Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[PointOfViewGun]

Because if this symbolic effort to put political pressure on Trudeau actually works, and the Proud Boys are formally designated as a terrorist entity in Canada, just being associated with the group could make someone a terrorist. The USG would have no legal mechanism to cooperate since US law does not criminalize ideology or charge someone with being a domestic terrorist. Even if the FBI could try and work around the fact that one of their informants is now considered the equivalent of Osama bin Laden in his home country, cooperation with the terrorist label has the potential to drive the group further underground, complicate efforts to monitor and prevent violence associated with them, and undermine aspects of the U.S. legal framework for counterterrorism investigations - basically, the label would probably backfire. The same thing was pointed out when Trump said he wanted to make Antifa a terror group.

Context matters. I doubt he'd be the first guy to have ties with a designated terror organization that collaborated with the FBI. This looks like overcomplicating the matters.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Context matters. I doubt he'd be the first guy to have ties with a designated terror organization that collaborated with the FBI. This looks like overcomplicating the matters.

Designating the Proud Boys as a terror group would indeed overcomplicate matters regardless of the FBI having terrorist informants. It doesn’t appear Canadian legislators took that into account though, since this effort is aimed at political priorities rather than counterterrorism.

[PointOfViewGun]

Designating the Proud Boys as a terror group would indeed overcomplicate matters regardless of the FBI having terrorist informants. It doesn’t appear Canadian legislators took that into account though, since this effort is aimed at political priorities rather than counterterrorism.

I was referring to your analysis. I doubt it makes anyone lose their sleep over. You seem to be creating an issue where there is none.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I was referring to your analysis. I doubt it makes anyone lose their sleep over. You seem to be creating an issue where there is none.

I’m merely highlighting the same issues with domestic terrorist designation raised by the FBI and other observers in the press and academia. You may personally not consider it worth mentioning, but that wouldn’t really be relevant to my “analysis.” The only way there wouldn’t be any real issue is if the effort to designate PB as a terror group is unsuccessful.

[PointOfViewGun]

I’m merely highlighting the same issues with domestic terrorist designation raised by the FBI and other observers in the press and academia. You may personally not consider it worth mentioning, but that wouldn’t really be relevant to my “analysis.” The only way there wouldn’t be any real issue is if the effort to designate PB as a terror group is unsuccessful.

Where did FBI or other observers raised this issue?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Where did FBI or other observers raised this issue?

Shortly after the House of Commons voted unanimously to call on the Trudeau government to identify the Proud Boys as a terrorist entity, Public Safety Minister Bill Blair said he'll listen to the intelligence collected by the country's security agencies before deciding on next steps.

The Canadian government has not said if the Proud Boys will be added to Canada's formal list of terrorist groups. Such a move would come with immediate ramifications for the group; financial institutions would freeze their assets and it would become a crime to knowingly deal with the group.

While the motion is non-binding, it has some national security experts troubled by what they see as the politicalization of the terror list.

"The issue I have is by including the call to list the Proud Boys, it is a call for the government to engage in a legal process and with a predetermined outcome," said Leah West, a former Department of Justice lawyer and now a national security professor at Carleton University.

"I tend to have issues with parliamentarians asking for certain criminal law effects to take place on individuals in the House of Commons. I think that there should be a separation between parliamentarians and a process that, in this case, is not a typical criminal law process but is a legal process that could have a criminal effect."

Jessica Davis, a former senior intelligence analyst with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service who now heads Insight Threat, called the vote "a pretty direct politicization of the process."

"All of these MPs should know better in terms of how the process actually works. It's been well-articulated. They have access to information about how these things happen," she said.

"This motion is meant, I guess, to put pressure on the government to list a group, but we don't even know yet if the group meets a technical threshold."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pro...rist-1.5888257

The FBI told Insider that it can't designate domestic terrorist groups, and membership in groups that have domestic extremist ideology is not illegal on its own.

