mGrowOld

May 1st, 2012 at 2:34 PM ^

In my humble opnion the amount of "humor" one draws from situations such as this is directly proportional to the distance one is from said event.  I sincerely doubt that if it was one of your loved ones driving across said bridge daily you'd find ANY humor in the situation whatsover.

Kinda reminds of a situation I had years ago with my oldest son.  He had to have surgery to repair a lazy eye and I was worried to death for him.  He was only two.  When one of my friends heard about it he tried to calm my fears by letting me know this was "only" minor surgery and I had nothing to worry about. 

I told him my definition of "minor surgery" was surgery on one of HIS children, not mine.  Then he understood.

HarBooYa

May 1st, 2012 at 11:32 PM ^

Dig your point about minor surgery but I do have family in the area (god bless their souls) and have personally driven over that bridge myself. Can I still make fun of these a holes now or do I need to further make my case to the speech police yet?

In case i do...I think you "anti humor - nobody should laugh" guys are missing the point.

1. No one is saying the act of terrorism is funny. No one is laughng at your wife blowing up or your blog buddies wife potentiallly crossing the bridge at the exact time these jokers lit the fake explosives the fbi induced them to " trigger". Its the actual perpetrators i am having fun with They are a walking gang of dipshots, deachebags, dudes with Napoleon complexes, porn addicts, idiot hypocrites. Those type of folks are generally good for a laugh. We need it with them in the world.

2. This ain't the world trade center and this aint a international terrorist org. This is a bridge in Ohio and (so far) a couple of a holes. Read...the holocaust is the holocaust....should not compare other thing to it or hitler. You "speech police" always come perilously close to being a little touchy and equating everything to something close to a personal apocalypse and everyone who is not you to not being sensitive enough to your pain or in this case "potential" pain. Read...in this case THEYCAUGHTTHEDUDES...and NO ONE died.

3. Also I put it in quotes....couldn't read it broadly could you? Well then, So that eing the case...i am so so so very sorry for the horror everyone who has ever crossed that bridge today, in the future, the moment the it's we're caught, and/ or to anyone who has ever crossed a bridge or knows who teddy bridge water is....amen.

HarBooYa

May 1st, 2012 at 11:32 PM ^

Dig your point about minor surgery but I do have family in the area (god bless their souls) and have personally driven over that bridge myself. Can I still make fun of these a holes now or do I need to further make my case to the speech police yet?

In case i do...I think you "anti humor - nobody should laugh" guys are missing the point.

1. No one is saying the act of terrorism is funny. No one is laughng at your wife blowing up or your blog buddies wife potentiallly crossing the bridge at the exact time these jokers lit the fake explosives the fbi induced them to " trigger". Its the actual perpetrators i am having fun with They are a walking gang of dipshots, deachebags, dudes with Napoleon complexes, porn addicts, idiot hypocrites. Those type of folks are generally good for a laugh. We need it with them in the world.

2. This ain't the world trade center and this aint a international terrorist org. This is a bridge in Ohio and (so far) a couple of a holes. Read...the holocaust is the holocaust....should not compare other thing to it or hitler. You "speech police" always come perilously close to being a little touchy and equating everything to something close to a personal apocalypse and everyone who is not you to not being sensitive enough to your pain or in this case "potential" pain. Read...in this case THEYCAUGHTTHEDUDES...and NO ONE died.

3. Also I put it in quotes....couldn't read it broadly could you? Well then, So that eing the case...i am so so so very sorry for the horror everyone who has ever crossed that bridge today, in the future, the moment the it's we're caught, and/ or to anyone who has ever crossed a bridge or knows who teddy bridge water is....amen.

snoopblue

May 1st, 2012 at 2:19 PM ^

You can rip on Ohio for any other reason, but not this. Terry Nichols is from Michigan - the mastermind behind the Oklahoma City Bombing. That whole Hutaree deal? From Michigan too.

ndscott50

May 1st, 2012 at 3:23 PM ^

But this story seems like BS.  So the FBI goes to a protest and finds some idiots claiming they are going to do something as opposed to just protest.  The FBI then places an informant with them for a year that eventually provides the idiots with fake explosives as part of a plot to blow up a bridge.

