Raisethefist.com Update 467
d33l0w3 writes: "It looks like Sherman Austin is off the hook for now. For those of you who missed the previous slashdot posting, Sherman was arrested on Feb. 2 for the contents of his website raisethefist.com. This comes as more of a surprise than the FBI raid on his house." Just a couple of days ago, the government was planning to transfer him to California to face charges there, but now according to Newsbytes, those have been dropped. Read that link I just gave - there's quite a lot of interesting information that came out during the hearing. The attorney's concern about Austin being jacked around in "detention" for an indefinite period of time says a great deal about our judicial system.
Freedom of Speech is an absolute. (Score:3, Interesting)
In this case, it looks like there's a possiblity that he may have committed crimes... real crimes... such as vandalising websites.
Everything else, posting bomb-making instructions, advocating the overthrow of the government, should be *strictly* protected speech under the 1st Amendment.
Re:Freedom of Speech is an absolute. (Score:5, Informative)
Per my (IANAL) reading of 18 USC 842(p) they would have to prove his intent and or knowledge in publishing the information; that can be tricky to prove in court and may be part of why they dropped the charges.
It's always interesting to read the actual law when it gets cited in cases like this -- it really strips away the media bullshit. http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm [house.gov] is a good online resource...
Re:Freedom of Speech is an absolute. (Score:2, Informative)
http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm [house.gov] is a good online resource...
This one [cornell.edu] is better because it lets you browse the entire USC and drill down through Titles and Sections as needed. Very helpful if you don't know exactly what you're looking for.
Re:Freedom of Speech is an absolute. (Score:2)
This whole fiasco stinks of entrapment. According to the document, they waited about 10 days between his home searching for him to go to NY and do some damage. I think they were pretty let-down when they found he had no weaponry with him and wasn't going to bomb anything. I think they were giving him enough rope to hang himself with (i.e. letting him think he's off the hook and watching him closely). I bet this guy couldn't fart for the next ten years without a spook smelling it.
Basically he hadn't really done anything serious and they were watching and waiting for him to seriously screw up. He didn't.
Re:Freedom of Speech is an absolute. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. And before everyone posts 'It's not legal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre,' I'll justify your statement. The theatre yell directly harms people by the act itself. The speech aspect is secondary. On the other hand, when dealing with instructions for committing illegal activities, the speech is primary. And we assume the harm will be carried out by readers, who will then go on to commit crimes.
But the speech acts as an enabler, so we should outlaw it, right? The problem becomes deciding which instructions for illegal activities should not be allowed. Fine, everyone agrees that bomb-making instructions are bad. But what about civil disobedience instructions? What about instructions for breaking an encryption? What about instructions for hiding money from the government? Which will we allow and which will we not?
The entire concept of the First Ammendment is that the government will never have the chance to make any of those decisions. The protection works by fencing off a whole area of public life from legislation. Sure, everyone could think of one or two laws that would improve society, but it is not worth tearing down the fence to do it.
You're missing the critical point. (Score:5, Insightful)
The critical point is that somehing that is violent in nature is prohibited. Look at your examples. Civil disobediance instructions are one thing. I'm assuming you're refering to tactics used by Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ghandi. Those aren't a problem, per se, and I doubt you would see a government agency trying to curb those type of instructions. Encryption is a diffucult issue, and I'm not going to dwell upon it, because that is a large can of worms in itself. Hiding money must be illegal, or you will have half the jackasses in the country not filing tax returns for "political beliefs", or some such bullshit.
What I really take issue with is when someone implies or says that everything should be protected, due to that fact that the judgement of others may be incorrect or go too far. Well, welcome to a democracy, Bub. It's easy to sit there like an armchair quarterback and cry "foul" whenever the line is crossed. Yes, there will be mistakes and problems. Laws written by people and enforced by people always will be, by definition, imperfect. But to suggest that teaching people to engage in patently illegal, and especially dangerous, activites should be protected is BS. What if the government did nothing to stop it? Morons who want to build bombs or chemical weapons because they don't like the government ought to have easy access to this information? Is that really what you're suggesting? Think about it: That information is provided for a reason. This idiot kid wasn't putting up bomb instructions because he thought it would be a good thing for someone to know if the question ever came up in Trivial Pursuit. He wants to see the violent overthrow of the government. I know, hell, let's let them. Let the overthrow the government, and if we don't like it, then we can overthrow that one. And so on and so forth, until we plunge into total anarchy.
Don't get me wrong, I think free speach is one of the most vital of our rights. But don't sit there and say that hard judgements and tough calls shouldn't be made, simply beacuse you fear the results. If you're really worried about it, join the FBI or the Justice Department and then someday you can be the one making the tough calls. Although, I suspect you'd end up explaining to a roomfull of reporters why a 6th-grader made mustard gas and unleashed it at his school with instrutions he downloaded from a website you didn't want to shut down. Your arguments are good ones, but you're not thinking to the next step: consequences. Thanks.
Re:You're missing the critical point. (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as I'd like to be in control of a police state...
American democracy is sucessful because it is not a pure democracy. (And I'll avoid repeating Goldwater's now cliched statement because it annoys me to hear people misuse it, even if it is true.) Our constitution limits democracy incredibly. One of the limitations is the First Ammendment. We, the People, cannot, even through our elected representatives make laws to limit speech. (Well, 3/4 of the states could by ammending the constitution, but we couldn't by simple majority.) That violent speech distinction that you spoke of is not in the constitution. And once we feel free to ammend or ignore parts of the First Ammendment whenever we feel like it, it isn't much of a guarantee anymore. Re-read the last paragraph of my post to which you replied.
Re:You're missing the critical point. (Score:2)
October l9, l960... Martin Luther King is jailed after being arrested at a sit-in at a lunch counter in Atlanta.
April l2, l963... Martin Luther King is arrested and jailed (for the thirteenth time) during a march in Birmingham, Alabama.
March, l965... Martin Luther King and the SCLC begin a voter registration campaign in Alabama. Civil rights protesters attempting to march from Selma, Alabama, to Montgomery, Alabama, are beaten by state patrolmen.
As for Ghandi
November 1913 Third satyagraha campaign begun by leading great march of 2,000 Indian miners from Newcastle across Transvaal border in Natal. Arrested three times in four days (at Palmford, Standerton, and Teakworth) and sentenced at Dundee to nine months imprisonment; tried at Volksrust in second trial and sentenced to three months imprisonment with his European co-workers, Polak and Kallenbach. Imprisoned in Volksrust jail for a few days and then taken to Bloemfontein in Orange Free State.
Amongst others...
Re:You're missing the critical point. (Score:2)
Re:You're missing the critical point. (Score:3, Interesting)
This basically says that the purpose of the United States government is to protect it's citizens.
When this twit decided to make bomb-making instructions available to anyone, regardless of how irresponsible they are, he was just trying to find someone else to blow up public buildings because he was too afraid to. Allowing people to do this in no way "promotes the general welfare." It only increases the likelihood of innocents being killed.
