The FBI plot to kidnap Gov Whitmer

[Crunch]

For those not aware, the FBI arrested 14 people last year in a plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. It was kind of a big deal then, suddenly, it wasn't. Now we're seeing why.

There were at least 12 FBI informants involved in the investigation to thwart the alleged scheme by a militia group known as the “Wolverine Watchmen” — but the agents actually took an active part in it right from its inception, according to court filings, evidence and dozens of interviews ...

14 guys were arrested but there were 12+ guys the FBI was running to make this plot happen. That means at least 50% of the group plotting this actually worked for the FBI.

One informant from Wisconsin allegedly helped organize meetings where the first inklings of the plot surfaced, even paying for hotel rooms and food to entice people to attend ...

So the FBI threw a party for some militant randos, enticed them to come on over. At that point, the 12+ FBI agents in place began plotting the kidnapping. I've no doubt the militant randos nodded along but, come on, you guys know what that meeting was like. All the FBI guys pushing and firing it up, making it seem reasonable, working on the doubters. Yeah, we know.

Another undercover agent allegedly advised the group on how to blow up a bridge to aid their getaway — and promised to supply them with explosives.

Yep, exactly like that.

... lawyers for the men allege that the informants and the undercover agents gained the confidence of the defendants, stirred their anger at Whitmer and encouraged them to conspire in the plot, even going as far as steering the conversation away from other subjects to how to carry out the kidnapping.

See how it worked? Just have the more than 50% of FBI agents in place plot the crime then arrest everyone in earshot.

An FBI informant, who is an Iraq War veteran, eventually rose to become second in command of the group, the report said.

See? The number 2 man in the group, in a rather unique position to push these guys and the FBI plans, along with his 12 cohorts, make it seem like the plot was real. I strongly suspect the only guys truly into the plan were actually the FBI guys. Sure, there might be one or two of these randos that really got into the idea and wanted to do it - "more than 400,000 text messages, hundreds of hours of audio and visual recordings" were collected as they worked to get the non-FBI minority of the group to parrot the talking points.  I've no doubt the FBI played every card to get them to go along with the plot and make it seem like everyone was on it. Some people will succumb to that kind of manipulation.

In the end, the FBI inserted the plotters into the group then created a narrative to make it appear there was actually a crime about to be committed.

[msquared]

Quibble

14 arrested and 12+  inside people does not make more than half of the group informants.

Also

So the FBI threw a party for some militant randos, enticed them to come on over. At that point, the 12+ FBI agents in place began plotting the kidnapping. I've no doubt the militant randos nodded along but, come on, you guys know what that meeting was like. All the FBI guys pushing and firing it up, making it seem reasonable, working on the doubters. Yeah, we know.

You say the FBI agents began plotting the kidnapping and the other randos just nodded along with it. Where do you get that?  You sure assume some facts not listed in the story.

However, when it comes down to it, even if the agents started the plot, these guys went along with it. They did not leave, they did not report to the police that the group was planning something illegal.

I am disturbed by the number of inside people, and would like to know more about what went down, but playing these guys off as some innocent stooges is a reach.

[NobleHunter]

Isn't this standard operating procedure for the FBI? They need to bust high profile plots every so often in order to justify their anti-terrorism budget. They probably got tired of getting flack for entrapping Muslims and decided to go for different targets.

[msquared]

Also, wasn't this Trumps's FBI?

[TheDeamon]

About 5 days behind on this Crunch, although this post linking to the Buzzfeed article is 4 days old:
http://www.ornery.org/forum/index.php/topic,1059.msg54425.html#msg54425

It has been getting discussed in the Jan 6th thread, because it potentially has implications for what's likely going to come to light as more of the people who were charged start preparing to go to trial.

[TheDrake]

I wonder how many fbi agents it would take to convince any of the individuals defending the conspirators here to go kidnap someone. Was it the agent who said, hey I have a great idea let's kidnap the governor?

[msquared]

Remeber Trump supporters are only the Party of Personal Responsibility when it is not their people being responsible.  For example, Trump blaming everyone but himself for his election loss.

[TheDeamon]

Remember Trump supporters are only the Party of Personal Responsibility when it is not their people being responsible.  For example, Trump blaming everyone but himself for his election loss.

