|
PT6A posted:Yeah, if anything it's just a waste of money. They shouldn't necessarily do it again, but given that the money's already been spent, I don't see a particular problem with the result. I mean, also the fact that they spent that money to turn 2 innocent people into criminals and lock them up, and that was the best possible result? I mean, could you imagine if they picked someone who was actually dangerous at all? Tochiazuma posted:Hey we just diverted the entire road maintenance budget of our city into fixing one pothole but that pothole sure got fixed so what's everyone bitching about That's not fair! Most of that money went into renting a jackhammer so that we could make the pothole!
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Whiskey Sours posted:The RCMP spent $20 million dollars to trick two mentally ill drug addicts into committing a terrorist plot in order to create fear in the general populace and justify the need for more counter-terrorist funding? Don't forget they liaised with the FBI to bring this abortion of an operation to fruition. Literally rounded up the the  smartest minds in anti-terrorism to bring a fabricated terrorism case against drug addicts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
senae posted:That's not fair! Most of that money went into renting a jackhammer so that we could make the pothole! It started out with a guy trying to dig a tunnel to Parliament with an icicle by stabbing it into the wall of a bus stop, how did it end up like this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
PT6A posted:the RCMP got them off the streets. this is an extremely generous reading of the RCMP's actions and intent
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:It started out with a guy trying to dig a tunnel to Parliament with an icicle by stabbing it into the wall of a bus stop, how did it end up like this? Was it a terrorist attack tunnel? We could have a whole new avenue of funding here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Was it a terrorist attack tunnel? We could have a whole new avenue of funding here. Way ahead of you, I've already got an email out to Bruce Heyman demanding that he add Canada to the list of high-risk terrorist attack tunnel countries so we can ram that legislation through.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Remember when province threatened not to renew the RCMP's contract? I was so excited at that prospect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
What I object to is the seemingly common assumption that the two convicted terrorists were somehow hard-done-by. Yes, the operation was probably a complete waste of time and money, but the victims are the taxpayers. The folks who wanted to blow up parliament got what they deserved, regardless of their incompetence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Stop posting idiot
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
PT6A posted:What I object to is the seemingly common assumption that the two convicted terrorists were somehow hard-done-by. Yes, the operation was probably a complete waste of time and money, but the victims are the taxpayers. The folks who wanted to blow up parliament got what they deserved, regardless of their incompetence. So if there was a low-cost, efficient way for the RCMP to detect every person in Canada, especially developmentally delayed individuals, who could be convinced or cajoled into committing terrorism and have them plant inert pressure cookers in public or some equivalent, you'd like to see them all become convicted terrorists? You're saying that this is good policy if only there were a way to make it cost effective?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:So if there was a low-cost, efficient way for the RCMP to detect every person in Canada, especially developmentally delayed individuals, who could be convinced or cajoled into committing terrorism and have them plant inert pressure cookers in public or some equivalent, you'd like to see them all become convicted terrorists? You're saying that this is good policy if only there were a way to make it cost effective? Yes. I think you're vastly overstating the amount of people who could be talked into bombing parliament, mentally unstable or otherwise. Unlike apparently some people here, I don't think that the average mentally ill person or drug addict can be talked into such a flagrantly terrible act as setting a bomb and trying to blow people up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:So if there was a low-cost, efficient way for the RCMP to detect every person in Canada, especially developmentally delayed individuals, who could be convinced or cajoled into committing terrorism and have them plant inert pressure cookers in public or some equivalent, you'd like to see them all become convicted terrorists? You're saying that this is good policy if only there were a way to make it cost effective? why stop at developmentally disabled individuals? if we can get costs low enough we could also target the poor, minorities, people with fringe political beliefs, people who read too much, people who protest police abuses...