Re:You're missing the critical point. (Score:2)
Personally, I think we should reconsider what we as a society need and want from our government rather than accepting on faith that the Constitution is the best possible charter of government. As it is so often noted, Thomas Jefferson thought future generations would do this.
still not right. (Score:2, Informative)
The moron had a molotov cocktail in his car, along with a gas mask and shield, after he stated pretty clearly on his website what he intended to do with it.
The fact is, he promised or at the very least inferred that he was going to commit a violent act. The website is just testimony to that fact, it's not a freedom of speech issue.
Ctimes2
Re:Freedom of Speech is an absolute. (Score:2)
Aren't theatres subject to fire codes? What is the point of the signs that say "Maximum Occupancy X People"? I suppose that a theatre should be able to take civil action against someone who disrupts their operations if it costs them money. However, if yelling "Fire" would actually cause people to get hurt then the local fire marshall isn't doing his/her job.
Public buildings are supposed to have adequate exits such that everyone can get out safely in the event of a real fire. I don't see why someone yelling fire falsely would provoke more panic than a real fire. I've always thought this "yelling fire in a theatre" line was a red herring in the whole free speech discussion.
Re:Freedom of Speech is an absolute. (Score:2)
Is it really illegal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, and if so, why?
Yes, it is. When you do this, the obvious result is that the people stampede the exits, possibly crushing each other on the way you - you are inciting a riot.
Re:Freedom of Speech is an absolute. (Score:2)
Re:Freedom of Speech is an absolute. (Score:2)
Try yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Report back to us what happens when you do.
Probably the only thing that's absolute is that there are no absolutes. For instance, just because I'm an advocate of the individual right to keep and bear arms as provided in the Second Amendment, that doesn't mean that I think convicted felons or the mentally incompetent should be able to possess firearms. Likewise, if you put up a website that advocates violence or armed revolt, you can expect to be bitchslapped by the authorities. Hard.
Re:Freedom of Speech is an absolute. (Score:2)
-jon
What is that great deal? (Score:2)
What does it say about our judicial system, exactly? And how is the following (from the government's lawyer) 'jacking around'?
Re:What is that great deal? (Score:2)
Re:What is that great deal? (Score:2)
Wrong quote! (Score:2)
to which the prosecution, Mr. Hou, replies (in part):
HOU: The conjecture that somehow this defendant will end up in Oklahoma City in a county jail where those folks there have obviously
suffered great harm is ridiculous, quite frankly.
THE COURT: Mr. Hou, I believe that the practice used to be, when a -- that the marshals on Rule 40 cases and on removal cases,
that inmates -- or that detainees were brought to a hub, that all of them throughout the country were brought to a hub, and then from
that hub sent to their respective destinations. Is that still the case, do you know?
MR. HOU: That's my understanding, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And do you know where that hub is?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER (m): It's El Reno, Your Honor.
MR. HOU: I have no information about that.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: El Reno is in Oklahoma, Judge.
MR. HOU: I have no information.
MR. HOU: But, Your Honor, we could make special arrangements --
THE COURT: No, that's all right.
MR. HOU: -- for this defendant to be shipped forthwith to California. I don't believe -- I believe that there are direct flights, non-stop
flights, between New York and California.
But of course later on, we read in the Newsbyte story that he was in custody for almost 2 weeks now, and he did, in fact, go to Oklahoma, and will only be realeased in the "near future".
Now, unlike his treatment in New York (no calls, no heating, no clothes for 4 days) he didn't report any mistreatment in OK, but you have to treat the govt's assertions as disingenous. Please read the transcript on cryptome.
Free Speech my ... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Austin allegedly defaced at least five commercial Web sites since 1999 using the nickname "Ucaun." On three of the sites, Austin left behind a hacking program named troop.cgi that was designed to attempt to log in to a computer operated by the U.S. Army, the FBI affidavit stated.
In the interview, Austin acknowledged that he vandalized the Web sites and that he knew it was illegal to do so. " -newsbytes
book him! He was not busted for his anti-american website he was raided cause he's a stupid script kidde. I love how they throw some guy who lives in another country, with a wife and a family living under rules that makes what he does NOT illegal, giving a speech in America in jail and makes him an example but lets this little punk off.
Re:Free Speech my ... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the FBI really had found fertilizer in his car and Molotov cocktails in his apartment, as they claimed, do you think they'd be letting him go?
Re:Free Speech my ... (Score:2)
That's what they did to my uncle who used his chemistry degree to make "the finest drug lab" according to the state marshals. He declared his right to make drugs was religious freedom and that he was a "scientist." Uh huh. Well, the EPA, FBI, and the DEA made the trip again several months later and it looked pretty sad that he had set up his glassware shop and fresh drugs again. He now practices religion with his court ordered gold membership in the Leavenworth Country Club. Society doesn't miss him.
what about hacking charges? (Score:2)
*growl*
someone please paste article...
Is this a Michael story? (Score:5, Insightful)
Raisethefist was an idiot anarchist website advocating the violent overthrowing of the US Gov't. Therefore, defending this punk is foolish. However, he wasn't raided because of the website. Freedom of expression rights remain intact.
He was raided because he hacked into a number of US government webpages, replacing their front pages with a pointer to his own website. The government agents were heavily armed due to his presented stance on raisethefist. Hell, if it takes assault rifles to retrieve little Elian, it obviously takes a LOT of assault rifles to raid a soi-disant violent anarchist.
Really, now. Are probable 18 year old script kiddies really worth our time?
Re:Is this a Michael story? (Score:5, Interesting)
For one thing, not all anarchists are out building bombs and assassinating archdukes. Anarchism is not idiocy. It may not be viable, because it presumes that people will act as mature adults. But it does provide a useful counterpoint to the totalitarian police state that the U.S. is becoming.
Why is it foolish to defend someone's right to advocate violent overthrow of the government? Isn't that exactly what was advocated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence? Is the current government of the U.S., led by a President whose election was of questionable legitimacy, any more overbearing, unresponsive, and corrupt than that of George III?
Re:Is this a Michael story? (Score:2, Insightful)
Anarchism is not idiocy
Well, it is. And it's also the privilege of the middle class to pretend (a) that they know what it is and (b) that they would like it if they lived in one. It's something that most people grow out of.
Re:Is this a Michael story? (Score:2)
The first part of your statement canecels out the last part. A representive democracy is a crock of shit, no one is represented in a proper way. Everyone votes and a few assholes make the decsion. That isn't a true democracy, its america baby!
Re:Is this a Michael story? (Score:2)
All your ranting about monied interests in Washington D.C., and you think that Washington D.C. will solve the problem?
Do you actually believe that the Campaign Finance Reform bill with make one goddamn bit of difference? Why on earth would you think that, seeing as we already operate under previously passed campaign finance reform laws? Or do you think a $1000 limit on individual contributions and the FEC were penciled on the back of the Constitution?
The last bunch of "reform" laws passed gave the two-party system a virtual lock on every election since. You wanna know why Nader/Browne/other third-party candidates don't get any traction? They are forced to operate under the last bunch of "reform" laws that make it hard as hell to get a leg up on the monied major parties (unless you've got an ass full of cash like Perot).
Stop beating this dead horse. You want to *eliminate* corruption at the highest levels? Take the power away from the highest levels. That is the only way. Another layer of "reform" laws will only serve to entrench those in power now.
