Arrested CERN Physicist Gets 5 Years For Terror Plot 155
An anonymous reader sends this followup to news we discussed in 2009 of a CERN physicist who was arrested for allegedly being in contact with al-Qaeda. The physicist, Adlene Hicheur, has now been sentenced to five years in prison.
"He came under suspicion when threatening messages were sent to President Sarkozy in early 2008. The security services uncovered a series of email exchanges between Hicheur and an alleged al-Qaeda member called Mustapha Debchi. After his arrest in 2009 police found a large quantity of Islamist literature at his parents' home. At the start of his trial the 35-year-old scientist admitted that he had been going through a psychologically 'turbulent' time in his life when he wrote the emails. He had suffered a serious back injury, for which he had been taking morphine. But he always denied he intended to carry out any attacks."
didn't actually intend? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that's OK then, let him go.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. [huffingtonpost.com]
Next question.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting concept, let's stretch that into another analogy. You annoy the crap out of me and I ease that frustration by coming out with all sorts of 'ON PAPER' crazy crap, plots and schemes that I will in reality never do.
The crazy crap, ploting and scheming 'ON PAPER' is all it ever is, even when it is shared amongst other frustrated idiots.
This pointless strategising is no different to millions of people taking over the world on computer games. When then isn't a crime, the actual act there isn't a
What a dick. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What's a fracking wanker? Is that like, someone who jerks off to the extraction of shale oil?
Re: (Score:2)
Almost, it is someone who extract shale gas while wanking.
Re:What a dick. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What a dick. (Score:5, Funny)
Or *use* CERN to destroy the false vacuum.
Re: (Score:2)
Much more likely he was going to point the proton stream [xkcd.com] at Sarkozy.
Interesting account of a human intercepting a proton-accelerator beam with his head. [wordpress.com]
Re:What a dick. (Score:5, Informative)
Nice guess: "General director of the National Police Frederic Pechenard stated in November 2009 that Hicheur planned to attack a base of the National Defence in Annecy, which harbours the 27eme bataillon de chasseurs alpins, involved in Afghanistan." (Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].)
In short, it looks like he was a scientist who hated the government, not someone bent on destroying the accomplishments of western civilization.
Interestingly, the BBC article calls CERN "Cern" as though it were a person. To whom do we address our complaints?
Re:What a dick. (Score:4, Informative)
I think I read before that BBC policy is to only capitalize the first letter of acronyms, as distinct in this context from initialisms, which are when you abbreviate something with the first letter of every word but don't pronounce the result as if a word e.g. Cern vs EPA.
Re: (Score:2)
that's dumb.
Britons call it "the beeb" anyway, should we not call them the Bbc?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it stands for British Broadcasting Corporation, so by their own rules, that would be BBC.
We also call it many things - the beeb, the BBC, auntie, channel one/two etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Eh it makes a certain kind of sense, but someone below said they do PC as Pc which is even dumber.
Re: (Score:2)
that's dumb.
Britons call it "the beeb" anyway, should we not call them the Bbc?
Well. you could always LASER anyone who comes onto your RADAR for using that practice.
Re:What a dick. (Score:4, Funny)
Interestingly, the BBC article calls CERN "Cern" as though it were a person. To whom do we address our complaints?
To Bbc?
Re: (Score:2)
To Bbc?
Yes, but only on Bcc.
Re: (Score:1)
Interestingly, the BBC article calls CERN "Cern" as though it were a person. To whom do we address our complaints?
I've made this complaint in the past. They also write PC as Pc (which is an initialism, not an acronym - the other poster claiming that they only did this idiocy for acronyms is wrong). Their reply was that it is their house style to only capitalise the first letter of initialisms. This is not in any way standard English, but they decided to do it just to be special.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not in any way standard English
Of course not, there's no such thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mr Southey said Mrs Roberts had told one officer, Pc Jacqui Reid, that she did not mind being searched but would prefer it to be conducted at a police station as young people with whom she worked might see her being searched in the street.