You also need to remember that Conservatives in general are the party of "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" and in the realm of Mortals, the closest thing to absolute power that exists is a national government with unchecked enforcement powers.

[Crunch]

I am disturbed by the number of inside people, and would like to know more about what went down, but playing these guys off as some innocent stooges is a reach.

I'm not playing these guys off as some innocent stooges. I am playing them off as your basic, garden variety, stooge.

[Crunch]

Also, wasn't this Trumps's FBI?

When was the FBI ever "Trump's"? If you think the FBI supported Trump, then you've lost the plot.

Remeber Trump supporters are only the Party of Personal Responsibility when it is not their people being responsible.  For example, Trump blaming everyone but himself for his election loss.

Everything is about Trump with you.

[Crunch]

About 5 days behind on this Crunch, although this post linking to the Buzzfeed article is 4 days old:
http://www.ornery.org/forum/index.php/topic,1059.msg54425.html#msg54425

It has been getting discussed in the Jan 6th thread, because it potentially has implications for what's likely going to come to light as more of the people who were charged start preparing to go to trial.

That is intentional. Given how dishonest and corrupt the media is now, it's hard to jump onto a story and assume the reporting is even remotely factual. Giving a story a few days to "season" will typically serve as a  good first filter

[Crunch]

Remember Trump supporters are only the Party of Personal Responsibility when it is not their people being responsible.  For example, Trump blaming everyone but himself for his election loss.

You also need to remember that Conservatives in general are the party of "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" and in the realm of Mortals, the closest thing to absolute power that exists is a national government with unchecked enforcement powers.

Liberal in general support human trafficking and the sexual assault of minors. Your critique of conservative values lacks any moral foundation upon which to build.

[Crunch]

I wonder how many fbi agents it would take to convince any of the individuals defending the conspirators here to go kidnap someone. Was it the agent who said, hey I have a great idea let's kidnap the governor?

According to the evidence, it was, in fact, FBI agents that initiated the idea of kidnapping the gov. Just a couple of FBI informants around you talking about committing a crime and I think you'd suddenly start seeing it my way at your arraignment.

[TheDeamon]

Remember Trump supporters are only the Party of Personal Responsibility when it is not their people being responsible.  For example, Trump blaming everyone but himself for his election loss.

You also need to remember that Conservatives in general are the party of "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" and in the realm of Mortals, the closest thing to absolute power that exists is a national government with unchecked enforcement powers.

Liberal in general support human trafficking and the sexual assault of minors. Your critique of conservative values lacks any moral foundation upon which to build.

I imagine "your" in this case is a reference to msquared and not me.

It also is noteworthy that it is the self-professed Liberals who are pushing to expand enforcement powers for the Federal Government, in order to protect the citizenry from the fascist tendencies of those dastardly Conservatives who keep talking about how federal authority has grown too powerful.

[Crunch]

Yeah, the "royal" your. 

[TheDrake]

I wonder how many fbi agents it would take to convince any of the individuals defending the conspirators here to go kidnap someone. Was it the agent who said, hey I have a great idea let's kidnap the governor?

According to the evidence, it was, in fact, FBI agents that initiated the idea of kidnapping the gov. Just a couple of FBI informants around you talking about committing a crime and I think you'd suddenly start seeing it my way at your arraignment.

What evidence? Something you read on 8chan? Did Q send you a DM? Was it Adam fox, wife beater, who denied having violent intent and being the ring leader for the group? Despite initiating and conducting surveillance on the governor's mansion? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he just wanted to get drunk and play ping pong with his pals.

[TheDeamon]

According to the evidence, it was, in fact, FBI agents that initiated the idea of kidnapping the gov. Just a couple of FBI informants around you talking about committing a crime and I think you'd suddenly start seeing it my way at your arraignment.

What evidence? Something you read on 8chan? Did Q send you a DM? Was it Adam fox, wife beater, who denied having violent intent and being the ring leader for the group? Despite initiating and conducting surveillance on the governor's mansion? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he just wanted to get drunk and play ping pong with his pals.

Just watched someone walk through some of the filed court docs. It seems Mr. Iraq War Vet (#2 in the org, who was a CHS/CI for the FBI) has a SMS chat transcript that indicates the informant was instructed to ask Mr Fox to participate in the surveillance of the mansion. There were a few others he was asked to try to get in on it, only one of which appears to have decided to join in without being asked by that informant(but can't rule out another informant being involved in getting that one involved.