You "reformists" crack me up...
Re:Is this a Michael story? (Score:2)
IMO, yes, they are worth our time because if we don't influence them now while they are young, they will grow up to cause even more damage.
If parents would try harder to properly raise their children, a lot of our social problems would go away. Until then, we, as society, must strive to properly influence the "bad" kids.
What petroleum products, specifically? (Score:5, Funny)
>
>12 MR. HOU: There were two Molotov cocktails that were in various states of finality. There was one which actually had the wick in it, I understand, from the FBI agent, and it was tested. The materials were tested to determine what was inside, and it was later determined -- the FBI determined that it did contain petroleum products.
Note that they don't specify which petroleum products were used.
With a name like "raisethefist", it could have been "petroleum jelly". Exactly what that petroleum product would be doing on a bottle is left as an exercise for the goatse.cx guy.
So he (ahem :) got off. He's still a skr1pt k1dd13. A lucky skr1pt k1dd13, probably the luckiest skr1pt k1dd13 on the planet, and a hell of a lot luckier than he has any right to be. But a skr1pt k1dd13 nonetheless.
Re:What petroleum products, specifically? (Score:2, Interesting)
What about Special Edition crown royal that is wrapped in cloth, can that be considered unlicensed molotov cocktail in late stage of development since alcohol is flamable?
Biggest Molotov cocktail to date: Boeing 737 and the people that used it are still at large
No 737s on September 11, 2001 (Score:2)
September 11, 2001 [howstuffworks.com] involved 2 Boeing 767s and 2 Beoing 757s.
The news media said the terrorist likely used 757s and 767s since the training for them is similar.
Freedom of Speech, and threats against Olympics (Score:3, Interesting)
There are ten ammendments in the Bill of Rights (Score:4, Insightful)
Please note that 'arms' is a generically unlimited term. The current focus on guns is a bit of legal slight of hand. Here in NY state I can walk down Main Street with a rifle and I am in within my legal rights, but the *possesion* of a wrist braced *slingshot* is a felony. This is unconstitutional, but who has the 10 years and $50K to fight it?
One also might wonder just how one goes about 'regeistering' a Molotov cocktail with the
FBI.
Comes to that, my local supermarket is crammed full of petroleum products and explosive devices.
What are they going to do next, ban exothermic chemical reactions?
KFG
Re:Freedom of Speech, and threats against Olympics (Score:3, Informative)
all of which was in question by the defendants attorny, and from reading it, I doubt they existed.
Oh, and If I was going to a protest, I'd bring a gas mask.
It seems to me YOU didn't read the court report.
Why this again? (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy should be slammed. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a distinct difference.
If everyone who ever said "I'll kill you" was guilty of murder we'd all be on death row.
Possesion of petroleum products would also see most of us behind bars.
Most of us have never defaced a website with malice aforethought.
He ought to get bitchslapped for that. Yes. And hard. Like. .
KFG
Re:Why this again? (Score:3, Insightful)
The kid should get whatever he deserves under the law, within the limits of what's left of the Constitution -- I don't think anyone can make a serious argument against that. However, it would be equally difficult to make a serious argument that this isn't just grandstanding on the part of the Federal government, taking advantage of the public's bin Laden-induced cerebral paralysis to persecute anyone they can get away with while no one's too concerned about civil liberties. A parallel could be drawn to the John Walker Lindh case, where an individual who is arguably pledged allegiance to and is a citizen of Afghanistan is being tried for treason as an American citizen.
It's actually fascinating to see Americans, who have for fifty years chafed under political movements aimed at suppressing all forms of public hatred, suddenly unleash all that pent up nastiness on Moslems, Arabs, random nutballs (like this guy), and legitimate domestic dissidents as soon as something like 9/11 makes them feel like they have an excuse to behave like inbred, semiliterate rednecks with a cross to burn. I don't suppose it should be any great surprise to see the beast that lies under the thin veneer of civilization, but I always thought it would take a deeper scratch.
I wonder how long before we have something like Orwell's "Five Minutes Hate" for Goldsteinism. Oh wait -- that's CNN.
Re:Why this again? (Score:2)
we even were ready to give money to the Taliban before 911 happened
Wrong. We gave money to aid groups. In fact, the US was (and is) the largest donor of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan (pledges from other countries don't count until the money, food, and/or medicine is actually delivered). No US aid went to the Taliban, as the US (and the rest of the world except for Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the UAE) did not recognize it as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
We support Israel (a government based upon a religion), even when most of the international community in the UN has shown and documented that Israel is wrong in acting unilaterally. The US government, does things in the interest of money and resources like oil.
Israel is a democracy which is the homeland of the Jews. You can be a citizen of Israel and observe any religion you want, or none at all. This is in contrast to, say, Saudi Arabia, where being Jewish is illegal. The difference is that Israel is the homeland of Jews (only Jew haters seem to forget this tidbit), and any Jew gets automatic citizenship. Non-Jews (who make up over 20% of the population) can vote, hold public office, and do all of the things that other democracies allow.
How is Israel acting "unilaterally" a bad thing? Do the Spanish need to ask for permission from the UN when arresting Basque separatists? Did the US ask for permission from, say, Sweeden, before conquering the North American continent? Or does asking permission only apply to Jews? Christians and Moslems and Communists can do whatever they feel like to anyone else, but if a Jew decides to defend his homeland, he's a criminal who can't act without permission from the UN.
This is the same UN, by the way, which sponsored an "anti-racism" conference, complete with handouts of Jews with fangs, drinking blood from Arabs. Forums denouncing Jew hatred were shouted down.
The European and Arab countries from whom you think Israel needs to ask permission are the same ones that spent the last 2,000 years alternating between humiliating and exterminating their Jewish populations. For some reason, it doesn't seem too likely that Jews should give much of a shit what anyone in Europe or the Middle East has to say about what Jews do and don't do.
Finally, explain how US support of Israel helps the US obtain more oil.
By the way, Chomsky is a well-documented liar. He has made up quotes from other people to support his own highly wacky positions. You should read some David Horowitz and Andrew Sullivan.
To defeat terrorism would require a better more authorative world government
That's a highly scary thought. I bet under your world government, we're just going to solve all these problems that breed terrorism by forcing people to, say, give medical care for free, or build housing for free, or provide food for free. Sounds like slavery to me, personally. If you want to run around and take care of the poor and downtrodden, go do it yourself and leave me alone.
-jon
Cry me a river... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately, they're only dropping the charge of posting explosives information (which is a crock, and definately a violation of his free speech rights), but hopefully they'll still send him up the river for his defacement of corporate websites. If I spray paint "Flander's sucks" on my neighbors house, I'm either going to pay a fine or go to jail. Same goes for someone's website. Of course, I wouldn't expect a "self-described" anarchist to give a damn about individual property rights.
May I suggest (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:May I suggest (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems to me this script kiddie is an idiot and should be tried and convicted of defacing the property of others.
Seems to me also, that the prosecutor and FBI agent in this court hearing are not all that concerned with his real crimes. They want to whip everyone into a frenzy about his intentions to blow up stuff, even though, as near as I can tell from the transcript, most of it they presented was wildly exaggerated or outright fabricated.