It seems they're now inconsistent about it, because the next few articles all use PC, but going back a bit further you'll find a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
He was probably getting anti-matter to blow up the Vatican.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually he was a secret agent of the pentecostal church trying to trigger the apocalypse by creating a mini black hole that would end up engulfing the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. He was planning on developing a process whereby 100% of the mass in a 3oz. bottle of distilled water could be converted to energy. Should be roughly enough to blow up a plane, all the surrounding planes, the airport and a good size chunk of surrounding city.
Indeed. About 1.8 megatons of TNT according to e=mc^2... I never get tired of doing that calculation.
The activating mechanism, of course, fits in his underwear.
If by his underwear you mean a colossal Penning trap capable of storing 3oz of antimatter, yes indeed! The brilliance of this evil scientist plot is it will only cost trillions of dollars and take at the very least several decades to fulfill -- so it will easily slip right under the radar.
Aside from this strange story. (Score:2)
I'm intrigued by the nearly-impressionistic courtroom sketch artist's work displayed in the article.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a typical courtroom sketch in France, pencil and watercolor on paper. There are a handful of journalists specialized in courtroom sketch in France, so you've got to recognize their artwork. This one is signed Benoit Peyrucq from Agence France Presse. Just google his name to find more drawings from his hand.
More examples of French courtrooom sketches
http://www.iconovox.com/blog/2009/09/29/le-dessin-au-tribunal/ [iconovox.com]
http://traitsdejustice.bpi.fr/home.php?lg=fr&id=78 [traitsdejustice.bpi.fr]
Thought Crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thought Crime (Score:4, Informative)
He did confess to writing the threatening emails. that is considered a crime.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps the fact that it is considered a crime is the point. We have so few actual terrorists that we need to start arresting people who merely fantasize about it. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
Thought != Stated intentions. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think more fair chunk of the violence in the world could be averted if someone steps in early and cools things down with a glimpse of the consequences (or a distractingly funny one liner), but 5yrs is stepping in with jackboots since it's longer than most people get for carrying out their verbal threats of violence.
In other words, there are no GoodGuys(TM) in TFA, it's not a matter of choosing who's right because neither side has a moral or ethical leg to stand on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why people are so compassionate
Which makes me wonder why you think 'we' have a problem and you don't?
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
Words like yelling Fire in a crowded place or threatening the POTUS (1917 [wikipedia.org])? Or Hate Speech laws... there are lots of words which are actionable.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
What happened? That remark has never been true soon after words were invented.
And just wait till voice controlled stuff becomes even more popular and prevalent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So you want to convict people of just thinking about terrorism? You do realize that the definition of "terrorism" is going to continue to expand? Eventually it will include some activity that you think about.
Re: (Score:3)
Contemplating violence is quite different from taking concrete, provable steps toward that goal. The article is extremely light on what this guy planned to do or what steps he took.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, with shoplifters, you can't arrest them until they leave the shop with the goods. And that's a good thing. There's always the outside chance that the frozen chicken they've stuffed up their jumper will be presented at the checkout before they leave.
With terrorists, it's not such a good idea to wait until they've actually committed the physical crime. That tends to cost a lot of lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Not around here (Raleigh, NC). They call it "concealing merchandise" and it's prosecuted like a misdemeanor larceny charge.
Re: (Score:2)
How long's it been since you "got out", i mean, lived there?
Re: (Score:2)
Someone is generally innocent until they do/try to do something. Otherwise it's just a thought crime (unless they were threatening to do something and those threats were very likely to be carried out).
I understand the desire to protect people, but not at the cost of individual rights. Everything else is just "for the children"/TSA mentality.
Re: (Score:2)
He did do something. He entered into email correspondence with a terrorist organisation offering to carry out a terrorist act.
If he got in touch with a hit man asking for you to be killed do you think that should be illegal? Or would you want to wait until the hit-man has a gun to your head?
After all, by your concept of thought crime, having such a discussion with a hit-man would be thought crime, not real crime.
You probably want to re-read 1984. Thought crime is the crime of THINKING things contrary to the
Re: (Score:2)
He did do something.
Okay.
After all, by your concept of thought crime
Did you read my comment? "(unless they were threatening to do something and those threats were very likely to be carried out)."
But I do have a problem with imprisoning them if it's not damn likely that they were going to carry out the supposed plan.
Re:Thought Crime (Score:5, Insightful)
With terrorists, it's not such a good idea to wait until they've actually committed the physical crime. That tends to cost a lot of lives.