Seems the CI was running the surveillance operation. Fox was just giving thumbs up/thumbs down on things the informant asked for.

[TheDrake]

According to the evidence, it was, in fact, FBI agents that initiated the idea of kidnapping the gov. Just a couple of FBI informants around you talking about committing a crime and I think you'd suddenly start seeing it my way at your arraignment.

What evidence? Something you read on 8chan? Did Q send you a DM? Was it Adam fox, wife beater, who denied having violent intent and being the ring leader for the group? Despite initiating and conducting surveillance on the governor's mansion? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he just wanted to get drunk and play ping pong with his pals.

Just watched someone walk through some of the filed court docs. It seems Mr. Iraq War Vet (#2 in the org, who was a CHS/CI for the FBI) has a SMS chat transcript that indicates the informant was instructed to ask Mr Fox to participate in the surveillance of the mansion. There were a few others he was asked to try to get in on it, only one of which appears to have decided to join in without being asked by that informant(but can't rule out another informant being involved in getting that one involved.

Seems the CI was running the surveillance operation. Fox was just giving thumbs up/thumbs down on things the informant asked for.

So in other words, untested claims by fox and his defense team? Of course that will be their narrative. If you read other documentation from the informants, fox was the guy to first bring up kidnapping, and arranging the surveillance.

[Fenring]

Isn't this standard operating procedure for the FBI? They need to bust high profile plots every so often in order to justify their anti-terrorism budget. They probably got tired of getting flack for entrapping Muslims and decided to go for different targets.

Basically this. I've read many times how few (if any) actual terrorism plots are thwarted by the FBI, and how they need to essentially foment terrorist plots in order to stop them. Whenever I come across a story like this it reads very much like the Muslims (as the story usually goes) are actually being radicalized by the FBI. Sure, they were already upset; but none of these people were already hatching plots on their own. This is parallel to the TSA/Homeland procedures at airports, which (a) never uncover terrorist plots, and (b) would not be capable of doing so if the terrorist had any serious planning. But budgets budgets budgets...

[Crunch]

I wonder how many fbi agents it would take to convince any of the individuals defending the conspirators here to go kidnap someone. Was it the agent who said, hey I have a great idea let's kidnap the governor?

According to the evidence, it was, in fact, FBI agents that initiated the idea of kidnapping the gov. Just a couple of FBI informants around you talking about committing a crime and I think you'd suddenly start seeing it my way at your arraignment.

What evidence? Something you read on 8chan? Did Q send you a DM? Was it Adam fox, wife beater, who denied having violent intent and being the ring leader for the group? Despite initiating and conducting surveillance on the governor's mansion? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he just wanted to get drunk and play ping pong with his pals.

I just wanted to quote this. For this forum, it's what passes as deeply insightful and well-founded logic. smh

[Wayward Son]

I note that you still did not provide the evidence for your claim.

In fact, all you did was make fun of the person questioning your lack of evidence.

I can only assume that's what you consider deeply insightful and well-founded logic. 

[Crunch]

I do not have to do your research for you. If you want to limit your awareness of current events to CNN, that's on you. It's not my responsibility to educate you on something that is a 3-second internet search away. 

[TheDeamon]

So in other words, untested claims by fox and his defense team? Of course that will be their narrative. If you read other documentation from the informants, fox was the guy to first bring up kidnapping, and arranging the surveillance.

The relevant "untested claims by the defense team" is a court filing, based on records presented to the defense by the US Government.

They were literally quoting Government provided transcripts.

[TheDrake]

That's because crunch almost never has credible evidence. When there's a direct quote, even when he doesn't provide a link, we can often find the original source.

Retweeted disinformation, Alex Jones, project Veritas, random bloggers, crackpot researchers commenting outside their fields, uncorroborated eye witnesses, well they all pass muster for crunch.

The Daemon at least referred to court documents as relayed through some unidentified third party. I'm not sure if there were no details because the source isn't credible, he didn't think anyone would look at it objectively, or simply didn't have the time.

Buzzfeed has the most comprehensive sympathetic piece to the defendants, and they claim that an informant prodded fox to advance his plan, but it doesn't support crunch's origination claim. I can't find a single source, credible or otherwise, making that claim.