Typical. If they really thought he was as dangerous as they now are claiming, why wasn't he arrested when the executed their search warrant?
Don't misunderstand. I have no desire to defend the tripe on his website. But I don't see an idiot-exclusion clause in the First Amendment.
Too Bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone else find it just a little ironic that this loser is using the Internet (created by government, propagated by corporations), to spew anti-government and anti-corporate rhetoric?
Re:Too Bad (Score:2)
Who mods this crap up?
Web defacement is NOT justification for prison rape. Prison rape is an unconscionable atrocity.
You may not like the guy, but even in an eye for an eye system you don't rape someone for defacing a web site. Get a soul.
Re:Too Bad (Score:2)
Radical anarchists (Score:2, Insightful)
On February 3rd of this year, the New York Times had a picture of a teen with grungy clothes and long hair being arrested for inciting an out-of-control protest at the WEF. That teen, Chris Villanella, used to attend my middle school. Back in 8th grade, he was your everyday dirty hippie in the making. Because of his poor grades and general misdemeanor, he was to leave the school in 9th grade. Eventually, he became a habitual drug user, was kicked out of his home, and somehow ended up as the leader of an anarchist 'black block' protesting at the WEF.
Though he says that the protest was completely peaceful and lawful, he marched his 'block' (mob?) with 20 riot shields, obviously disturbing the police forces there. After his block was broken up and he after he was placed under arrest, he was detained with his comrades in a filthy bus. After about 24 hours, they started rocking the bus, breaking windows, and causing general havoc. He was later moved to jail, and was eventually rescued by his parents (after they saw him on the front cover of the newspaper).
Of course, now he thinks that he's some sort of fucking hero who endured the oppression of our totalitarian government. He and his cell-mates are going to write a collective essay on their experiences. Considering that they haven't had one full year of high school combined, I can only imagine what kind of tripe they'll be pushing.
I see the Raisethefist guy in the same light. Fine, he's some guy running a webserver with anarchist material directing against the Feds. Now that he's been detained for 'absolutely no reason', he'll try to put all the blame on the Big Bad Government. Anyone else see why this is *really* lame?
I don't like anarchism, but anarchists are even fucking worse.
Mod this Moron Down! (Score:5, Informative)
Are radical anarchists all alike?
Surely you are too busy poking fun at your former high school classmates to attempt to understand where anarchist ideas of society are comming from. Try reading Chomsky [spunk.org], Emma Goldman [tripod.com], or Anarchist People of Color [illegalvoices.org]. These voices will probably expand your view of anarchy more than the image of your classmate. (By the way, what the hell were you doing in 9th grade cool guy? Were you the like Emilio Estevez in the Breakfast Club? Maybe you were like the Fonz? Naw, you were probably pimply and obnoxious, like everybody else that age!)
I attended the WEF protests and I can say (with much video to back this up) that it in no way was it out-of-control. In fact the police were acting in a completely unconstitutional manner, harassing the peaceful demonstrators (check out a Village Voice story about it here [villagevoice.com]). Those people who were arrested at the Saturday were arrested because they were carrying toy police equipment, not because they were doing anything illegal. I think the police thought that the plastic Toys-R-Us batons were going to be used for terrorism or something.
By the way, if you knew anything about the WEF I am sure you would think twice about attending a protest against this unregulated group of businessmen. WEF members include BP Amoco, Exxon and Nike.
Here is a blurb I found about BP Amoco:
In addition to economically destroying the social structure of this once agriculture based society, BP financially supports the Colombian military which is notorious for its human rights abuses. Since 1987, 35,000 noncombatants have been murdered or 'disappeared' primarily by the BP backed military and its paramilitary allies. In 1997, BP admitted that it has provided the Colombian Ministry of Defense with $8 million.
And Nike?:
Nike pays workers less than $2 per day - an amount which is often significantly below a living wage.
Get a clue dude. Who cares if your friend was dirty in 9th grade. You were probably picked on too. Fight some real battles, against jerk-offs like the WEF members. For more info about the WEF read this article [anotherwor...ssible.com].
Re:Mod this Moron Down! (Score:2)
Yes. You are all alike. You all read fucking Chomsky.
God, are you all so desperate for acceptance that you'd subscribe to a lunatic's ravings just to belong to a group?
The only thing worse than Chomsky fanboys will be the Chomsky fanboys after he goes Tango Uniform. You addled idiots will never believe he choked on a fish bone, or whatever happens to make him assume room temperature. He'll be martyred in abstentia of facts. You'll be fucking insufferable then.
I have do have a job... (Score:2, Interesting)
I work for an organization that attempts to solve the problem of world hunger. I work my but off every day to try to contribute to the understanding of food rights and food security through research and media outreach. There are 850 million people in the world who do not get enough calories to sustain their daily activities.
Prior to my employment at my current job, I worked as a technician at the USDA, in a food safety lab, attempting to curb the rampant spread of E. Coli, Campylbacter, and Salmonella, which is propagated in no small part by huge, unregulated meat industry companies.
What do you do?
The video camera I used was indeed made by a corporation, but I have to decide between using it and having no witness to possible police violence. I always take a camera with me because the police often violate demonstrators' civil rights, and I need to have a record of their actions (they are our police, after all).
Having a camera doesn't always help. At the most recent demonstrations outside the Democratic Convention last year, the LAPD would round up people's backpacks and cameras, throw them into garbage trucks, and crush the protestors property into dust. The police, however, will always stand guard outside NikeTown and Starbucks, companies who both contribute to terrible labor rights violations (Nike: buys shoes from manufacturers who pay crap wages, Starbucks: buys coffee beans from producers who pay workers crap wages).
I wasn't born with a silver-spoon in my mouth, I share a studio in the bay area cause it is so expensive to rent. By the way, the camera is owned by a non-profit org that allows mant people to use it. It is not centrally owned. It was also used to make a documentary about the Cesar Chavez Holiday in CA.
What did you say you do again?
Re:Radical anarchists (Score:4, Insightful)
You ever stop to think why the bus was filthy, given that it was filled with dozens of protestors that were not allowed to use a toilet for at least 24 hours, never mind how many hours since before they were arrested.
As for rocking the bus and breaking windows. Here in Seattle during the WTO protests, at least one bus full of bound protestors got the pepper-spray and tear-gas treatment. If you were in that situation, you'd be trying to kick some windows out pretty fast.
I notice nowhere in your post did you say that this guy was ever convicted of anything. As for him claiming about being detained for "absolutely no reason", did they ever even file charges against him? Here in Seattle, most of the hundreds of people arrested never had charges filed against them. You might say if you are arrested, that the charge against you is the "reason" you were arrested. If there is no charge, then, legally, there isn't much a reason, is there?
Some would say being a dirty hippy and disagreeing with the government is reason enough to arrest someone, I'd hate to jump to conclusions about your particular political ideology, though.
Re:Radical anarchists (Score:2)
But you do it so well. Really, you have no idea what you're talking about. What, one guy you know from middle school? Give me a break. I know about six or seven people who went to the WEF; three were arrested.