"When it comes to domestic terrorism, our investigations focus solely on the criminal activity of individuals—regardless of group membership—that appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce the civilian population or influence the policy of the government by intimidation or coercion," an FBI spokesperson told Insider. "It's important to note that membership in groups which espouse domestic extremist ideology is not illegal in and of itself—no matter how offensive their views might be to the majority of society. Membership in a group is not a sufficient basis for an investigation."

While the US government, through the Secretary of State's office, can designate certain foreign organizations as terrorist groups, there is no pathway to do the same for domestic terror organizations, a DOJ spokesman told Insider.

"While the Department is committed to prosecuting acts of domestic terrorism, the United States government does not designate domestic organizations as domestic terrorist organizations in the same manner that we designate certain foreign organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations," spokesman Marc Raimondi told Insider. "The Secretary of State designates Foreign Terrorist Organizations in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended. No similar provision of law exists to designate domestic organizations."

https://www.insider.com/canada-is-co...ization-2021-1

[Love Mountain]

You have not given the impression that you consider traditional Spanish culture to be superior to South Korean culture, rather your posts continue to indicate that you consider yourself morally superior to South Koreans. There is no doubt that the "progressive" moral values to which you subscribe are culturally European in origin since their philosophical roots are well known.

You must know that different cultures have different values, since you see some as less advanced. The criteria for this appears to be that the more a culture's values differ from your own, the less advanced you deem them to be. Assuming that you don't believe that your values are derived from a high power, I'm curious why you believe your personal moral judgement is superior to that of South Koreans?

I suspect there is a bit of a language barrier preventing a productive conversation, but seeing as how I largely share makawa's view, I'll venture to answer for him.

Misogyny is backwards because it denies opportunity on the basis of cultural norms and preconceptions rather than an objective evaluation of any person's skills or abilities. This is, not only economically inefficient, but antithetical to universal values of equality. Of course there is nothing necessarily wrong with "traditional family roles" or a gender dominating a certain industry provided that everything is consensual.

[PointOfViewGun]

Legio_Italica, I don't see where in those two passages they even touch the subject of the guy being a former informer.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You really can't cover up making false claims with wise but unrelated quotes.

What false claim did I make? Are you really going to argue Tarrio wasn’t an informant for law enforcement?

[PointOfViewGun]

What false claim did I make? Are you really going to argue Tarrio wasn’t an informant for law enforcement?

That him being a former informer for FBI and Canada designating his organization makes it problematic for the authorities.

[Lord Thesaurian]

That him being a former informer for FBI and Canada designating his organization makes it problematic for the authorities.

I didn’t say Tarrio being an informant for law enforcement is problematic for authorities. I said this:

Because if this symbolic effort to put political pressure on Trudeau actually works, and the Proud Boys are formally designated as a terrorist entity in Canada, just being associated with the group could make someone a terrorist. The USG would have no legal mechanism to cooperate since US law does not criminalize ideology or charge someone with being a domestic terrorist. Even if the FBI could try and work around the fact that one of their informants is now considered the equivalent of Osama bin Laden in his home country, cooperation with the terrorist label has the potential to drive the group further underground, complicate efforts to monitor and prevent violence associated with them, and undermine aspects of the U.S. legal framework for counterterrorism investigations - basically, the label would probably backfire. The same thing was pointed out when Trump said he wanted to make Antifa a terror group.

Nothing I said here is false, and the FBI and Canadian authorities have highlighted problems posed by designating the group as a terrorist organization, contrary to your belief this is a non-issue and I’m making something out of nothing.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

YES!

The court convicted the defendant, Stephan Ernst, of the homicide of Luebcke in Hesse by shooting him on the night of June 1-2 2019.

“The accused was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Dr. Luebcke,” the Higher Regional Court in Frankfurt said on its official Twitter account.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g...-idUSKBN29X16F
https://www.dw.com/en/german-court-s...on/av-56366999

The Higher Regional Court also stated the particular severity of guilt of the defendant, which makes a parole after 15 years impossible.

Good, very good.

