'G20 Geek' Byron Sonne Cleared of Explosives Charges 278
New submitter davegravy writes "Byron Sonne, the Toronto-based security consultant, chemistry hobbyist, and geek who was arrested leading up to the Toronto G-20 for alleged plans to bomb the event, has been found not guilty of all charges. Sonne was held in prison for 11 months without receiving bail, and the ruling comes two years after his arrest. Sonne is considered by many in the Toronto security community as a champion of civil rights and a sharp critic of security theatre."
Unfair (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Could have been worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
At least he got a trial.
Yeah. In Canada. Meanwhile, next door [theatlantic.com]...
Doesn't matter that he won. He lost. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How does it work in this case? (Score:5, Insightful)
The prosecutors weren't inept. They knew exactly what they were doing and have managed to pull it off brilliantly.
They wanted to make an example of him and scare anyone else from even thinking about talking against the government.
They didn't need to win, they just needed to drag things out and hurt the guy as much as possible. The more inept the acted the better off they could do that.
Re:Doesn't matter that he won. He lost. (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. If the state can't prove its case, it should be forced to make the victim whole again. That, and the thugs who put him in jail on false charges should be imprisoned themselves.
Re:Could have been worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, don't worry - even the guys in Gitmo get trials. If they're found guilty, they're either executed or locked up forever. If they're found not guilty, they go back into prison until the prosecution finds something else to charge them with. It's completely fair!
Re:Doesn't matter that he won. He lost. (Score:4, Insightful)
And here's the unpopular-on-Slashdot, but common-everywhere-else view: Yes, he lost all that, but he provides us all an excellent object lesson in how not to be a stupid douchebag.
When you are not a security contractor with an official relationship to the people organizing and/or securing the G-20 summit, don't fucking go on the internet talking about how you're going to 'test the security' of the G-20 summit.
If they want your help, they'll ask for it. If you offer your help, and they refuse to accept it, then by all means, write to a politician to express your views. Write to the newspapers to talk about how the security of the summit is flawed, and needs to be tested in different ways than are being planned (a legitimate *journalist* would be interested in this sort of a story - find one). Even express your views that the government is using ineffective security precautions that amount to no more than theater, and explain why online, on a blog, etc. But do not - I repeat, do not - continue making plans to "test" the security and talk about your plans to "test" the security.
If they've refused your offer of assistance to "test security," and you go ahead and publicly continue to make plans to "test security," don't be surprised when they show up, kick in your door, and fucking cart you off because you're behaving like a threat.
Re:Doesn't matter that he won. He lost. (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't over, he will sue for wrongful prosecution. He may even win, but even if he doesn't he did what he set out to do: draw lots of attention to the shoddy, expensive, ineffectual security practices in use. Oh, and also drew attention to the government's apparent imprisonment of innocent people for political reasons. I don't know if it was worth it to him or not, but he gets a nod and a thank you from people like me for what he's accomplished just in avoiding a conviction.
Bomb Ingredients? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Crown alleged he had all the necessary ingredients to build a homemade bomb
I don't know anyone that DOESN'T.
Re:Retaliation -- slim (Score:2, Insightful)
If someone keeps you working for them 24/7 for two years, that should be one hell of an overtime bonus.
I figured Canadians would have inherited a British sensibility for paying people who were unfairly imprisoned without fighting it. Of course, the news stories I've read like that from England may have given me an overly sunny impression of their approach. It just always made sense to me that if the government should fuck up your life for any significant period of time, that they compensate you for it as best they can.
Re:Doesn't matter that he won. He lost. (Score:4, Insightful)
He did nothing illegal. If being a douchebag landed you in jail all the police would have to do would be stake out half the stores in the local mall and wait for a popped collar to walk by.
Re:Bomb Ingredients? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Crown alleged he had all the necessary ingredients to build a homemade bomb
I don't know anyone that DOESN'T.
This, a million times over; there isn't a homeowner in North America who doesn't possess materials capable of being combined for explosive effect, most of which reside under our kitchen sinks (or wherever you stash your cleaning supplies).
Claiming this as a valid rationale for prosecution is like claiming that owning bullets is intent to commit murder. It's not valid, it's just fucking stupid.
Re:Doesn't matter that he won. He lost. (Score:2, Insightful)
No. Freedom is precious. It's never a hollow victory when you choose to defend it and win. And anyone who stands up to the state and expects to suffer no repercussions for it are delusional. Serious people who engage in civil disobediance know that they could individually be "make an example of" at any time. But if having principles means anything, it means sometimes you might have to face the consequences of upholding them.
Re:How does it work in this case? (Score:5, Insightful)
it would certainly make railroading a lot less interesting for the prosecution
I think you would find just the opposite. If the prosecutor faced jail time for losing a case, he or she would probably go to more extreme lengths to insure a conviction.