[Wayward Son]

I do not have to do your research for you. If you want to limit your awareness of current events to CNN, that's on you. It's not my responsibility to educate you on something that is a 3-second internet search away. 

Ah, yes, the old "any competent person would know this" argument.  That's the third time you've used that this month. 

But it still doesn't fly.  The reference is vague enough that I couldn't come up with a good search phrase for it.  And you reputation is lousy enough that I can't trust what you state.

So why don't you prove it'd only take 3 seconds by taking 3 seconds and showing us your source.  After all, unlike me, you had to have read about it somewhere already, so you're already familiar with your source.

Come on.  3 seconds.  That's no trouble at all. 

[Ouija Nightmare]

So you conspiracy theorizing types.. you guys are telling me that you can be convinced to commit major crimes if I just provide you with means to do so?

Kidnapping, possibly murder, overthrow of government you just need a keg of beer, some firearms and the right party atmosphere?

[Fenring]

So you conspiracy theorizing types.. you guys are telling me that you can be convinced to commit major crimes if I just provide you with means to do so?

Kidnapping, possibly murder, overthrow of government you just need a keg of beer, some firearms and the right party atmosphere?

Are you really asking what radicalization is? I think you're about 20 years late to that party.

[TheDeamon]

The Daemon at least referred to court documents as relayed through some unidentified third party. I'm not sure if there were no details because the source isn't credible, he didn't think anyone would look at it objectively, or simply didn't have the time.

The source in my case was a Lawyer, now Youtuber, who has been reliable on citing court documents when he says he's citing court documents and even shows the relevant text that he is citing from. I just haven't bothered to venture down the rabbit hole on that particular filing to go find the source documents for myself.

[TheDeamon]

So you conspiracy theorizing types.. you guys are telling me that you can be convinced to commit major crimes if I just provide you with means to do so?

If that is all you did as part of a "sting" then I'd say that's "a valid catch."

The problem for the Michigan case is it seems that is not all the investigators and informants were doing.

And as for the leader being "the originator of the plan." Buzzfeed itself provides the quote that the prosecution is likely to claim was the basis for the plan.

“We want to take that stigma off and let them know who we are because we’re not *censored*ing racists, we’re not white nationalists,” said Fox. “We just want our *censored*ing Constitution upheld and we want all these lawless *censored*ing tyrants out of *censored*ing power. It’s that simple.”

Dan steered the conversation away from rhetoric to specific plans, asking Fox what the “mission” was. “Like what are we looking to go forward with?”

Laughing, Fox said his dream was to “have the governor hogtied down on a table” for public display, the way DEA agents spread seized guns and drugs across a table like trophies after a big bust.

“We take the building and then take *censored*ing hostages,” Fox told Dan. “It’s *censored*ing wartime.”

But by his own admission, Fox — despite his new, seemingly grand military title — was a general without soldiers. “I can’t do nothing with less than 200 men,” he complained to Dan. At best, he figured, he could muster “maybe 15 to 20” men.

Stopping violent ideas like this was what Dan said drove him to law enforcement in the first place, but now, with his two FBI agents at his side, he told Fox he would help.

Several months later, with at least 12 informants and agents involved, plus several other "recruits" that the FBI helped Fox obtain, as well as relevant training and promises of relevant material support Fox was starting to think the effort might have legs at the time they busted the group. It is entirely possible that after they'd done some surveillance for a bit longer Fox and the others would have grown cold feet and called the thing off. This isn't to mention the matter of "Dan" and the other informants egging the rest of the group on to seeing that objective through.

Fox had a twisted fantasy, but he had enough of a grasp on reality to realize the idea was going to go nowhere. Until the FBI decided to intervene and play the role of evil make-a-wish foundation.

[TheDrake]

Maybe we have different ideas about what originating the plan is. To me asking what the mission or plan is, is not originating the plan.

Originating the plan in my mind, would be an informant saying "what if we kidnapped the governor" prior to anybody else cooking up that specific idea.

[TheDeamon]

Maybe we have different ideas about what originating the plan is. To me asking what the mission or plan is, is not originating the plan.

Originating the plan in my mind, would be an informant saying "what if we kidnapped the governor" prior to anybody else cooking up that specific idea.

