Any of you beancounting/game theory types fancy analysing this trend in the FBI's behaviour from an economic perspective? What is the driver or incentive for them to do this?
It's not so much an economic perspective as a political one, the government derives its power (and income) from the current federal reserve system, if something were to undermine this system the government would be left toothless and facing a very angry populace.
A full investigation of the banking system would cause credibility to be lost by the banks which would unravel the whole system as the fractional reserve system collapses. Thus the government needs to remove credibility from those who pose a threat to this system.
As to why white supremacists aren't targeted, white supremacists don't pose any fundamental threat to the banks or to power because their ideas are unpopular, occupy touches upon an angry thread running through the country that the average person cannot get ahead. Threads like these unseat governments, an unseated government cannot prevent an investigation into the banks.
It's not simply a political factor (although it mostly is.) This has nothing to do with the Fed (which I believe should be done away with.) The powers the USG use to go after groups that potentially threaten it existed before 1913 (even though more powers have been added since then.) The Fed has nothing to do what so ever with this discussion.
I misunderstood your comment then (my apologies for down voting it then.) My best guess is that there are probably a number of reasons why the Feds are targeting specific groups.
It could be as simple as the Occupy movement represents a target rich environment.
This doesn't explain why they keep doing it to muslims who don't care about the fed, or at least dont care about it any more than any other aspect of US culture.
I meant economic in more of a generalised "freakonomics" sense.
+1 that is a great point about the occupy movement. The level of violence against who I think are largely law-abiding protestors has surprised me. It seems like we are quickly becoming a different sort of country.
The incentive is the same with any law enforcement agency, arrests & convictions. The number of arrests & convictions is how all law enforcement agencies are judged; the more you the better you are.
But why this tactic particularly? Why not go after actual dangerous groups?
Are you implying that there aren't enough of these groups to justify their budget, so they have to invent them? This is indeed the obvious conclusion. I was wondering if anyone with more knowledge of the specifics could dream up something more juicy...
It's easier for the FBI to arrest a terrorist that they have been involved with the whole time than to catch a terrorist who is actually hiding from law enforcement.
How about it raises the costs of coordinating a conspiracy - it signals to other protest groups that if someone starts suggesting violence, you should decline because they might be an agent. That could then prevent violence in cases where no undercover agents have infiltrated the group.
I still think the tactic is unethical, but this is one way it could be effective.
The incentive is more legal than economic. Everything terrorists do is within the law until they take the specific act of trying to kill people. Joining a terrorist organization is not illegal. Recruiting people into a terrorist organization is not illegal. Speaking out in support of a terrorist organization is not illegal. Wanting to kill innocent people because they're the wrong race or religion and talking about it day after day after day is not illegal. There are good reasons for this.
So basically, nothing that terrorists do is illegal until they actually go out and try to kill someone. The FBI can use a person's history of lawful activities to find people who match the profile of someone who is highly likely to commit a terrorist act in the near future and offer them a fake bomb and a ride to the nearest synagogue. When that person pushes the button, that establishes the intent to commit a crime. It's no different than going up to a guy the police think is a drug dealer -- because of the clothes and the way he acts and other lawful activities -- and asking if he'll sell them any drugs. It's not entrapment unless the police really screw up their approach.
As for the economics, consider the alternatives. Waiting to see if the terrorist would use a real bomb carries a high risk, and the terrorist would be less likely to be convicted than in the case of a FBI-provided fake bomb. The court system has exonerated terrorists with strong evidence against them like Sayyid Nosair and Sami al-Arian because they claimed to have been oppressed and persecuted for being Muslims and found sympathetic juries. The fake bomb plots with their careful establishment of identity, motive, and criminal action have all gained convictions.
