Secrets of the City

I have issues with the FBI infiltrating activist groups. The past history of this is spotty at best.

Yeah, what a douche. Obviously if there was a real plan to set off a molitov cocktail, that’s wrong of the people involved, but the allocation of resources for the purpose of discovering someone was planning on lighting a bottle on fire only goes to show that this is politically motivated suppressive action by the police. The costs to our freedoms to assemble and organize are a million times the potential damage that would have ever been done by one stupid anarchist. And this numbnuts went along with the whole thing and is now trying to justify it after the fact? He should just go to school for investment banking, get new Young Republican friends and move on.

I have to disagree: 1) Suppose the explosive wasn’t a Molotov cocktail but some C4? 2) Aren’t you incorrectly assuming that the FBI knew before infiltrating the group what kind of explosive device was being assembled? Would your opinion be different had the explosive been larger and more powerful … and had killed someone?

No. I’m assuming that the FBI knew damn well that no fricking protesting hippie would be detonating c4. They need to use judgment – and evidence – to distribute their investigative resources. They had neither when they assigned Captain Narc to the case. Their time would have been much better spend investigating the possibility of Canadian invasion, would which have been more likely than a c4-armed terrorist army riding black spray-painted bicycles.

They’re not anarchists, but hippies, now. Should the FBI have known because they had flowers in their hair?

In this context, loosely speaking, it’s the same damn thing. I changed it because “anarchist” sounds scary but it’s completely not. They’re hippies in the sense that they’re anti-establishment (fine) and not dangerous in any significant way – at least no more dangerous than a third-grader with a sling shot. I mean, he might hit a cop in the eye with it so we should probably investigate.

By the logic being used by noodleman and rat, the FBI should simply investigate absolutely everybody and infiltrate every group that exists. I’ll be looking forward to meeting the informant at the next MNSpeak book group, where scary ideas may be discussed. It’s sure going to take them lots of manpower! There’s just so many groups…

The irony in these statements is blood-boiling, really. How can he say these things in earnest yet go work for a system/government that does this to such a frightening levels it starts unjust wars and infiltrates groups who protest against it?

I strongly believe that people innocent of an act should stand up for themselves and that those who choose to engage in an act should accept responsibility and explain the reasoning for their choices.

It is very dangerous when a few individuals engage in or act on a belief system in which they feel they know the real truth and that all others are ignorant and therefore have no right to meet and express their political views.

The second graf should be ital, too. Both are his statements.

I’m not a weapons expert, but it seems to me a person could do a lot of damage with a fire lit on top of a stoppered bottle of gasoline.

“at least no more dangerous than a third-grader with a sling shot.”

You gonna stand by that?

if you read the affidavit published by the FBI agent darby was dealing with, he had contacted the FBI at least a year before there was any “plot” involving molotovs. he was talking to the feds much longer before the Texas 2 were arrested. also, darby had a chance to talk these kids out of their action, if they were even actually planning on doing it and weren’t set up. but instead he let them go thru with it so he could bust them.
if he has any illusions of working with the ‘activist community’ after this, then he can forget them. nobody trusts a snitch.

Look, if we’re going to operate in the limit where we’re scared of every damn thing, fine.

But let’s be very honest with ourselves: Are you ACTUALLY scared of these protesters? Do you REALLY think that it was a good use of police resources – not to mention an attack on priceless civil liberties, since this brings an aura of fear over any very progressive or anti-establishment group – to infiltrate? It’s easy to wring your hands and say “someone could have gotten hurt”, but if you’re not willing to balance that against everything else – the other operations that could have been funded which would have been a million times more likely to keep us safe, for one example – then you’re looking at only one side of the equation.

You’re not on stage, jeff. Quit with the drama.

 ”at least no more dangerous than a third-grader with a sling shot.”

You gonna stand by that?

Why shouldn’t he? You’ve stood by no less ludicrous positions.

So it was ludicrous to you, too?

Well, I’m sorry if it comes off as dramatic, but I hate when these things come down to “someone could get hurt” without trying to compare trade-offs. I could use the same strategy to argue against the existence of roads. I’m suggesting we have roads because their usefulness outweighs their danger; I’m suggesting the FBI doesn’t infiltrate every group of anarchists it finds because both the financial and civil liberties costs of such actions far outweigh the benefits.

I recognize this is hard to quantify, but if the discussion is going to bad had, it should be properly framed as such. If you’re going to argue they did the right thing, “someone could get hurt” is only half the argument. The other half involves making a case that the risk of someone getting hurt is that significant. My claim is that, based on my experiences with individuals such as this and my strong regard for civil liberties, that such action was ludicrously unnecessary. I’m also claiming that had the FBI allocated those resources elsewhere, rat would be safer.

I don’t think the FBI cares about every anarchist group. But when collections of like groups and individuals start traveling great distances to a highly charged political event with extensive media coverage, law enforcement gets much more interested.

Especially when some had telegraphed malevolent intentions months in advance.

Why should the amount of distance people travel to meet matter? That would mean the conference I attended a couple of months ago should have been infiltrated.

Why should the political nature matter? That would mean that the DNC should be infiltrated.

Why should media coverage matter? That would mean the teams playing in the Super Bowl should be infiltrated.

The only real reason for infiltration would be persuasive and specific evidence something serious is up, and while I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to, I don’t recall anything of the sort being presented.

I recall plenty of it. A lot of it was from that RNC Welcoming Committee. Did you visit their website? When they clearly said they where there to disrupt the convention, did you think they were kidding?

Why don’t you just admit it, jeff. They were Republicans, so anything that might have happened to them was really their fault in some ways.

@jeffk: Jeff, life’s a trade-off. Each of us runs the risk every day, knowing or unknowingly, of getting ourselves killed.

While I will defend the right of every person to speak their mind, I do draw the line at violence. And a Molotov cocktail — or a sling shot — is violent.

Yeah, an obviously half-assed plan to temporarily block the flow of traffic demanded infiltration. That was sure worthwhile. I’m happy to know that we’ll all feel very secure in our privacy in the future.

What I don’t recall is anyone making any public, specific threats of violence of any reasonable magnitude or towards people. If some random jackass claimed he intended to break a window, I don’t know that the full brunt of the FBI was necessary on that one.

“They were Republicans, so anything that might have happened to them was really their fault in some ways.“

Sounds reasonable.

That’s an honest answer, yoder.

I think what you meant to say Rat was:

“I’m a Republicans, so anything that might have happened to me was really my fault in some way.”

I’m not a Republican. But if I were and was walking from my hotel to the convention center at the same time David Guy McKay or Bradley Neal Crowder decided that that was a good time to let fly their Molotov cocktails would it have been my fault if I were burned?

I don’t expect an answer.

I’m not a Democrat. But if I were and I noticed that:
1. Republicans blame gays for being gay
2. Republicans blame intelligence for their own lies about WMDs in Iraq that ignored intelligence.
3. Republicans blame Valerie Plame for being outed as an undercover intelligence agent by Dick Cheney and his staff.
4. And happended to walking through America for the last 8 years, would it be my fault if I noticed Republicans lying and constantly placing fault on other people?

I don’t expect an answer.

The moderator here doesn’t appreciate partisan political discussion.

Yes, the conversation here is similar to what I would characterize as one you would overhear at a Tupperware party. It’s so stimulating, isn’t it?

I wouldn’t know. I’ve never been to a tupperware party.

burn.