Reasonable bet that Fox was joking in a morbid and self-depreciating way, and in most circumstances it would have been taken as a joke at Fox's own expense. Except he told the joke to an informant who was trying to get Fox caught up in illegal activities, which that joke certainly qualified as.

[TheDrake]

Ah, the just kidding defense. You can't rail constantly about the governor being a tyrant deserving to die, then "joke" about kidnapping her and expect to be believed that it was a jest.

Your bet is anything but reasonable.

[Fenring]

Ah, the just kidding defense. You can't rail constantly about the governor being a tyrant deserving to die, then "joke" about kidnapping her and expect to be believed that it was a jest.

Your bet is anything but reasonable.

I think you're being a bit flip about how rambunctious some people are without actually being terrorists. I've had conversations with 'country folk' who will plainly state that the federal government have illegally seized assets through the income tax and that that money is the rightful property of the person it was taken from. I don't even think this is that rare of a position to take among certain folk in certain areas. Now just cross-reference views that are stated very 'colorfully' with personality type (i.e. angry people, or suspicious/distrustful people) and you'll probably find a selection of people in the U.S. who say quite inflammatory things. But these inflammatory statements have essentially the same content as the more peaceable types who just calmly state that the government is guilty of this or that; it's just stated more vehemently or perhaps with some fantasy/wishful thinking element inserted. That, too, does not equate to an intent to break the law.

Now as it happens I do think that in this case some of Fox's comments sound awfully specific and more than vaguely-intentful, so I'm not really sure I'd try to make the case TheDeamon is making in this instance that he was 'just kidding.' I haven't read enough about it to know better, but in principle I don't think it's fair to equate inflammatory (even violent) fantasy-talk with intent to commit acts of terrorism. To me that does actually have to involve taking active steps on one's own to make those fantasies a reality. If the first and only steps taken in this case occurred after support was provided (and therefore encouragement that these ideas could be a reality) then I would call that radicalization. In the case of a dude who truly does want to do these things, and says so, but doesn't proceed because he thinks it would fail, I would suggest that maybe this type of person could be placed on a watchlist or even committed, but not arrested.

[TheDrake]

Does everyone who threatens a public official warrant investigation? Nope some are just joking, venting, or posturing. What if they then acquire weapons and tactical gear? What if they start sending encrypted communications to other like minded individuals? What if those people start running tactical drills and honing techniques that would be used in carrying out their plan?

[Fenring]

Does everyone who threatens a public official warrant investigation? Nope some are just joking, venting, or posturing. What if they then acquire weapons and tactical gear? What if they start sending encrypted communications to other like minded individuals? What if those people start running tactical drills and honing techniques that would be used in carrying out their plan?

Well, you seem to be answering your own question. If they are taking active steps on their own to realize a plan, then that's indication of intent to carry out the plan. If they sit around complaining and saying all the stuff they'd like to do (no matter how colorful), but do nothing else other than kvetch about it, that's not criminal activity.

[TheDrake]

Those guys did all of those things prior to the informants getting involved and influencing things if I understand it correctly. They were organizing in support of an unspecified objective, so an informant tried to find out what their objective would be.

[TheDeamon]

Now as it happens I do think that in this case some of Fox's comments sound awfully specific and more than vaguely-intentful, so I'm not really sure I'd try to make the case TheDeamon is making in this instance that he was 'just kidding.' I haven't read enough about it to know better, but in principle I don't think it's fair to equate inflammatory (even violent) fantasy-talk with intent to commit acts of terrorism. To me that does actually have to involve taking active steps on one's own to make those fantasies a reality. If the first and only steps taken in this case occurred after support was provided (and therefore encouragement that these ideas could be a reality) then I would call that radicalization. In the case of a dude who truly does want to do these things, and says so, but doesn't proceed because he thinks it would fail, I would suggest that maybe this type of person could be placed on a watchlist or even committed, but not arrested.

I'm drawing inferences from my own sense of humor on that, I don't know the guy. The specifics of the statement he made are disturbing, but at the same time, the hyperbole of the statement is what would make it a joke.

"What is the objective? What is it you'd like to achieve?"

"Given no limits on feasibility? (Insert outlandish and hyperbolic answer here)"

That he was being hyperbolic would have been backed up with his comment about "but I'd need 200 people to pull it off."