[PointOfViewGun]

I didn’t say Tarrio being an informant for law enforcement is problematic for authorities. I said this:
Nothing I said here is false, and the FBI and Canadian authorities have highlighted problems posed by designating the group as a terrorist organization, contrary to your belief this is a non-issue and I’m making something out of nothing.

So, basically, you're dropping the point about the guy being an informer. OK. Your initial point was the awkwardness that would present in case Canada designates Proud Boys as a terror organization. Let's not ignore that.

[Aexodus]

Well that's one of the nicer things to happen this week

[Lord Thesaurian]

So, basically, you're dropping the point about the guy being an informer. OK. Your initial point was the awkwardness that would present in case Canada designates Proud Boys as a terror organization. Let's not ignore that.

Not at all. It’s certainly awkward that an FBI informant is also the leader of a would be terror group, for obvious reasons, and the FBI wouldn’t have a domestic legal mechanism for corroborating that label. There’s no disputing that. Your claim was that the terrorist designation is a non-issue, and you suggested I was wrong to say the FBI and Canadian authorities have highlighted problems with the designation, contrary to public information. It’s ok you didn’t have any knowledge of the subject you’re disputing, but your lack of knowledge doesn’t make the subject a non-issue.

[PointOfViewGun]

Not at all. It’s certainly awkward that an FBI informant is also the leader of a would be terror group, for obvious reasons, and the FBI wouldn’t have a domestic legal mechanism for corroborating that label. There’s no disputing that. Your claim was that the terrorist designation is a non-issue, and you suggested I was wrong to say the FBI and Canadian authorities have highlighted problems with the designation, contrary to public information. It’s ok you didn’t have any knowledge of the subject you’re disputing, but your lack of knowledge doesn’t make the subject a non-issue.

Well, I'm disputing it, as you acknowledge it. So, there is a dispute over it. You seem to be trying to alter what I argued. The designation of Proud Boys as a terrorist group is a subject I made no comment on except on its relation to that guy being a former FBI informer. I don't really require much knowledge on this matter. You do, since you're making a material claim on it. I understand now that you have no substance to back up your claim that the guy being a former FBI informer creates an awkward situation in case the group is designated as a terror organization.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Well, I'm disputing it, as you acknowledge it. So, there is a dispute over it. You seem to be trying to alter what I argued. The designation of Proud Boys as a terrorist group is a subject I made no comment on except on its relation to that guy being a former FBI informer. I don't really require much knowledge on this matter. You do, since you're making a material claim on it. I understand now that you have no substance to back up your claim that the guy being a former FBI informer creates an awkward situation in case the group is designated as a terror organization.

You can dispute self evident facts if you like, but that doesn’t make facts into a claim. Also, I’ll consider your claim that the terror designation is a non issue to be dropped since you have no basis for that claim and it contradicts US and Canadian authorities and academics. As has been explained by the FBI and DOJ, the terror designation creates an awkward situation because the FBI has no legal mechanism for corroborating the terrorist label or prosecuting Proud Boys, including Tarrio, for membership in the group. Tarrio’s status as a current or former informant is being used in court in a bid to reduce his potential prison sentence in relation to criminal charges, none of which are terror related. It will certainly be awkward when the guy Canada would potentially consider a high level terrorist is walking free with no US terror related sanctions in a matter of months, and cannot be prosecuted simply for being a member by US authorities, in conflict with what would be Canadian law. You can pretend otherwise, but have no material basis for doing so, and your claim that the terror designation is a non-issue has been repeatedly debunked. I didn’t say Tarrio being an informant for law enforcement is problematic for authorities. That’s a strawman you latched onto after your claim was refuted. Running from an argument you started just makes whatever gotcha you set out to make with leading questions that went nowhere look that much more ridiculous.

