FBI arrests 5 US citizens and 2 others

[15357]

Finally, someone that really knows about these things.

 

[Ome_Vince]

Mean ;(

...so you're saying right now that you know all of the proof they have against these guys? What, are you in on the investigation?

Nope, i read the article, saw they arrested the guys before they committed any crime, so i'm wondering what their proof is. Read my post.

When did I say ANYTHING about proof, anyway, I am assuming there is enough proof to convict these guys for conspiracy, you are assuming there is not. But you are assuming there is not despite the fact that in the article, it states that an undercover operative posed as al Queda, and they attempted to buy weapons from him.

The operative poses as Al Qaeda, they try to buy bombs (is the transaction of money made?), and thats enough proof to convict them for conspiracy for blowing up buildings?
You said nothing about proof, yet you jump into the discussion without reading the history of it.
I'm refering to proof of committing a crime. You cant jail people who did nothing wrong, you need proof they are commiting a crime and in the case of conspiracy rock solid proof they are 100% going to do it.

The example i posted shows how almost impossible it is to convict people for conspiracy since rock solid evidence there is very hard. They did nothing wrong (yet) so you have to proof beyond doubt that they were "going to do it", which is very very hard.

People are arrested for conpspiracy all the time. There are lots of cops who go undercover as hitmen who arrest people who hire them to kill someone. There are lots of cops that go undercover as drug dealers and arrest people that try to buy drugs from them. There are also cops who go undercover as al Queda terrorists and when someone tries to purchase weapons from them, they are all arrested.

Examples? I gave you proof people are being let go because suspicion is not enough, you need proof that they committed a crime or rock solid proof they were planning to commit a crime.
If its conspiracy, its so vague and grey, even though various law systems handle it differently, many people are eventually let go, since getting proof in this area is so hard.
The "undercover cops" will record conversations, and wait until the payment is made before arresting the person.
They then have something solid to work on. In this case, they arrested the guys who were "trying to buy the bombs". So i wonder, did they pay allready, are there voice recordings, what is the proof?
Good luck convicting these people.

Buying bombs is illegal. Do you not realize that is an ILLEGAL ACTIVITY? So when you try to buy weapons from an undercover cop, you get arrested. When they raid your hideout or whatever, and they find all this evidence that proves you were planning to blow a building up, you go to jail for a long time.

When did i say buying bombs was legal? I even made a joke that now you can try to convict them for "trying to buy bombs". tssk.

Evidence for trying to blow up a building? Like in the case i posted, there was plenty of "evidence", yet i'm wondering WHAT is the evidence here? Blueprints? a scribble on pieces of paper? Telling a friend? having a dartboard with Bush on it? The Quran with "die infidels!" scribbled on it?
How do you prove in court beyond any doubt that these guys wanted to commit this crime.
Innocent until proven guilty is the saying in US law isnt it?

So the proof they wanted to do something nasty now must be insanely rock solid backed up with them "trying to buy bombs"..

I can't say I have any idea why some random guy getting off in some random other country has anything to do with these terrorists. Congradulations you found some guy who should have been arrested but was not, in some country that is not the United States.

Uhm, because its also a conspiracy case in a western nation where this "some guy" was also an islamist trying to blow up buildings... and they also needed proof to convict?
Are the law systems so drastically different that you dont need proof in the states to convict people? cmon...
The example shows that trying to convict people for conspiracy is almost impossible. So I''m wondering what the proof is here...

You made the insult that i had no idea what i was talking about, the example shows i'm not blowing stuff out of my ass. :smoking:

Maybe your idea of the law is that you have to follow through with the plans. Well, your idea of the law is stupid. So long as there is a lot of unquestionable proof that you were planning to bomb a building, you should be locked up. Just like when you try to buy drugs, just like when you hire a hitman.

Maybe your idea of the law is convicting people upon suspicion. Sorry dude, but even in the states they dont do that.

Thats why usually they wait for drug purchases to be made before they make arrests.

As for your bit on shouting "I'll kill you all!" in a police station, which I didn't really mention but it doesn't have all that much to do with conspiracy, it is a death threat, and it is illegal. Its not your "freedom of speech" to shout that you want to kill someone. Even if it is a light crime, the civil suit is usually far more. And, conspiring to kill someone (something like... hiring a hitman) will land you in jail for many years.

Its not my "bit" i just responded to it, somebody else made that example, and i responded as to the cops probably wont do shit about it. They will not take such a thing seriously, perhaps put you in a mental home or something.

We're comparing apples with oranges here, hiring a hitman or ranting in a police station are pretty different scenario's....
Rap songs make death threats all the time, you see the cops lock them up for threatening to shoot some other guy?
In most raps songs on the radio i hear rappers wishing each other dead and how they are going to kill the other.
We cant start comparing these scenario's since cops will treat them differently based on how "serious" they take them.
In most cases, they wont do a thing unless they're 100% sure its "serious"..., and ranting in a police station they most likely wont take seriously


Also sure i agree we should punish those who try to harm us/you, though the law luckily protects "human error" by making you "innocent until proven guilty".
I hope the day never comes when people get jailed without rock solid evidence, since human error will jail alot of innocent people.

This whole "discussion" turned into a storm of weird scenario examples, mixed law systems, backed by personal opinions.
Lets stick to the US case of arresting these guys, and frankly i dont see much hard evidence here, so to go back to my initial post i say: good luck FBI trying to convict these people.

