.. How big should big brother be?
Easy questions but a hell of a lot harder to answer.
It actually could be suggested that society has a responsibility to protect those that are weak. even if for it's own self interest.
So we have censorship laws and regulations to try and protect society from the less balanced members of that society.
The biggest problem of course is how far can you determine censorship should go? What information should be available to the public etc.. How big should big brother be?
Easy questions but a hell of a lot harder to answer.
Bingo.
Now, suppose a Denny’s customer overhears four middle-eastern-looking men discussing a future horrific terrorist act in hushed tones. They are planning, scheming, coordinating, etc. but all in words. Alterted, the FBI checks into their backgrounds and finds no red flags other than apparent nationality and religious affiliation; it turns out they are all US citizens since birth and didn't know each other before recently meeting at a mosque during a conversion to Islam, shortly after which they all legally changed their name to Mohammed, made out a will, and stopped attending the mosque.
The FBI surveils them 24/7, tapping their phones etc. and hears them discussing dates and places and expected number of deaths but it’s all just talk, no action. Well they are videotaping themselves and entering everything into their laptops and high-fiving each other whenever one of them finds a way to improve the plot, but that’s as far as they go toward action.
Yet their plan is not only plausible but a damn fine strategy for a small team of terrorists, that, if enacted, would surely result in thousands of deaths and billions in financial damages. Finally after several months of talk but no action by the plotters the FBI asks them to please come in for questioning, and they do, during which they claim they were only working on a book plot. They admit that none of them has an author background or has even taken a writing class.
Reluctantly, the FBI lets them go. Surveillance afterwards finds them spooked by their FBI encounter and coordinating how they will continue their discussions only online using 4000-bit key encryption; perfectly legal in and of itself but impervious to decryption with current technology. The first date they previously discussed that would require action is a year hence. The FBI estimates it will cost $3 million to surveil them 24/7 for another year.
At what point if any should the FBI bypass the first amendment and toss these guys into Gitmo as enemy combatants?
Last edited:
As i am not an American i am not sure what amendment would be in place however, If I were the FBI, I would supply all the information to some sort of congressional committee with the view to exiling them for the protection of American citizens.
Ouch! you say.
The Islamic persons know that they are capable of scaring the shit out of people. They know the climate that they are in.
They also know that they may be safe from prosecution.
If the congressional committee found that they have plotted as a group to commit an act of terrorism and they can provide no real evidence or references to support their claim to be writing a book then the only reasonable action is to exile them in some way. Make them leave the country.
Years ago a famous comedian called Charlie Chaplin was exiled unfairly for his supposed communistic thinking. Abuse they cried. And in this instance it is fair to say that it was.
However from what I understand Charlie Chaplin made no plot or scheme to overthrow the government or hurt Americans.
The Islamic persons in this senario have made it quite clear that they are potential terrorists and should be accountable for their "stupidity or stupidity" for playing a silly game or actually plotting with intent.
America and Other countries must protect them self and exile seems to be the only reasonable thing to do.
In that they offer too much of a risk.
This is what I would do and I would publicise the case in full in the media with no secrets or distortions.
I'm an Ozzie by the way
Ouch! you say.
The Islamic persons know that they are capable of scaring the shit out of people. They know the climate that they are in.
They also know that they may be safe from prosecution.
If the congressional committee found that they have plotted as a group to commit an act of terrorism and they can provide no real evidence or references to support their claim to be writing a book then the only reasonable action is to exile them in some way. Make them leave the country.
Years ago a famous comedian called Charlie Chaplin was exiled unfairly for his supposed communistic thinking. Abuse they cried. And in this instance it is fair to say that it was.
However from what I understand Charlie Chaplin made no plot or scheme to overthrow the government or hurt Americans.
The Islamic persons in this senario have made it quite clear that they are potential terrorists and should be accountable for their "stupidity or stupidity" for playing a silly game or actually plotting with intent.
America and Other countries must protect them self and exile seems to be the only reasonable thing to do.
In that they offer too much of a risk.
This is what I would do and I would publicise the case in full in the media with no secrets or distortions.
I'm an Ozzie by the way
Actualy the patriot act makes it so that this group of possible terrorists/book writers can just dissapear once the FBI is suspicious of them. Nobody in the FBI has to say where they went to or if they might be comming back, or if the FBI even really thought they were guilty of a crime. Basicly if US law enforcement thinks you might be planning a terrorist action they can do whatever they please with you. No muss no fuss. Oh sure it violates civil libertys and all that, but no one seems to bee too concerned with those after september 11.
I would think that utilising the Patriot act would only further the cause of terrorism by stinking of injustice......expeditory action true but would only cause further suspicion of Governmental corruption.
I know I am being a little unrealistic when I say it but I think that transperant government action would achieve a lot more.
I know I am being a little unrealistic when I say it but I think that transperant government action would achieve a lot more.
Planning to commit the act could certainly be construed as evidence of intent. If their conversations run along the lines of 'You go buy some guns while I order us a pizza' or 'I'll distract the guards while you do whatever' it would probably be considered conspiracy.
The difference is obvious. Clancy is a fiction writer who probably has no intent to actually carry out the acts he describes. This isn't the case with your generic muslin plotters. You could probably never convince a jury that Clancy was guilty of conspiracy. You would have a good chance at convincing a jury that your plotters are guilty of conspiracy. It all centers around interpreting the context and circumstances. What's the difference between waving a gun around in my living room and waving a gun around inside a bank? Context and circumstances.
Last edited:
How do we know the Mohammeds are not authors? Because they haven’t yet written a book? After all, they are recording everything in their laptops. How could Clancy’s intent have been determined any different than the Mohammeds’ while he wrote his first book? I’d like to think that the difference between freedom and life in Gitmo is determined better than interpreting the context of words.
It sounds to me like you are implying that we could not make up a horrific terrorist plot on sciforums without being criminals, unless we were already bestselling authors.
It sounds to me like you are implying that we could not make up a horrific terrorist plot on sciforums without being criminals, unless we were already bestselling authors.
Give me an example of context that makes the difference. Were we discussing a terrorist plot on sciforums, would these two posts show the difference?:
'You go buy some guns while I order us a pizza’ = life in Gitmo
‘"You go buy some guns while I order us a pizza," he said’ = continue authoring book
'You go buy some guns while I order us a pizza’ = life in Gitmo
‘"You go buy some guns while I order us a pizza," he said’ = continue authoring book