[PointOfViewGun]

You can dispute self evident facts if you like, but that doesn’t make facts into a claim. Also, I’ll consider your claim that the terror designation is a non issue to be dropped since you have no basis for that claim and it contradicts US and Canadian authorities and academics. As has been explained by the FBI and DOJ, the terror designation creates an awkward situation because the FBI has no legal mechanism for corroborating the terrorist label or prosecuting Proud Boys, including Tarrio, for membership in the group. Tarrio’s status as a current or former informant is being used in court in a bid to reduce his potential prison sentence in relation to criminal charges, none of which are terror related. It will certainly be awkward when the guy Canada would potentially consider a high level terrorist is walking free with no US terror related sanctions in a matter of months, and cannot be prosecuted simply for being a member by US authorities, in conflict with what would be Canadian law. You can pretend otherwise, but have no material basis for doing so, and your claim that the terror designation is a non-issue has been repeatedly debunked. I didn’t say Tarrio being an informant for law enforcement is problematic for authorities. That’s a strawman you latched onto after your claim was refuted. Running from an argument you started just makes whatever gotcha you set out to make with leading questions that went nowhere look that much more ridiculous.

Care to quote me saying that terror designation by itself is a non-issue? You are trying to change what you claimed while also lying about what I said. Please don't do that. At least for something so obvious and simple such as this. There is no point.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Care to quote me saying that terror designation by itself is a non-issue? You are trying to change what you claimed while also lying about what I said. Please don't do that. At least for something so obvious and simple such as this. There is no point.

This is pure projection on your part. I didn’t claim Tarrio being an informant is problematic for authorities. I characterized indisputable facts as having the potential to create an awkward situation due to Tarrio’s prison sentence being reduced thanks to his status as a current or former informant, at the same time Canadian authorities would potentially consider him a fugitive terrorist, while US authorities would have no legal mechanism for corroborating that designation. Your attempts to construe that as a claim you can dispute have been unsuccessful, to say the least.

Designating the Proud Boys as a terror group would indeed overcomplicate matters regardless of the FBI having terrorist informants. It doesn’t appear Canadian legislators took that into account though, since this effort is aimed at political priorities rather than counterterrorism.

I was referring to your analysis. I doubt it makes anyone lose their sleep over. You seem to be creating an issue where there is none.

You were referring to this “analysis,” explained in direct response to your question about why the terrorist designation is awkward:

Because if this symbolic effort to put political pressure on Trudeau actually works, and the Proud Boys are formally designated as a terrorist entity in Canada, just being associated with the group could make someone a terrorist. The USG would have no legal mechanism to cooperate since US law does not criminalize ideology or charge someone with being a domestic terrorist. Even if the FBI could try and work around the fact that one of their informants is now considered the equivalent of Osama bin Laden in his home country, cooperation with the terrorist label has the potential to drive the group further underground, complicate efforts to monitor and prevent violence associated with them, and undermine aspects of the U.S. legal framework for counterterrorism investigations - basically, the label would probably backfire. The same thing was pointed out when Trump said he wanted to make Antifa a terror group.

[PointOfViewGun]

This is pure projection on your part. I didn’t claim Tarrio being an informant is problematic for authorities. I characterized indisputable facts as having the potential to create an awkward situation due to Tarrio’s prison sentence being reduced thanks to his status as a current or former informant, at the same time Canadian authorities would potentially consider him a fugitive terrorist, while US authorities would have no legal mechanism for corroborating that designation. Your attempts to construe that as a claim you can dispute have been unsuccessful, to say the least.
You were referring to this “analysis,” explained in direct response to your question about why the terrorist designation is awkward:

Sigh... I've never seen someone cherry pick their own words. This was your initial claim:

Enrique Tarrio, Hispanic leader of the “white supremacist” group Proud Boys, has reportedly been an undercover informant for law enforcement for years. This news comes as halfwit politicians in Canada passed legislation to designate the group as a terrorist organization. #Awkward

Your initial implication was that what made it awkward was that Canada wanted to designate Proud Boys as a terror group and that the leader of that group was a former FBI informer. Whether Canada wanting to designate them as a terror group being awkward or not in itself was never the issue. Clear now?