I suspect that this group would have never done anything other than talk if they had not run into the FBI informant.  Look at the actions that got the FBI all worked up.

"four suspicious males with walkie-talkie radios around their necks"

"acted differently than the other people in attendance."

"constantly moving through the crowd expressing displeasure at the crowd's unwillingness to act violently"

"During a briefing between protesters and organizers, the organizers explained who would be arrested, emphasizing that they wanted everyone to conduct peaceful civil disobedience," the complaint adds. "One of the original four men turned away and said 'f--- that' before the group of men walked away."

Is this really that out of the ordinary at one of the protest events self described anarchist tends to attend? Have there been any significant terrorist actions from individuals in these groups? (Aside from maybe trashing a Starbucks). 

Key Points

  • I am not frightened by these people.  They were no real threat to the bridge or the people who cross it daily.  You should not be frightened either.
  • As these guys were idiots and not a real threat I have no problem making fun of them
  • People have mentioned the Hutaree people.  Note that they were found not guilty as the government could not prove they had a real plan.  I would read this as they were a bunch of idiots who talked a lot but were not a threat.  The only thing that made them a threat was that the FBI reading way too much into what the group said and ignoring what they actually were capable of doing.
  • I am not some anti-government zealot. I don’t think the government is destroying are freedoms, taking our guns, etc.  I do think thy FBI is taking its fight terrorism mandate a bit far and wasting its time by going after idiots who talk a bunch of BS but are highly unlikely to act.
  • Michigan is in no position to make fun of Ohio in terms of nutjob residents

 

GoBluePhil

May 1st, 2012 at 3:44 PM ^

There is usually fire. People who get involved in protests and try to stir up the crowd are trying to incite disobedients or for a better word "riots". As a State Trooper involved in many protest situations, overhearing subjects talk like this is a red flag that should be acted on. That was 20 years ago and today there are many more subversives out there.

I think the FBI did what was expected. They investigated and acted on the actions of these five guys. If they didn't and the bridge was blown up then you would be complaining "Where we're the police".

ndscott50

May 1st, 2012 at 5:47 PM ^

I can see your point on the protest and would agree that law enforcement should take some action in that situation.  If anything they could pull them out of the crowd, hold them for questioning for a few hours or just keep an eye on them.  A first step of rattling their cage a little may in most cases scare them off.  I am not sure what you can do beyond that as I don’t have a clear understanding of what is involved in charging someone with inciting a riot.

As to the larger issue it is a very difficult situation for law enforcement.  They do not have the resources to follow every individual or small group of individuals who are promoting crazy ideas about taking down the government or something similar.  There are also many constitutional issues around that concept.  Of course, as you point out, if they fail to act on one of these groups and they do commit a violent act there will be hell to pay.

It seems like there have been some cases recently, (this one, the Iranian plot to use Mexican cartels to kill Saudi diplomats, which made no sense from the cartel perspective by the way, and others) where law enforcement has identified the unstable, dumb, crazy, etc. group or individual as a threat.  Law enforcement then provides the group/individual with the means to carry out their crazy idea.  Since the group, having been provided the means, agrees to carry out the act they are guilty. 

Something just seems wrong with this approach.  It seems like the government should have to wait for the individual group to procure the means themselves.  There is also the question of how much the informant is involved in this.  Are they in some ways encouraging the group to act?  The informant and/or undercover agent does have a motivation to make a case where the government is investing time and resources after all.  I do want to be clear that I am not saying that law enforcement is actively trying to set the group up. They do however most likely approach the group from the perspective that the group is a real threat and also have pressure from superiors to get something done.

The question really boils down to this issue for me. Is it OK for law enforcement to offer someone the means to commit a crime and then convict them of that crime when they take them up on the offer.  Obviously the defendants should not agree to the crime when the means are offered.  At the same time if the government informant had not provided the fake explosives would these people have acted on their own?  This may be more of an issue if the people involved have significant mental issues.