Re:Unfair (Score:5, Insightful)
It would require dozens, perhaps hundreds, of law enforcement and judiciary personnel to be corrupt to the point of downright evil in order for that to happen.
Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
Re:Doesn't matter that he won. He lost. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not a Pyrrhic victory since he sucessfully defended the most important thing he had to lose: his freedom. This means he's free to continue his chemisty and rocketry hobbies. He's free to search and get another job, or start his own business (which I think he already had since I believed the TFA mentioned consultancy work). He's free to date women. He's free to continue to be an activist for the issues he cares about. Not only that, but if he wins his civil case against the government, he'll have certain degree of financial freedom that ameliorates whatever hardships he's going through now. His life is not ruined by any stretch. He's certainly better off now than if he had been convicted.
Re:Could have been worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
Either they're civilians or they're POWs either way there are rules that we need to be following. This "they're enemy combatants" is basically a way of saying "they have no rights, not even the ones what we all got together and agreed that everyone has. We will do whatever we want with them; torture, endless imprisonment, sexual and religious humiliation, it doesn't matter because we have declared that the rules don't apply to them. It's bullshit. It's the kind of thing that America (home of the free) is supposed to be better than and it makes me personally ashamed of how my nation is treating human beings.
Re:How does it work in this case? (Score:5, Insightful)
Poking the cage is not illegal. Pissing off those in power should not land you in prison for 2 years. His behavior is not smart and the outcome might be predictable, but that does not make the outcome right.
I'm glad to see the police spokeman being upfront (Score:4, Insightful)
The mere fact of innocence doesn't reduce the civic lesson value of this entire episode: You can be imprisoned for nearly a year, held almost incommunicado, and lose your most important personal relationships, simply because you're loudly opposed to the mechanisms of state security. Your "acquittal" does nothing to ameliorate that. Even if you win, you will still have lost, and nothing will change.
Well, we can hope the police spokeman was wrong about the last part.
Re:Could have been worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Could have been worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone has human rights. That's why they are called human rights, all humans have them.
You can call them "unlawful combatants" but they are either civilian criminals or POWs. Not giving them any rights, torturing and treating them as sub human just shames yourselves.
Re:Could have been worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
So what is he supposed to do?
Transform gitmo into something worthy of human habitation and at least stop treating those who would be released as prisoners.
It's funny how the US set up gitmo, breaking go knows how many laws, international treaties and human rights, but when it comes to dismantling the place, all of a sudden they can't because of the rules. Actually it's not funny at all.
Lesson pointedly taught: Don't do this, or else. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why the 11 months, that's why the easily refuted charges, the pointless lying by the security forces. They aren't punishing him as much as they are demonstrating what they can do to YOU or YOU or YOU, if you get lippy.
It's working. People are shutting up. You can't meter what ain't there, but public disagreement with the established police state is muted by these endless arrests. People don't want to go into debt for the rest of their lives, lose their jobs and their families, just to say "I disagree."
Stay tuned for Rahm Emmanuel's series of lessons in Chicago later this week. It's Tuesday, and already the security forces are running helicopters overhead. We have LDAPs! Let the schoolin' begin.
Re:Unfair (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr. Sonne went out of his way to purchase specific chemicals that are integral components in bomb-making.
So what? Not illegal to purchase those components if you aren't making a bomb. In fact, it isn't even illegal to buy those things even if you're "thinking about" making a bomb. Possessing these things isn't a crime unless he actually builds a bomb. He didn't build a bomb, never had any intention of building a bomb, and the cops KNEW full-well he had no intention of building a bomb.
So why the charges, if not to silence a critic?
He went out of his way to express his intentions to "test security" at the G-20 summit.
Not illegal. Ever heard of "Freedom of Speech?"
Security took notice of those activities (which he apparently assumed they wouldn't), and they responded as if he posed a threat to bomb the G-20 summit (which was exactly what he tried to make it look like he was thinking of doing).
More like they saw that a guy who'd been criticizing them publicly for ineffective security regimens and saw an opportunity to tarnish his reputation and chill his speech in the future by branding him a terrrorist. Even though he's been acquitted, the damage is done: In the narrow-minds of many this man is now a "terrorist" and damaged goods as a security analyst. ...All because he criticized the wrong person.
And really, how anybody can claim it is anything else than that is beyond me: Almost every advanced nation factors a defendants INTENT to commit a crime into the equation of whether they're guilty or not. In no scenario can anybody claim this guy had intent to blow anything up: He's said he never intended to, and no investigator when pressed has EVER presented evidence he intended to build a bomb. This is a "wink-and-nod" between the cops involved to strike-back at somebody who is critical of their security-theater gravy-train--nothing more.