There are steps in between thinking about something and doing it. For example, I could write a description of the orbital corrections required how to fly an asteroid into London during the Olympics. I could hate the Olympics enough to want to do it. Unfortunately, since I lack a space program, I can't actually do it. Arresting me for doing it would make no sense. On the other hand, if I'm threatening to set off a car bomb and I'm sitting at home with a van full of fertiliser and home-made detonators, the security services would be negligent if I were allowed to go for a drive.
Re: (Score:3)
There are steps in between thinking about something and doing it.
Yes, and he took some of them. Thus making it more than a "thought crime".
Re: (Score:2)
the security services would be negligent if I were allowed to go for a drive.
Well, I don't know where you're from, buddy, but here in teh Good 'ol U. S. of A® we have a little thing known as the Second Amendment to the Constitution. You can have my van full of fertilizer wired for detonation when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Note to NSA/DHS/FBI, et al.: This is what's known as a protest comment. The comment should not be taken literally. I do not own a van, flush my fertilizer nearly as soon as it is constituted, and the only thing I am aware of in my life that detona
Re: (Score:2)
At what point is it acceptable for them to step in?
When the threat not only looks credible, but it's likely that you'll be able to carry it out.
The government has misinterpreted obvious jokes before. Threats that were not credible at all. All parties involved knew they were jokes, but since the government doesn't know the people and is an emotionless overlord, it took them seriously.
If a threat is not likely to be carried out, it's just a waste of taxpayer money (and an individual's freedom) to imprison them. They could be joking/emotional. Very possible wi
Re: (Score:2)
You can't talk about "actually committed the phyical crime" without defining the crime. There could be a law that makes it a crime to stuff a frozen chicken up one's jumper, something much more observable than what goes on inside someone's head. AFAICT from TFA, all this guy did was communicate with "an alleged contact in al-Qaeda" and express willingness to become part of an "active terrorist unit." If that's enough to make him a terrorist, a woman saying "I'm going to kill my husband" could be convicted o
Re: (Score:2)
You can't talk about "actually committed the phyical crime" without defining the crime. There could be a law that makes it a crime to stuff a frozen chicken up one's jumper, something much more observable than what goes on inside someone's head.
And there could be a law that makes it a crime to engage in email correspondence with people you know to be in terrorist organisations, saying you are wanting to do a terrorist act. Which is equally observable.
a woman saying "I'm going to kill my husband" could be convicted of attempted murder.
Women who've tried to make arrangements with others to carry out the murder of their husbands have indeed been prosecuted.
In all these cases it's a step beyond thought crime, to early action. One can't wait for later action when people would die.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thought Crime (Score:5, Funny)
As far as I can tell this guy did not actually do anything. He got 5 years for a thought crime.
Given this person is a theoretical physicist, perhaps thinking about, but not doing, is sufficient evidence of something? Just a thought ;^)
Re:Thought Crime (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
So give him jail time based on what he did instead of what he might do. There are sane Laws against uttering threats in most countries. I assume france is the same. Considering this is terror-law, he should be happy he was at least charged with something and given a sentance. If this was in the US he might not ever be chrged or released.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Communication Crime (Score:1)
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
That is not fair, there is no proof that he ever thought about attacking anyone.
The only evidence I see is that he knew a few Islamic extremists and had some of their literature. So he is guilty by association.
Re: (Score:1)
As far as I can tell this guy did not actually do anything.
Yeah, in the US, at least one overt act is required in addition to talking/email/whatever for crimes of conspiracy to commit foo. Dunno how things are in France, but it sucks.
He got 5 years for a thought crime.
Well, no. A thought crime would be based on holding certain opinions. AIUI (I haven't read the emails -- are they available somewhere?) he actually discussed plans for a terrorist attack. It's certainly not something that IMO could be considered criminal in a free country, but it is a small step short of thought crime as such.
Re: (Score:2)
he actually discussed plans for a terrorist attack
You can see such discussions even in some very public threads on Slashdot. One can discuss plans of a terrorist attack to commit it or to defend against it. The distinction can be undetectable until you actually start acting toward one goal or another.