One of my friends that was arrested was for unlawful conduct, loitering (yes, loitering), and unlawful assembley--at a permitted march. I will rephrase that for clarity: he was arrested for unlawful assembley at a permitted march. The cops targeted the group of people he was with--anarchists. They weren't doing anything, just marching.
This friend was actually in jail with Sherman, who was released without any charges--and was promptly picked up by the Feds.
Oh, and this friend of mine has a masters in Geology, and is working on his doctorate in history of science and technology.
But hey, they're all the same, so it doesn't matter.
Re:Radical anarchists (Score:2)
Which means he can what, write encyclopedia articles? Having a doctorate in a bullshit topic isn't proof of anything other than there being too much money available for college scholarships.
-jon
Re:Radical anarchists (Score:2)
Study of the "history of science" is bullshit. You do no actual science, and your focus on history is so narrow that you've missed the forest for the trees. You don't actually understand your topic, but you have an opinion on it. It's like being a physics groupie. Or, perhaps more accurately, a Luddite.
-jon
Re:Radical anarchists (Score:2)
"I hate to make generalizations, but these radical anarchist types are all alike. "
Yeah like the radical anarchists who founded the united states of america. You hate to make generalizations yet you do so because you know ONE person who you have some beef with.
You know, protesting, and preparing for being assaulted because of the protesting (carrying shields) is not illegal nor is it a sign of anything more then wanting to have your voice heard despite the physical danger inherent in speaking up.
I dont know enough about this kid or his intentions but I do know that from the court record of this particular hearing, he was being held based on his practicing his first ammendmant rights. The judge used the statements on his web page to make that decision, not any of the evidence presented by the fbi. Of course, I don't think that the first ammendmant exactly applies in this hearing since it was not a trial, it was simply a hearing to determine this fitness of the accused to abide by a court order. And his statements made on the web page are decidedly against this.
However do not judge a person based on some stereotype you have in your head based on VERY limited experience in this matter. If it weren't for people doing similar things to what you find so abhorant, we'd still be a british colony.
Evidence of government incompetence (Score:5, Insightful)
2. They can't tell wires, a gas can and duct tape from implements of mass destruction.
3. They can't transport a suspect across the country in less than six weeks - not only could he beat that with a car, he could beat it with a bicycle for Pete's sake.
4. They can't arrange a change of clothes or a shower for a prisoner in four days.
5. They can't tell a snotty mouthy kid from a terrorist.
But don't worry - we're safe because these people are protecting us. Hah. And don't worry about them violating your civil liberties - these clowns couldn't organize a drunken party in a beer factory.
Your tax dollars at work. Sheeesh.
Is there really free speech? (Score:2, Interesting)
Every time one of these web site related cases arises it's as if the ideas of free speech and first amendment rights are evolving into nothing more than an illusion which, when extrapolated further, could also describe American democracy itself.
I'm not anti-american by any means, i'm just saying people need to give these kinds of issues more attention.
Cached Site (Score:2)
[archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20011218062013/www.r
Confessions of a Teenage Hacker (Score:2)
C'mon slashdot, this guy cracked into computer systems. He's in an unfairly prosecuted fringe group, but he also broke into other people's computers, that makes him a criminal.
Of course, the FBI probably overdid it, and we absolutely NEED anarchists and the like to make sure the first amendment remains in effect, especially now after Sept.11. I hope his site was mirrored someplace, and ten new versions popped up for the one they took down.
But I can't feel sorry for him. And I really don't know why /. thinks this is news, either way.
No censorship on Slashdot (Score:2, Interesting)
Further, it is ironic that the poster of this story, Michael Sims, has been accused by his former partner in running censorware.org, of effectively censoring [sethf.com] that website because people questioned his authority and he happened to control the domain (which he still does, censorware have been forced to set up shop at censorware.net because Sims is still squatting on censorware.org).
The Slashdot editors seem to believe that they are justified in censoring comments which users clearly want to see (as shown by positive user moderation), and if anyone doesn't like it, they should go somewhere else.
Of course, they are right, but their attitude suggests that they believe they are what are valuable about this website, not the users who share their knowledge and opinions in these forums.
Is this comment "off topic"? I challenge the editors to let the readers of this website decide.
Re:No censorship on Slashdot (Score:2)
You'll note the word censoring isn't in the essay. In this context, it makes for too easy a target, for a distracting high-noise side-argument of getting into a definition-of-censorship debate.
I talk about the corruptions and temptations of the power of journalism, and similar issues. Note I'm not the only person who has such a view of Michael Sims' actions. For example, Jonathan Wallace's account [yahoo.com] corroborates mine.
But there is a deep irony here (and my message is not completely off-topic). The destruction of censorware.org did (and still does) a lot of harm to the cause of promoting freedom of expression. More personally, I was just musing that were I to find myself in legal trouble for free-speech work, as other programmers have [eff.org], I sure hope I'd get as much favorable press as has been given to the raisethefist guy. It is one of my biggest worries that Michael Sims, yes that Michael Sims, the poster of the story, would further abuse his editorial position at Slashdot, behave in a spiteful manner similar to how he has done in the past with censorware.org, and make my legal position worse, out of score-settling revenge.
Given how Michael Sims behaves, I think it's an extremely reasonable worry.
And there is the irony for you.
Re:No censorship on Slashdot (Score:2)
The thing which irks me about it is that, as I said in my initial post, it betrays a lack of respect and gratitude on the part of the editors towards their readership when they override reader-moderation, and the fact that they do it on comments which are critical of them makes it extra sleazy. They need to realize that those who post intelligent comments are what makes Slashdot valuable.
Of course, the last ditch position is that the slashdot editors could dig their heels in, and intelligent people would start to leave this site in droves. My hope is that it doesn't need reach that point, and that the editors will learn to exercise restraint to encourage people to feel that slashdot is a true forum for free debate, where if you disagree with someone, you argue with them, rather than preventing anyone else from reading their opinion.
He's still a moron script kiddie vandal. (Score:2)
Gives a bad name to good Anarchists.... (Score:2)
Did you sir spend 40 million dollars decrypting certain encrytped communications ?
'FBI:Uhhhh Yes sir,'
'Senator; WHat was in those documents'
'FBI: Uhhhh Digital imagrey of a highly contreversial nature'
'Senator X, You mean sir pornagraphic depictions of teletubbies dont you'
'FBI: Uhuh'
But seriously did you read the transcript and feel like you were reading a lost Laurel and Hardy script.
Ms. TIPOGRAPH (sounds like typograph, a neccesity in any legal document:)
Agent Kuhn (Agent Coon, cousin to secret squirrel)
Mr Hou (Hows who on first)
This kid broke the law directly, molotov cocktails, hacking an defacment. Too bad he couldnt just stick to information he'da been a martyr, well maybe but at worst a malcontent.
government jackboots (Score:2)
(If you have a solid background in basic chemistry, then you know just how easy it is to brew up something deadly.)
I suppose if I ever get arrested for saying something the government doesn't like they'll scream to the high heavens about all those nasty "terrorist tools" I had tucked away. You know: empty beer bottles that need to be recycled, bags of fertilizer for the back lawn and garden, various economy-sized jugs of cleaners bought in bulk, and so forth. With that much ammunition on the government's side I'll spend the rest of my days rotting in jail....
