Fighting the war on terror

[kate_schaefer]

My suggestion for one of the ways in which the government should fight the war on terror: instead of hiring informants to pretend to be Al Qaeda members who infiltrate discontented groups of Muslim youth and suggest that they take oaths of allegiance to Al Qaeda and consider blowing up the Sears Tower, why don't we hire informants who infiltrate discontented groups of Muslim youth and organize neighborhood cleanup campaigns, after-school basketball leagues, and discussion groups analyzing ways in which the Koran is consistent with the Constitution of the United States?

At the least, why don't we hire informants who are content to listen rather than foment plots? Any time the informant is the instigator, the case against the proto-terrorists is deeply, deeply compromised. Maybe these guys were going to be terrorists on their own; the coverage I've heard suggested that they were easily led toward that point. It's not our government's job to persuade people to conspire against us; it's our government's job to notice if people are conspiring on their own and stop them. There's an argument to be made that it's also our government's job -- as it is the job of ordinary public-spirited citizens in general -- to persuade people that improving their lot by peaceful means is better than attempting to improve their lot by making other people's lot worse (by definition, blowing up buildings containing people will make those people's lot worse, and blowing up buildings not containing people will still make a lot of people's lot worse. I am opposed to blowing up buildings in general, okay?).

Comments

[scottscidmore.livejournal.com]

Attempting to incite goes back many years, consider the "Black Panther Coloring Book" for an example from 3 decades ago.

It's better press to be able to break a story on catching some wannabes before they act, than to point to a bunch of people not doing anything bad. Besides, they could change their tune tomorrow and try to blow something up; best to get them to step far enough you can convict them and lock them away. That way you get the press splash and CYA against any possible sneaky backsliding that would embarrass you.

Then there's the human tendency to seek punishment over restitution and rehabilitation, particularly strong in the US. Combined with ill feelings towards outgroups, it leads to anger at those who question the way you like things; you just want to punish them for that. But to bring that punishment down on them, you need to make it clear and explicit just how bad those people are; so you just given them a little tug in the direction you want.

[kate-schaefer.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes, yes. I know why we set things up this way. What I don't know is why our governments don't do it the other way. Why prefer to draw people out into the worst version possible of themselves and then throw that version in jail, rather than draw them out into the best (or at least a better) version of themselves, and send them off to lead their lives in a reasonably productive way?

Law enforcement is the only area of life where we have government employees paid to tempt and encourage people to behave badly so we can punish them. If they acted that way freelance, we'd call what they do corruption and punish them.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

As far as I can tell from a relatively safe distance, "reality" TV is an area where we encourage people to behave badly so that we can see them punished. Is it a coincidence that "reality" TV sprang up in the US as terrorism became the basis of national security?

[kate-schaefer.livejournal.com]

You did, but you're a) a speculative fiction writer, and b) a loon.

[jackwilliambell.livejournal.com]

Not that I'm doubting there was some level of entrapment in this case (it was certainly the first thing that occurred to me), none of the news reports I've seen show any indication of such.

Do you have a link to a news item giving these kinds of details?

[kate-schaefer.livejournal.com]

Link? I don't read my news on the WWW; I listen to NPR, which reported today that the informant represented himself as a member of Al Qaeda and that the informant asked the others to swear an oath of loyalty to Al Qaeda. The reporter then speculated on who might first have suggested blowing up buildings, but said there was no information on that right then.

The proto-terrorists were looking for a connection to Al Qaeda when they found the informant (or when he found them). I don't think their motives were pure. I do think they could have gone on looking for a real connection to Al Qaeda for a long time, and that they could well have thought of something more constructive to do on their own, or could have been led to something more constructive to do.

[kip-w.livejournal.com]

You know what it reminds me of? The nitwit who brings a non-exploding "bomb" on an aircraft with him, reasoning that the odds against there being two bombs on his plane are astronomical, and therefore he's safe.

So they develop and expose their own "dud" terrorists, and we're all safe, because what are the odds that there'd be another batch of them?

Cargo cult security.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

The purpose of manufacturing criminals (in this entrapment way) is to make them easy to find and therefore to arrest. Then you can hold up their severed heads to demonstrate that you've done something.