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes. I think you're vastly overstating the amount of people who could be talked into bombing parliament, mentally unstable or otherwise. Unlike apparently some people here, I don't think that the average mentally ill person or drug addict can be talked into such a flagrantly terrible act as setting a bomb and trying to blow people up. If it's easy enough to convince otherwise sensible people to occupy a ranger station in the winter with no supplies, or willingly pack a car full of bombs for the express purpose of going to an afterlife you can't even confirm to exist, I doubt it would be hard to get the majority of the mentally ill to commit heinous acts if you push their buttons the right way. Which is completely besides the point: cops shouldn't use the mentally ill for anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Can we just add "If given the chance and 20 million dollars, would you bomb Parliament?" to the census? Then we arrest anyone that says yes
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:So if there was a low-cost, efficient way for the RCMP to detect every person in Canada, especially developmentally delayed individuals, who could be convinced or cajoled into committing terrorism and have them plant inert pressure cookers in public or some equivalent, you'd like to see them all become convicted terrorists? You're saying that this is good policy if only there were a way to make it cost effective? PT6A posted:Yes. loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
PT6A how are you actually arguing in favour of entrapment? Because that's what this is. Of mentally handicapped individuals too 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Is the 20 million in USD or CAD?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:PT6A how are you actually arguing in favour of entrapment? Because that's what this is. Of mentally handicapped individuals too for real, jesus loving christ
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:PT6A how are you actually arguing in favour of entrapment? In a sense, yes. I'm strongly against entrapment in general, but I don't really mind "entrapping" people into murdering or blowing poo poo up (or both!) because, if you can be talked into that sort of thing, you're a broken person anyway and you need heavily supervised mental help. This is not a case of someone being talked into selling some drugs or loving a hooker; they wanted to set a bomb to blow up parliament. Whether you want to do that of your own free will, or because someone suggested it, you are too dangerous to be simply left alone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
PT6A posted:In a sense, yes. I'm strongly against entrapment in general, but I don't really mind "entrapping" people into murdering or blowing poo poo up (or both!) because, if you can be talked into that sort of thing, you're a broken person anyway and you need heavily supervised mental help. This is not a case of someone being talked into selling some drugs or loving a hooker; they wanted to set a bomb to blow up parliament. Whether you want to do that of your own free will, or because someone suggested it, you are too dangerous to be simply left alone. They're mentally handicapped. Developmentally delayed. They're not of sound mind and judgement due to no fault of their own, they're sick. They ARE broken people, medically. How are you pro-entrapment of these people, I literally cannot comprehend what you are saying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes. I think you're vastly overstating the amount of people who could be talked into bombing parliament, mentally unstable or otherwise. Unlike apparently some people here, I don't think that the average mentally ill person or drug addict can be talked into such a flagrantly terrible act as setting a bomb and trying to blow people up. Fair enough. I'm not so much against it because of the amount of people, more just the notion of having the police out there teaching people how to commit crimes and then convincing them to do it. I do honestly feel like if I was the guy in charge and you gave me $20m, 200 staff and 6 months per retarded homeless person or couple, I could get a whole lot of them to plant a bomb somewhere. Probably just vanity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:PT6A how are you actually arguing in favour of entrapment? Because that's what this is. Of mentally handicapped individuals too Mentally handicapped convicted terrorists, thank you very much 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:They're mentally handicapped. Developmentally delayed. They're not of sound mind and judgement due to no fault of their own, they're sick. They ARE broken people, medically. How are you pro-entrapment of these people, I literally cannot comprehend what you are saying. Oh okay, I guess we should just let them wander about until they kill someone either on purpose or because they botch another lovely plan. I already said they need mental health treatment more than prison, but either way I'm very glad they're going to be in custody for a long time. I'd like to think that most mentally ill people are not a few conversations away from trying to blow up a government building and/or kill people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Oh okay, I guess we should just let them wander about until they kill someone either on purpose or because they botch another lovely plan. But that's the point. When someone's brain is actually broken, when they are mentally handicapped and sick, you have literally no idea how they're going to behave and you cannot predict that. The solution to this isn't to have the loving RCMP entrap them on terrorism charges, but to get them into the healthcare system. How can you think this was an acceptable method? They don't deserve to be in custody jesus christ, they deserve to be in a healthcare facility getting the help they need.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Oh okay, I guess we should just let them wander about until they kill someone either on purpose or because they botch another lovely plan. this is like arguing in favour of sending khadr to gitmo for the sole reason that he'd get free dental care there
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
The wasted money is like the least significant part of the story about how the elected government conspired with our national security apparatus to create public anxieties about terrorism, with the conviction concurring just months before an election where the reigning government tried to use fear of terrorism and Muslims to get re-elected. It says something about how totally disinterested people are in the idea of "democracy" that they can only see this story as either 1) the government unfairly victimizing the mentally ill or 2) the government wasting money. We're so used to the government (both the elected government and the bureaucracy) manipulating the public that it's not even seen as unusual or noteworthy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
It can be all three at once.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