So nice to know that what few rights I have left don't matter for shit if Big Brother actually takes a dislike to me, in part because my fellow citizens will jump up and say "fuck the Constitution! Hang the terrorist son of a bitch!".
Jefferson must be weeping in his grave.
Max
He claimed to be a terrorist. (Score:3, Interesting)
"Yeah, motherfucker, I'm a terrorist to the U.S. Government. I'm a terrorist to capitalism, not to innocent people. I'm a terrorist to the evil system that's terrorizing all of us. Fuck the Government.
I hope they burn in fucking hell right back where they came from, motherfuckers. You can't fool all the people. We know your fucking style."
Here is another quote read by the prosecutor:
"We don't gather weapons, plan extreme operation, and risk our lives for nothing. This is real."
So even if the guy isn't a terrorist, he is spectacularly foolish, why would anyone expect to write this and be ignored. It is a testament to his coddled spoiled existence that he thinks that this is acceptable behaviour.
He doesn't need protected from the FBI, we need protected from him. He's a NUT, with aspirations to acts of extreme violence, including grandiose fantasies of using weapons of mass destruction against governments. I don't care if he meant what he said, I don't need to waste time worrying about it, if someone says this kind of crazy thing they should go to one of two places, jail or the nut house. I don't care which, but this isn't about speach, it's about unbridled threats of violence.
law against spectacular foolishness (Score:5, Funny)
Talk about a contrast (Score:3)
Then his lawyer talked and basically trashed all those distortions. When she presented the facts, all of the sudden a totally different picture emerges. He's not some violent fugitive... he's up on some misdemeanor charges. He wasn't even charged with a felony.
I think this is a preview of things to come... the government uses hyperbole and fear to push judges to smack down the most minor offenses. It's legal FUD.
Re:Talk about a contrast (Score:2)
He's an anarchist! (Score:2)
If he's a real anarchist, then shooting him should be perfectly legal. After all, he believes in the rule of the jungle. Guess that only applies for everyone but him.
In the end, another rich, white crybaby. Big deal.
-jon
Re:He's an anarchist! (Score:2, Interesting)
1) That's not what many (most?) anarchists believe. Most don't view anarchism as a philosophy of government but as a meta-analysis -- i.e. How should we evaluate power? -- with the idea that as soon as some power structure is no longer absolutely necessary, then it should be dismantled. Anarchim is a process of constantly questioning and reevaluating how much power people cede to institutions.
1a) Even if that is what they believed, it would not make shooting them "legal" or justifiable.
2) Many believe in the "rule of the jungle" -- in some aspects. For instance, Reagan rejected the decisions of the World Court when the US was convicted of terrorism in Nicaragua (killing civilians, mining the harbors, etc.). Bush (jr.) violated international law by attacking afghanistan without a resolution in the UN Security Council, or even in the general assembly. That is also a form of anarchism, and by your logic, this means that it would be "legal" to shoot the entire Defense department and heads of government of almost all nations.
3) But I suspect the real reason why you think shooting anarchists is ok has nothing to do with their perceived lack of respect for law and order. Several presidents and law enforcement organizations have routinely flouted and continue to ignore/subvert their own regulations and outside checks on their powers. So perhaps the deciding factor here is not anarchism but the fact that you find this person's views distateful, and so it's ok to shoot him, in which case you've more in common with him than you realize.
Re:He's an anarchist! (Score:2, Flamebait)
See, the thing is that someone already DID take a shot at the Defense Department. Happened in September. You might have heard about it. Since then, the US government's (and most American's) sense of humor isn't exactly too keen when it comes to people who talk about violently overthrowing the government.
What you don't understand is that might always makes right. Now, the US government, by and large, uses its might for what I consider good purposes. It's not perfect, but as Churchill once said about democracy, it's better than any of the other alternatives, especially the ones espoused by this inbred.
The US, BTW, did NOT violate ANY "international law" by attacking Afghanistan. It invoked its right to self-defense under the UN charter. And since the ability to make laws depends on the ability to ENFORCE them, who exactly is enforcing international law? I could proclaim myself Emperor of the World, but until I have some power to make my title respected, I'm just a kook with an old towel wrapped around my shoulders.
It's amazing how much time people spend pissing and moaning about the behavior of the US, while ignoring countries like China and Syria, which flout UN resolutions all the time. The difference, of course, is that protesting on the streets of DC against the "fascist" US is safe, while protesting against China or Syria in downtown Beijing or Damascus will result in you finding yourself on the wrong end of a gun. I'm not impressed with crusaders going after easygoing targets.
you find this person's views distateful, and so it's ok to shoot him, in which case you've more in common with him than you realize
No, I don't mind people whose viewpoints are "distateful." I mind the viewpoints of people whose goal in life is to kill me and destroy the society I am a part of. Killing them before they kill me seems like a good idea, but I like myself, so that separates me from most liberals. I'm a liberal (in the classic sense of the word) who believes in self-preservation and the preservation of the things that I value.
I say you have a guy who writes about the violent overthrow of the government, describes how to build weapons, and is found with weapons, you don't wait until he USES the weapons. Sane societies know how to recognize threats to themselves and react accordingly.
-jon
Re:He's an anarchist! (Score:2)
Yes, and you seem to agree with their logic of "kill the anarchist". I disagree with this logic. Surprisingly enough, you use sept. 11 to support your argument, which reveals that it is not an argument at all, but merely vitriol. Read point 3 above.
What you don't understand is that might always makes right.
So you are an "anarchist" according to your definition of the term, and yet you think those who live by "The law of thew jungle" should be killed..
The US, BTW, did NOT violate ANY "international law" by attacking Afghanistan. It invoked its right to self-defense under the UN charter.
Shouting aside, that's just not true. The US made no such appeal to the UN charter. The reasoning from the state department was -- 'we are justfied in waging war on "terrorism" [an abstract noun, mind you] and don't need to appeal to the UN or any other international body.' Actually, the reason is simple. The charter allows countries to use force for self-defense only in response to an "armed attack". The phrase "armed attack" has meaning, and it must be on-going. So you cannot defend yourself against an armed attack after the fact. For example, if an army were to invade the US from Mexico, we could use force to repel that army. But we would not be justified in invading Mexico after the invading army was destroyed. Nor could we cite the UN Charter as a justification to bomb some other country (i.e. Russia) which trained or supported the invading army. You may not like it, but that is the defintion of armed attack which the US itself helped create when the UN charter was written. For these and other reasons, the state department never cited the UN charter as a justification for bombing of Afghanistan.
I mind the viewpoints of people whose goal in life is to kill me and destroy the society I am a part of. Killing them before they kill me seems like a good idea,
Yet again you make my point for me. It seems that you accede to my observation of your true motives if only the word "distasteful" is replaced by a stronger adjective. Yet it's this form of ideological justification of violence which you and your intellectual brethren in Al-quaeda use to support the killing of civilians.
Re:He's an anarchist! (Score:2)
Learn to read.