Little did he know the guy he said it to was the very person who could grant the "no limits on feasibility" part of the equation--courtesy of his fine friends at the FBI.

Which then put Fox in "saving face" mode from there-on as the informant positioned himself to call bulls***/poser on him if he backed down from a statement made in jest.

[TheDeamon]

Those guys did all of those things prior to the informants getting involved and influencing things if I understand it correctly. They were organizing in support of an unspecified objective, so an informant tried to find out what their objective would be.

If they were like most "boogs" up until that point, they were high on rhetoric, but non-specific beyond "be watchful, and be ready" in a militia like manner for "when the government over-steps its bounds" which for most of them is going to be the seizing/confiscation of guns on a mass scale.

They're the resistance in waiting, they don't like the trajectory things are going in, and it is something they need to prepare for sooner rather than later, because by the time it is obvious that the Government has "gone too far" it will be too late to get armed/trained to counter it.

The Covid19 lockdowns just created a different kind of subtext that could be used for the claim of "government overreach" and abuse of power in the case of Governor Whitmer.

But due to time constraints regarding the Covid19 situation, and that being "the cause" for that group to go after the Governor, I think the FBI overplayed their hand...

I'm likewise strongly inclined to believe at this point a lot of the more outrageous January 6th activities are going to be reflected back on rushed counter-terrorism operations that were trying to "radicalize and arrest" certain select groups of individuals "while the iron was hot" with regard to Donald Trump and certification of the election results by Congress.

[Crunch]

Maybe we have different ideas about what originating the plan is. To me asking what the mission or plan is, is not originating the plan.

Originating the plan in my mind, would be an informant saying "what if we kidnapped the governor" prior to anybody else cooking up that specific idea.

I have several friends, we're all ex-military. We've often war-gamed scenarios over beers just for fun. How would you do X? X being, anything from taking down a drug house to halting civilization. We often laugh hysterically at some ideas, just as we often quietly think "holy *censored*". None of us are seriously even considering doing anything like that, it's just a fun mental exercise that builds on skills we developed during and after service. In your mind, we're plotting the overthrow of America. In reality, we're just a bunch of dudes having a beer.

However, if someone decided to be an FBI informant and then starting pushing the means to carry out this mental wanking, suddenly we'd be criminals? GTFO.

[rightleft22]

Maybe we have different ideas about what originating the plan is. To me asking what the mission or plan is, is not originating the plan.

Originating the plan in my mind, would be an informant saying "what if we kidnapped the governor" prior to anybody else cooking up that specific idea.

I have several friends, we're all ex-military. We've often war-gamed scenarios over beers just for fun. How would you do X? X being, anything from taking down a drug house to halting civilization. We often laugh hysterically at some ideas, just as we often quietly think "holy *censored*". None of us are seriously even considering doing anything like that, it's just a fun mental exercise that builds on skills we developed during and after service. In your mind, we're plotting the overthrow of America. In reality, we're just a bunch of dudes having a beer.

However, if someone decided to be an FBI informant and then starting pushing the means to carry out this mental wanking, suddenly we'd be criminals? GTFO.

I think it would have to go a little further then wanking to be a crime... I think it becomes a crime when it reaches the point of ejaculation 

[TheDrake]

Maybe we have different ideas about what originating the plan is. To me asking what the mission or plan is, is not originating the plan.

Originating the plan in my mind, would be an informant saying "what if we kidnapped the governor" prior to anybody else cooking up that specific idea.

I have several friends, we're all ex-military. We've often war-gamed scenarios over beers just for fun. How would you do X? X being, anything from taking down a drug house to halting civilization. We often laugh hysterically at some ideas, just as we often quietly think "holy *censored*". None of us are seriously even considering doing anything like that, it's just a fun mental exercise that builds on skills we developed during and after service. In your mind, we're plotting the overthrow of America. In reality, we're just a bunch of dudes having a beer.

However, if someone decided to be an FBI informant and then starting pushing the means to carry out this mental wanking, suddenly we'd be criminals? GTFO.

I think it would have to go a little further then wanking to be a crime... I think it becomes a crime when it reaches the point of ejaculation

I would hope that if someone offered you and your pals the means to carry out your exercise, you'd look at them like they had three heads and say, "bro, we're just kidding around here." Unless you and your pals are so raring to go and easy to manipulate that you'd just charge on in.