Re:Unfair (Score:3, Insightful)
"Awww, apparently I hurt somebody's feelings! I'd apologize, but then, I'm a trolling jerk"
- There, fixed it for ya.
Two things spring to mind.
1) 2 years later, and you're still trolling the same topic.. how sad is that?
2) You wrote the GP post anyway.. your postings from 2 years ago are, lets face it, not memorable to anyone but yourself.
Re:Could have been worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
“Unlawful combatants” is political speak, an attempt to create a new category that does not exist, so that the government can say that these people have no rights.
The Geneva Conventions have many different categories: enemy soldiers, enemy civilians, enemy civilians who have taken up weapons, enemy spies, criminals. The categories may not be mutually exclusive, but they are exhaustive. And all of them have rights. Their treatment will vary depending upon their category. But none of them are to be tortured. None of them are to be starved. None of them are to be treated unfairly. All are to receive appropriate medical care. And once the war is over (remember “Mission Accomplished”?), they are not to be detained indefinitely.
Your own Declaration of Independence affirms that these people have rights, because all people have rights:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...
Emphasis mine. Your Declaration of Independence, and your Constitution, apply not just to US citizens, but to all people, everywhere. Go read your country’s founding documents. They are things of beauty. It is a shame that people like you do not understand the noble ideals that your country was founded upon, and that US citizens do not force their government to uphold those ideals.
Re:How does it work in this case? (Score:5, Insightful)
And if a woman goes out at night after 9pm in a sexy outfit, not even carrying a firearm, well she is practically asking to be raped and tortured. She wouldn't be a victim. She would be doing it to herself. People can be so self-destructive. If you give a cop the finger and he beats you to death or shoots you until has Glock is out of bullets it is something you have done to yourself. The angry cop cannot be held responsible. And if you publicly criticize the government...well you know what to expect. The government cannot be held responsible for what they are forced to do to you. They would rather not ruin the life of an innocent person, but they were left with no choice. Victims have no one to blame but themselves. I think I am starting to understand now.
Re:Unfair (Score:5, Insightful)
What sort of response would you have the police make?
You do realize it is possible to have an investigation and not file criminal charges, right? That there is no requirement to file criminal charges just because there has been an investigation, correct? That prosecutors aren't just "allowed" but are "expected" to not file charges in unwinnable cases because the defendant in question is somebody who has ridiculed them publicly for years. Don't you?
That prosecutors and cops pressing an un-winnable case to the hilt, and just happen to be doing so against somebody who has been criticizing them publicly for years is a pretty large coincidence. But you're right, I'm sure his years-long criticism of Canadian anti-terrorism "security" theater had nothing to do with the reason he was used (correctly) to "send a message" to anybody else that might say the "wrong" things and "reveal our weaknesses" to "terrorists."
You're right, nothing to see here: Big Brother always knows whats best, and ours is not to reason why.
Re:Unfair (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the 11 months in jail, a divorce, loss of future career, hmm penalties for criticising security theatre and attempting to short circuit the creation of a police state. The arrest was all about silencing a critic and nothing to do with justice. When out of control law enforcement had access to everything in his house, they knew, they 100% totally know they were in error, the only reason they kept going was they didn't want to admit fault and felt that regardless of the truth they could get away with a false prosecution under a poorly written law.
A new criminal trial should start, one targeted at the officers in question, they who purposefully abused the trust placed in them in order to pursue personal agendas that had nothing to do with law and justice.
Re:Unfair (Score:4, Insightful)
So what? Not illegal to purchase those components if you aren't making a bomb. In fact, it isn't even illegal to buy those things even if you're "thinking about" making a bomb. Possessing these things isn't a crime unless he actually builds a bomb. He didn't build a bomb, never had any intention of building a bomb, and the cops KNEW full-well he had no intention of building a bomb.
This is a slightly weaker version of the amusing libertarian argument often seen on slashdot about assassinating the President (or whovever). It's not illegal to own a gun, it's not illegal to make threats against someone, it's not illegal to transport your weapon to somewhere near where the President will be, it's not illegal to set up your weapon with the sights zeroed in on the balcony where he will be appearing...and so on.
The conclusion is that nothing is illegal except actually shooting the President, and therefore no on ecan do anything to stop it. Even if the Secret Service saw the weapon in place, they would be acting illegally and infringing on his rights to free speech, and to bear arms, if they prevented him from doing anything.
Meanwhile, in the real world, if you make comments about bombs, and buy bomb making materials, you're lucky not to end up in jail for twenty years charged with conspiracy to commit terrorist acts.
Although, again for the libertarians, there's no such crime as conspiracy anyway, as it's all just free speech until someone is actually killed.