 

GoBluePhil

May 2nd, 2012 at 10:15 AM ^

How law enforcement works in these types of situations. Investigating and acting too quickly at times will put a terrorist cell underground for a long time. You want too find the leaders, suppliers, supporters and size of the group. Can't do that in a few days or even weeks. Working undercover is the only way. Sure the undercover officer heard and discussed the plan with these guys. That is how he gained trust. This has been a law enforcement technique for 100 years. It works in all types of investigations involving organized crime, biker gangs, and now terrorism.

Moleskyn

May 1st, 2012 at 4:05 PM ^

I see your point about the FBI possibly taking this too far, but all it would have taken was for these punks to just say "Ok nope, we're not going to go that far. We don't want to commit that sort of violence. Sorry." And the investigation is over.

Would you have taken the "explosives" and tied them to the bridge? I know I wouldn't have. And I think that's the point in all of this: most people, even given the means and opportunity, wouldn't even attempt something like this. It's the people who would try who are a threat to society. How are you able to determine that these 5 guys wouldn't have acted "on their own?" As far as they were concerned, they were carrying out a plan to take out a bridge that lots of people travel on. They're not as innocent or victimized as you make them out to be.

profitgoblue

May 1st, 2012 at 5:05 PM ^

Exactly.  Sure, maybe the FBI/police do goad criminals to act sometimes.  But that does not mean that the criminal is not a criminal.  Now these guys may get off on a technicality, but the fact of the matter is that they were actually seriously considering blowing up a f-ing bridge.  Leave aside the fact that they may have been pushed along - who here would agree to go as far as these idiots did?  It is this fact alone that should land them in prison.

 

SalvatoreQuattro

May 1st, 2012 at 4:58 PM ^

is a lone wolf or a very small group. An individual can over a period of time collect enough guns, ammuno, and explosions to kill quite a few people. Just look at the school shootings.  One or two(but typically two)people shooting and killing many people without any warning whatsoever that this was evena n possibility.

I find it odd that amidst all the fearmongering over the power of the government there is very little such paranoia over assaults by individuals. Statistically-speaking, we are farmore likely to be killed by an individual than by a large group or the government. Yet, all we see is handwringing about terrorists and government.  

SFBlue

May 1st, 2012 at 3:38 PM ^

There is one sure-fire way to determine whether these guys really posed a threat, or whether this may be FBI bootstrapping: the Buckstashe test.

From what I have been able to determine from preliminary googling, at least one of the accused sports, or at one time did sport, some form of Buckstashe. 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/01/5-arrested-for-allegedly-trying-to…

 

I think it is too early to jump to any conclusions, but before the facial hair tendencies of each of these individuals has been thoroughly scrutinized--and conclusively documented--I am willing to entertain the notion that The Ohio Five could indeed be very dangerous. 

 

EDIT: HOLY BUCKSTASHE, BATMAN.  From the video on this link, I would put the preliminary Buckstashe count at 2.5. 

UMich87

May 1st, 2012 at 7:03 PM ^

Assuming it is not a total fabrication (and most of the conversations were recorded), these guys were all over the map -- blow up the federal reserve bank, blow up a bridge, blow up a ship, blow up a prison, blow up a government center, blow up some oil wells, back to blowing up a bridge.  The informant/infiltrator basically asked them what they wanted to do and served as the connection to get gas masks, vests, smoke grenades and the "C4."  This may have taken care of itself if they had been left to make their own explosives with the Anarchist's Cookbook, but the near-certain apartment fire may have harmed innocent people.  Better to sell them some wired up modelling clay.

DirkMcGurk

May 2nd, 2012 at 3:51 AM ^

Why you have to go and rain on his parade. He was all chubbed up to bash Ohio and get props from Michigan fans. Yea Michigan has had crazy militia men for years but damn it slipped his mind. Wasn't Michigan also wear the underware bomber boarded the plane?

People stop with the state bashing it is tired and pathetic. You want to bash OSU cause it is a rival I get that, butacting like Michigan is better then Ohio is just sad.