-jon
The problem of over-charged indictments (Score:2)
"The defendant is hereby charged with murder, rape, robbery, and being obnoxious".
The prosecution does this because 1) They like to throw lots of mud and see if it sticks, and 2) Sometimes they hope that with the serious crimes, the judge or jury will pile-on the "being obnoxious" charge, and establish case law that can be used later against true enemies-of-the-state.
Then the stories can be "Defendant charged with being obnoxious".
And the web-discussion runs "If being obnoxious is a crime, we are all criminals. 1984, Orwell, Rand etc. etc."
So the problem is that the "being obnoxious" charge often isn't the reason for the case itself. It's a kitchen-sink or mudslinging aspect. On the other hand, it is there, and the fact that the prosecution is trying for it still remains a problem. These situations sometimes aren't simple.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Re:Uh... (Score:2)
Re:Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not illegal to call for a revolution. That's what Thomas Jefferson did, remember "We pledge our lives and our sacred honor" "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots"? Doesn't Bush call for the spilling of blood every other day, in some manichean war?
It seems reasonable that if you have a (perfectly legal) website which includes describing molotov cocktails that you actually have made these cocktails and some are in your home. As long as they are not used, you have a right to do this. Do you have a gun in your house? A gun is far more dangerous than some petrol in a bottle. Maybe we should arrest all the groups who argue against excessive govt. powers and who also stockpile arms. They also call for revolution.
And all he did was protest -- the only charges filed against him were jaywalking, not dispersing, conspiracy to not disperse, etc. The FUD about "weapons of mass destruction" and "terrorism" amounted to nothing more than duct tape and potting soil. Unlike the FBI, he never committed any violence, did not lie about his identity, and did not hide from any courts. Moreover he is not a terrorist. Read the trial transcripts before you're so quick to shout "terrorism" in a crazed nation.
Re:Uh... (Score:2)
Of course, not carrying ID is a crime in the eyes of many, but he gave his full name to the police when questioned. Go figure.
Lets look at it this way... (Score:3, Interesting)
Said anarchist is unfazed and travels to NYC anyway and gets nabbed.
Summit is now over with no real "incidents". Suddenly, the FBI is all sorry for the inconvenience. (but good luck getting your computers, papers, car, and other misc. property back).
So what we have here are possibly pre-emptive raids by the Feds. Possibly to shut him up and intimidate him. I would not be suprised if this happens again to someone else when some more corporate/government bigwigs try to pow-wow in another American city.
Re:Uh... (Score:2)
" but I didn't do anything will be the pathetic cry you raise...."
Information is just that INFORMATION. If they caught him with a molotov there might be grounds. They DID NOT. This is an attempt at a smear job on an admittedly STUPID minor. Think back a ways, remember when you were young and stupid...
Re:Uh... (Score:2)
I don't think the previous poster has to think back too far
Re:Uh... (Score:3, Insightful)
I see. This is sort of like the opposite of innocent until proven guilty. But who knows, if you prefer the pre-emptive strike approach, there are plenty of third world regimes which share your suspicion of protesters.
If I am a cop and I see a kid with a gas mask at a protest I am going to definitely just looking for him to do something wrong.
Sounds reasonable. But the anaogy is if you are a protester and have been gassed before (simply for protesting) then you might decide to bring a mask the next time -- I hope that sounds reasonable to you, too.
Moreover, there is a difference between "watching" a suspicious person before he does something wrong, and arresting him, holding him incommunicado for 4 days, and detaining him for an additional 10 days before you realize that you don't have any real evidence against him, and of course keeping his car and wallet.
Moreover, in their attempt to keep him in jail the FBI lied to at least one judge, spread lots of FUD, and acted in an abusive way, generally. Now you should agree that that's a lot different from "keeping an eye out" when someone wears a gas mask. The problem is that if the target is unpopular or upsets people in this post 9/11 nation, then the govt. can do just about anything they want to him, and they will keep the sympathy of people such as yourself. I hope you rethink your views on this.
"off the hook" (Score:3, Insightful)
he was detained for 4 days without access to a phone (or lawyer).
he was denied bail because the FBI claimed he was a menca to the community .. and then dropped the charges against him.
during the bail hearing they accused him of possessing "weapons of mass destruction" and of being a terrorist -- they lied to the judge in order to keep him in jail.
Maybe you have no problems with the above points, but I do. This is not a "conspiracy theory" -- read the story.
It would be rather difficult to gain evidence for a criminal case without inconvenience to those poor, mistreated suspects.
If you can explain to me how the above points were needed to gain evidence or investigate, then be my guest.
The FBI investigated him for over a month before this and found, basically, nothing. But even if these steps are necessary, and everyone who is arrested can be treated this way, several laws as well as constitutoinal amendments would need to be repealed to justify this sort of treatment.
Re:Uh... (Score:2)
In this case, he was poor and mistreated, you hit the nail on the head. I'm assuming by your comment that you didn't read about his detainment. He had no cash, wasn't given the opportunity to shower for 4 days, no change of clothes, no phone call, no HEAT for god's sakes. He was basically thrown in a meatlocker like a scumbag and left to rot while they figured out what they wanted to do with him.
Perhaps you should read the background on these stories before voicing an uneducated opinion.
mea culpa (Score:2)
It would be possible to arrest him for having the molotov cocktails in his home. Counts as an unregistered firearm or some such. I stand by my other points.
The interesting question is why they dropped the charges. I can only think of 2 reasons:
a deal in which they agreed to drop the charges in exchange for not being sued for holding him incommunicado (unlikely, IMNSHO).
they didn't have evidence of molotov cocktails and this was the same sort of FUD as the "fertilizer" which turned out to be half a bag of topsoil.
Having read the SA's affadavit, I'm feeling that Austin probably should be in jail.
I had the same feeling, but then I read the defense statement, and it turns out that most of the things in the affidavit are lies and FUD. Seriously. That's partly why I was so angry in this case. Make the guy seem like Osama so the judge will issue warrants and deny bail -- pretty sleazy. In the affidavit, a half opened bag of top soil becomes bomb making fertilizer. Stereo wires become bomb making equipment. Arrest records turn out to be jaywalking tickets. Lying to police turns out to be "I'm not sure where I parked, but it's somewhere in Brooklyn". And of course they ignore all of the evidence on his behalf (voluntarily identifying himself, giving permission to the fbi to search his car and home, etc.). Anyways, it's all academic at this point, so maybe the FBI just wanted their pint of blood and were willing to publicly tar and feather this guy in the media when they had no evidence against him.
Re:Against the law to publish (Score:2)
they dont sell TNT at your local Target store...
Re:Against the law to publish (Score:2)
There is also, constitutionally, no license needed to speak or publish. Even state secrets. Research the "Pentagon Papers."
Also have a look at the Steve Jackson case, where computers were legally defined as printing and publishing devices and constitutionally illegal to seize, as was all private corespondence by e-mail without a warrant specifically for that piece of mail. The government has no legal right to seize an entire computer. Only copies of those *files* that are directly related to the alleged crime. Your monitor or CPU are NOT evidence, and only evidence, under warrant, may be legally seized. Thus, at *best*, the government can only seize media, such as your hard drive.