[Fenring]

I would hope that if someone offered you and your pals the means to carry out your exercise, you'd look at them like they had three heads and say, "bro, we're just kidding around here." Unless you and your pals are so raring to go and easy to manipulate that you'd just charge on in.

That's why Crunch's example is not really pertinent to the discussion. The only edge case we're talking about is where the thought experiment is also backed up by actually wanting it to come to pass to a certain extent, and where outside intervention could affect either the idea of how possible it is to carry out, or maybe more importantly, how much the person wants to do it. So I can talk big and say all this stuff, and even kind of want to do it, but only kind of; and then someone comes along and says "yeah! that's really great, I think it's doable", and suddenly you have two things happen: (1) the more people that say it's ok to do it, the more normalized and legitimate it seems to you, increasing its desirability and hype, and (2) makes you realize it could actually be a reality rather than a pipe dream. Having dangerous pipe dreams is not really illegal, even though it might mean you're unstable. And that's sort of the point: is the FBI deliberately abusing unstable people, pushing them from being big-talking malcontents into more fully realized radicalization? From other cases I've read about, the answer seems to be yes. 

[TheDrake]

To me, the Michigan group was a ticking time bomb that the fbi defused. What if they were ignored, and then they manage to recruit a guy that has those means? Or do we indefinitely monitor them with embedded informants until they find that guy and advance the agenda without any push from informants, or they disband on their own? Is trust an issue if the informants aren't particularly enthusiastic or engaged, where they might be left out of any material planning?

[Fenring]

Or do we indefinitely monitor them with embedded informants until they find that guy and advance the agenda without any push from informants, or they disband on their own? Is trust an issue if the informants aren't particularly enthusiastic or engaged, where they might be left out of any material planning?

This seems to me to be a question about the law, rather than about trust. If a person is a 'ticking time bomb' (in whose opinion?) what steps are legitimate to take when they have so far broken no laws and taken no active steps to break any laws? We're not talking about mafia members where the FBI has trouble finding evidence or informants, and so try to get warrants to wire tap (or do it without warrants...). This is isolated individuals, maybe a small clique of people who know each other, who have no formalized relationship or organization, and who have thus far not committed any criminal acts. To me this is very much a legal issue. If you have material cause to believe they are actively pursuing lines of advancement in some plot, then that material evidence (e.g. they have bought more weapons than normal; or are hiring mercenaries for unknown cause; or have sent communications about active planning; etc) should be enough to get a warrant to either conduct an investigation, or else to wire tap and so forth and monitor the situation. I do not see it as a legitimate plan to 'push them along' to commit the crimes that they actually may never have committed, just to expedite the matter and get it over with. That sounds like bureaucratic point-scoring and dollars-and-cents logic to me. If there is real evidence, bring it to a judge and do the next step, whatever that is to monitor and wait for more development. And if you just heard people talking and a judge would say you've got nothing on them, then there is no legal justification to begin placing undercover agents or informants into the picture.

[TheDrake]

You're talking about evidence, but evidence has to be gathered at the very least does it not? How would you come by that evidence if you don't engage somehow in surveillance, either electronic or in person, in the context of a public or semi-public forum where essentially anyone can join? There's no warrant for that, because there is no expectation of privacy is there? I'm no lawyer, and the legal issues will get settled by whether the defense makes its case for entrapment in my opinion.

I understand reactions ranging from discomfort to outrage about the push aspect of all this. But I can't accept that the alternative is to let them be on their merry way until evidence of a crime somehow bubbles up to the surface on its own, because by then that evidence might be an actual violent act carried out that was preventable.

[Fenring]

I understand reactions ranging from discomfort to outrage about the push aspect of all this. But I can't accept that the alternative is to let them be on their merry way until evidence of a crime somehow bubbles up to the surface on its own, because by then that evidence might be an actual violent act carried out that was preventable.

The NSA is already mass-collecting emails and other transmitted communications. Whatever led the FBI in the first place to investigate these people should have been enough to warrant looking into those for dangerous-looking activity without needing to actually insert people on the ground into their lives, to say nothing about egging them on. That is real KGB stuff, to think it's ok to just place agents near and around people who may or may not be doing anything wrong.