 

[Yuri]

See, your problem is not that you don't understand how you can jail people for conspiracy and planning to commit a crime, your problem is that you think you know all the evidence against these people. You don't, dude, you don't have any idea what kind of evidence they have against these people because that is kept from the public, and the news, for a reason. The trial will show the evidence against them, and they may be charged with whatever is proven that they were attempting to do, as well as any other blatent offenses, like attempting to buy illegal bombs. We don't know the evidence against them because the trial has not yet occured, so stop pretending like you do... if it is somehow proven that they were conspiring to blow up the Sears tower, they will be locked up for a long, long time. I don't see how much longer we could have waited without unneccesaily endangering the lives of innocents, either. They tried to buy bombs-- they were arrested. Simple.

You even said yourself, in this post, that you need "rock solid proof" that they would be commiting this crime to convict them. What makes you think that the prosecution will not have this rock solid proof? Arresting them for buying bombs is all the public knows, but there may be much more involved.

I'm not sure what your point is any more. You seem to agree that someone can be prosecuted for conspiracy and planning to commit a crime, yet before you seemed to think that people can only be convicted for crimes if they actually commited them. Whatever, though, it doesn't much matter-- so long as there is enough evidence to unquestionably accuse these men of conspiracy, they will be jailed. In the meantime, why aren't you happy that they were arrested as soon as they tried to buy weapons?

Just whatever. Believe whatever you want, but you seem all over the place. Have a nice day, I'm not going to be coming back, sorry.

 

[VirusType2]

That was me :O

But they'll never get me to confess :sniper:

You just did! :dork:

 

[Ome_Vince]

Uhm, i do know -> you need proof
And hey, i'm happy they're arrested. If they have rock solid proof, hurray!, though from the article i cant see much, so yes, i dont know their proof, yet i'm frustrated because i've experienced the Dutch case in which "with all this so called evidence" the prosecution had they counldt convict this person.
So i wish the FBI good luck!

I mentioned i dont know exactly how the US law system works, but i'm sure there you also need proof beyond reasonable doubt, hence my frustration.
As for the "conspiracy part", i'm refering to proof of commiting a crime. This is something i refered to many times, but if that wasnt clear, here ya go.
You cant jail people who commited no crime, or you have to have 100% proof beyond any doubt they were actually going to commit the crime, which i doubt from reading that article, also having the Dutch terrorism case in my head.

Hope this clears things up

 

[Hapless]

Uhm, i do know -> you need proof
And hey, i'm happy they're arrested. If they have rock solid proof, hurray!, though from the article i cant see much, so yes, i dont know their proof, yet i'm frustrated because i've experienced the Dutch case in which "with all this so called evidence" the prosecution had they counldt convict this person.
So i wish the FBI good luck!

I mentioned i dont know exactly how the US law system works, but i'm sure there you also need proof beyond reasonable doubt, hence my frustration.
As for the "conspiracy part", i'm refering to proof of commiting a crime. This is something i refered to many times, but if that wasnt clear, here ya go.
You cant jail people who commited no crime, or you have to have 100% proof beyond any doubt they were actually going to commit the crime, which i doubt from reading that article, also having the Dutch terrorism case in my head.

Hope this clears things up

I don't know where you come from, but in the States it's proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt. If the standard was 100% proof beyond any doubt, no one would ever be convicted of anything. Conspiracy to commit a crime IS A CRIME. Get that through your head. IT IS A CRIME TO CONSPIRE TO COMMIT A CRIME. Once more: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME IS A CRIME IN ITSELF. I hope I've made myself clear. So, with that in mind, the proof, I suspect is that these yahoos made it known that they wished to make contact with Al Qaeda, the FBI obliged them and set up a meeting with an "Al Qaeda" representative, this was all recorded and so on. Kind of like a murder for hire thing where a guy wants to have a hitman rub his wife out, so the coppers set him up with a, "hitman." As soon as he commits an act in furtherance of the conspiracy, such as giving up a down payment, he's bought and paid for. See?

 

[Ome_Vince]

I don't know where you come from, but in the States it's proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt. If the standard was 100% proof beyond any doubt, no one would ever be convicted of anything. Conspiracy to commit a crime IS A CRIME. Get that through your head. IT IS A CRIME TO CONSPIRE TO COMMIT A CRIME. Once more: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME IS A CRIME IN ITSELF. I hope I've made myself clear. So, with that in mind, the proof, I suspect is that these yahoos made it known that they wished to make contact with Al Qaeda, the FBI obliged them and set up a meeting with an "Al Qaeda" representative, this was all recorded and so on. Kind of like a murder for hire thing where a guy wants to have a hitman rub his wife out, so the coppers set him up with a, "hitman." As soon as he commits an act in furtherance of the conspiracy, such as giving up a down payment, he's bought and paid for. See?

*sign, i hate repeating myself. Believe whatever you want. Your post clearly states you hardly even read my post.
I repeatedly asked if the transaction on the explosives was carried out, or not, and repeatedly made the example of the transactions in undercover cases .
Also i said "proof beyond reasonable doubt" you even quoted my post. Are you refering to that last sentence? Yes i meant beyond reasonable doubt just like in the beginning of the that same post