I'm curious why it is the goal of our security apparatus to identify people at risk of radicalization, and then act to radicalize them. As opposed to say, identifying people at risk of radicalization (mentally ill or otherwise), and then pushing them into support programs to help address the issues leading them towards committing a terrorist act. From an outside perspective, the later seems preferable to the former, both in terms of outcomes and cost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:I'm curious why it is the goal of our security apparatus to identify people at risk of radicalization, and then act to radicalize them. As opposed to say, identifying people at risk of radicalization (mentally ill or otherwise), and then pushing them into support programs to help address the issues leading them towards committing a terrorist act. My backwards redneck sensibilities can't ejaculate to that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:I'm curious why it is the goal of our security apparatus to identify people at risk of radicalization, and then act to radicalize them. As opposed to say, identifying people at risk of radicalization (mentally ill or otherwise), and then pushing them into support programs to help address the issues leading them towards committing a terrorist act. This only works if they want help. From what I hear, the couple in question were already radicalized to some degree, so it's very possible they wouldn't have voluntarily entered treatment, and you cannot compel someone into treatment without a crime being committed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Remember this day the next time PT6A starts getting kudos for being more liberal. Dudes like Mr Burns in that Simpsons episode where he starts a recycling company and then ends up dredging the oceans to grind up and sell all the biomass because he literally can't comprehend how monstrous it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:Remember this day the next time PT6A starts getting kudos for being more liberal. I'm still more liberal than I was, I just don't particularly care about a couple of terrorists (mentally handicapped or not) getting convicted of a crime, beyond the inordinate amount of resources that were spent on making it happen. You have to be quite the bleeding heart to think that people who literally wanted to blow up parliament shouldn't spend some time at the ol' government hotel, one way or the other. EDIT: If these people are so mentally handicapped that they do not understand that killing and bombing people is wrong, what were they doing in public without supervision in the first loving place, anyway? Even the vast majority of mentally handicapped people know that killing people is wrong. It's not a high bar to cross, really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
PT6A posted:...it's very possible they wouldn't have voluntarily entered treatment, and you cannot compel someone into treatment without a crime being committed. I don't know that playing Mr. Big for months, planning a terror attack, and repeatedly pushing the target to carry it out is necessarily the solution to this. PT6A posted:I'm still more liberal than I was, I just don't particularly care about a couple of terrorists (mentally handicapped or not) getting convicted of a crime, beyond the inordinate amount of resources that were spent on making it happen. You have to be quite the bleeding heart to think that people who literally wanted to blow up parliament shouldn't spend some time at the ol' government hotel, one way or the other. Except they didn't literally want to blow up Parliament until the RCMP put them up to it. They wanted to do something, yes. They had no coherent idea what, and absolutely no way of accomplishing it. infernal machines fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
You are and always will be the poster child for good old FYGM sociopathic conservatism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:You are and always will be the poster child for good old FYGM sociopathic conservatism. They wanted to blow up parliament and I'm the sociopath??? Are you loving kidding me? I'm starting to think this case is of particular concern to CanPol posters because evidently most of the people in this thread are mentally handicapped.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
PT6A posted:They wanted to blow up parliament and I'm the sociopath??? No, the RCMP wanted to blow up Parliament, by their own reports the couple mostly just wanted to get high and gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Except they didn't literally want to blow up Parliament until the RCMP put them up to it. They wanted to do something, yes. They had no coherent idea what, and absolutely no way of accomplishing it. I'm supposed to feel better solely because they only knew they wanted to kill people and destroy things, not which people/things they wished to target specifically? I'm not saying the RCMP operation was a good idea -- it seems like hilarious overkill -- but these wannabe terrorists are emphatically not the victims in this whole affair. The victims are the taxpayers who are footing the bill for this whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes. I think you're vastly overstating the amount of people who could be talked into bombing parliament, mentally unstable or otherwise. Unlike apparently some people here, I don't think that the average mentally ill person or drug addict can be talked into such a flagrantly terrible act as setting a bomb and trying to blow people up. I think you're vastly understating the number of people in Canada who are either stupid or vulnerable to the kind of persistent coercion that a couple of trained investigators can manage with a couple of million dollars backing them up. These are the same investigators who needed special rules to prevent them from talking the simpleminded and easily-intimidated into confessing to crimes they didn't commit, after all. A good Reid interviewer is a scary thing; I was awed by the guys I knew who could do it well because I was loving hopeless at it. Let's reduce this to an even more absurd situation and say that elderly people who are vulnerable to people phoning them up and telling them to mail their savings to Nigeria should all be incarcerated. e: Those two morons may not be victims but they should definitely be acquitted. flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
PT6A posted:people who literally wanted to blow up parliament PT6A posted:They wanted to blow up parliament PT6A posted:they wanted to kill people and destroy things Holy poo poo dude. They loving didn't. The RCMP wanted this, to "prove" that "terrorism" was a threat thus justifying the Harper government's bullshit, so they loving entrapped them and convinced two mentally handicapped individuals to want to do this. How can you not see how this is a problem?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Let's reduce this to an even more absurd situation and say that elderly people who are vulnerable to people phoning them up and telling them to mail their savings to Nigeria should all be incarcerated. No, but they should be protected from themselves. If they are mentally unfit to live alone, they should have access to an assisted living facility or some form of home-care, because they are a risk to themselves. These people, on the other hand, were both a risk to themselves, and by virtue of the fact that they saw no problem with blowing poo poo up and killing people, also a risk to the rest of society. Therefore, I have no problem with society being protected by having these fine simpletons removed from it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 19:14
|
|