The fact that millinos of Americans now believe otherwise is a sad indictment of what we have become.
KFG
Re:Against the law to publish (Score:2)
Re:Against the law to publish (Score:2)
TNT is as irrelevant to the case at hand as is bubble gum.
Which is why * the charges have been dropped.*
KFG
Police and "Molotov Cocktails" (Score:5, Informative)
As for the molotov allegation, if it actually is true that he had a molotov, then the prosecution would have no problem getting a conviction, given the evidence they claim to have. Apparently, though, they didn't feel so certain, since they dropped the case.
There is a very simple explanation, though. The FBI sent the kid's name to the police in New York, and when he was picked up when the police were clearing the streets of protestors, his name popped up on their list. They then concocted some bogus but serious-sounding charges so that they could keep him off the streets until after the World Economic Forum left New York. Now that the WEF has left, they dropped the charges. They also have the bonus that if he gets picked up at some other non-violent protest, they get to tell the judge about these very serious-sounding charges and he'll get screwed around with more.
They literally do this everytime there is a big protest, at least since the the early 90's and probably much farther back. In San Fransisco in 1995, several hundred protesters were arrested, and they were all released without prosecution or conviction. A class-action lawsuit was filed (and won), since it was clear that the arrest (and a few days in jail) was an attempt to punish protestors with no evidence and no intention of prosecuting.
In 1996, at the Democratic convention in Chicago, police targetted protestors with cameras, arresting dozens with no evidence (seizing the tapes and often destroying the cameras). Again, once the Democrats left town, everyone was let out of jail with no prosecutions or convictions.
Even in Seattle in 1999, where there were a few legitimate arrests, hundreds were arrested for no good reason and were later let go with no prosecution.
Bogus arrests, with charges dropped after dust settles is a standard tactic. Often most of the people are just held in jail for a few days without even being charges (in many states, it is illegal to hold people for more than 48 hours without charging them with something, but that doesn't stop them from holding people for a week or so). Nevermind that a week in jail, innocent or not, will usually get you fired from your job, and a week in a cage with various physical and verbal abuse is punishment without a conviction.
Repeat after me, "innocent until proven guilty." I know it's a bit unfashionable nowadays to talk about such outdated concepts, what with the "Axis of Evil" threatening to destroy our freedoms, but if Disco can make a come-back...
Re:Police and "Molotov Cocktails" (Score:2)
Being arrested doesn't mean anything more than the fact that you've been arrested. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply until your trial begins. Then the state has to prove you did the crime as opposed to you having to prove that you didn't do the crime.
Amazing that you can cite chapter and verse on when "legitimate" protesters were detained, but you don't even understand basic bits of the legal system. What do they teach in schools today?
-jon
Re:Police and "Molotov Cocktails" (Score:2)
There are situations where arrests (not convitions) can be used against you: immigration proceedings, job applications.
In many states, when you are ticketed for a traffic violation, you are arrested, and released on promise to either (a) pay the fine and admit guilt or (b) agree to appear in court on the charge. Sometimes you have to post bond to the cop (typically via a "Bond Card", at least in the U.S.A.)
I was once thus arrested for an illegal lane change, fought the charge, and one. Of course, it cost me quadruple in legal fees what the fine was, but as an H1B visa holder awaiting a Green Card, a conviction would be very bad (the arrest was bad enough).
Re:Police and "Molotov Cocktails" (Score:2)
According to the transcript, they found sixty, presumably empty bottles in his room. And they found two other items that they referred to as "in various states of finality". Given that a molotov cocktail is a glass bottle with a flammable liquid inside and a rag, and only one had a "wick" in it, we must assume that the FBI found some unspecified container with some unspecified amount of petroleum product inside, and another unspecified container with some unspecified amount of petroleum product inside but also a "wick". This is what they found when they searched his house.
I can tell you for a fact that in my house, I have a crate full of empty bottles, and my wife has a small oil lamp with a bit of petroleum product inside along with a "wick" -- I'm pretty sure she also has a container with some amount of spare petroleum product to refill the lamp. If the FBI had found two molotov cocktails filled with gasoline/oil with rags stuffed in them, I would imagine they would have used more specific terms, and presented it in a way that sounded more dangerous - at the very least make a comment that the alleged molotovs were consistent with the recipe found on this kids website.
As for being in New York with no id, a gask mask, a lighter, and a black mask, that is very easy to explain. The no id thing is a standard tactic used by non-violent protesters who think they might be arrested -- it makes processing protestors a bit more difficult and increases bargaining room their lawyers have. If you go to a civil-disobedience training put on by any pacifist group, they will give you more details on why it might be a good idea. The gas mask is a very reasonable thing to bring anywhere you expect to find chemical weapons like teargas. I suppose a motocyclist wearing a helmet would suggest they have evil plans. The black mask is because he was likely participating in an anarchist black block -- a portion of the protest that wants to draw attention to the fact they are anarchists and participating as a group, while at the same time, the mask makes police surveillance less effective. Even in completely non-violent protests, police try to take pictures of everyone. There have been black blocks at all the large protests in the past several years and despite the hype, participants in the black blocks have rarely used violence against people and generally not even damaged property, though they do very often break jaywalking laws, failure to disperse, etc. that are used against non-violent protestors. As for the lighter -- if he was a non-smoker that might suggest some illegal purpose, but the prosecution didn't say anything one way or the other. If they had found a pack of cigarettes on him, I doubt they would have mentioned it.
So not only is all of that consistent with a non-violent activist, but, more importantly, he was picked up in New York as a non-violent protestor, and there was no evidence that he had actually committed any violent acts.
Re:Police and "Molotov Cocktails" (Score:3, Funny)
He was going to take his "no ID" and use it to pry open the door to some building. Then he was going to disassemble the gas mask and take out the activated charcoal and pile it neatly in the basement. he was then going to carefully place the rubber part of the mask on top of the charcoal. Next he was going to make a long wick by tearing his black mask into strips. Standing from a now safe distance he was going to light his mask wick with his lighter and run like hell before the ensuing explosion brought down the entire building and maybe even some adjacent buildings.
Lucky they caught him who knows how many people he could have killed with those masks and that lighter.
Origins of the "Molotov cocktail" (Score:2)
<troll>
So Molotov Cocktails obviously have legitimate uses that our Founding Fathers would have believed in.
If you're anti-Molotov Cocktail, then you must pro-Nazi according to the rules of First Order Predicate Logic
</troll>
Re:Charges (Score:2)
Its all in the link.
Bullshit. (Score:2)
I say again, bullshit. ANYONE who has a molotov cocktail is a criminal. Punk kids with wacko ideas and crazed terrorists alike. A 17-year-old with a nuke or a memeber of al Quaeda with a nuke would vaporize just as many people. And either with an incindiary device would still burn down your house, Buddy.
Re:Bullshit. (Score:2)
Hell, I have the makings for a molotov cocktail and numerous bombs in my house and garage. What are they going to arrest me for having all the chemicals you can buy at the store?
BRB, someone is knocking on my door.
Re:How accused people are treated (Score:3, Insightful)
Just to avoid confusion caused by my sarcasm, I agree completely with your post.