Re:Thought Crime (Score:5, Informative)
Hardly. Conspiracy and planning to commit a crime is a crime, for good reason. Do we wait for a murderer to shoot someone before we can arrest and charge him? No, and for good reason.
Thought-crime is quite different from actively communicating willingness to be part of an "active terror unit" (as TFA says).
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with your post, but just a technical point - a person is not a murderer until they have actually murdered someone. If you arrest the person before they kill someone then attempted murderer is probably more accurate, assuming the planned crime was obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't go to jail for the thought of 'overthrowing the government
but for the means he threatened to do it with"
Re: (Score:2)
Planning a crime is a thought crime?
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell this guy did not actually do anything. He got 5 years for a thought crime.
He's a CERN phycicist. That's some serious thinking going on in his head. It's like driving a tank instead of a bike. You must be more careful with a brain like that, everybody knows that.
Higgs Boson is great! (Score:5, Funny)
And Standard Model is His prophet!
Re: (Score:3)
Have you heard the good news of our Super-Symmetric Savior?
Re: (Score:3)
Begone, Fermion apostate!
Seriously? (Score:1)
After his arrest in 2009 police found a large quantity of Islamist literature at his parents' home.
He obviously must be a terrorist, then.
Re: (Score:3)
one data pooint without context. Well done. Now you can forgo thinking all together.
a large quantity of Islamist literature (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If they also had made threats,had the means to carry them out, and was in contact with terrorist christian cells to aid in carrying out your threats? then yes, you should expect that person to carry out a Christian Jihad i.e. crusade
Re: (Score:1)
"intent" is the concept in question here (Score:4, Insightful)
if you threaten mayhem, it is a not a "thought crime" to catch you and punish you on that basis
if you threaten mayhem it is a statement of intent, for which you can, and should, be punished
for example, if i were to threaten the life of the president, i would get a visit from the secret service, and i should get such a visit, and i should be punished
if i call my girlfriend and tell her i am going to kill her, she should call the police, and the police should visit me, and they should visit me, and i should be punished
this is not rocket science here folks. if you make a statement of intent to do bodily harm, it is going to be taken seriously, and it should be taken seriously
now mod me troll and go back to being flabbergasted at a simple commonplace and normal legal convention
Disagree on simplistic view... (Score:3)
for example, if i were to threaten the life of the president, i would get a visit from the secret service, and i should get such a visit, and i should be punished
You'd probably get a visit but you should NOT be punished.
In this instance the jail time comes because he went beyond stupid threats into contacting someone else about details that might bring threats to fruition. A much grayer area than mere threats...
Re: (Score:1)
if you threaten mayhem, it is a not a "thought crime" to catch you and punish you on that basis
The likelihood of them carrying out the threat must also be taken into account. For instance, we can't punish people who were simply emotional and/or joking and had no intent to carry out the threat anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
go ahead and threaten to kill someone. then later say you were just being emotional or joking. tell us how that works out for you
you don't joke about making threats of bodily harm. it isn't funny, because the "likelihood" of carrying out a threat is not something that anyone except the threat maker can know
Re: (Score:2)
Been there, done that. Drunken fight, telling off from police. NFA.
And fix your shift key, you spacker. All lowercase is just so 1990s.
Canada agrees (Score:2)
Uttering threats [yourlaws.ca] is a criminal act in Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
That looks suspiciously short and way too readable to be a full statement of the actual law.
If it applied every time someone shouts at someone for driving like an asshole or when people get riled up in a pub the entire population would be locked up.
Re: (Score:2)
That looks suspiciously short and way too readable to be a full statement of the actual law.
If it applied every time someone shouts at someone for driving like an asshole or when people get riled up in a pub the entire population would be locked up.
Fortunately Canadian judges are not elected. So you have to have a pretty good case.
Re: (Score:2)
if you threaten mayhem, it is a not a "thought crime" to catch you and punish you on that basis
if you threaten mayhem it is a statement of intent, for which you can, and should, be punished
for example, if i were to threaten the life of the president, i would get a visit from the secret service, and i should get such a visit, and i should be punished
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
Yes, you would be arrested, but you would not be charged with "terror plot".
if i call my girlfriend and tell her i am going to kill her, she should call the police, and the police should visit me, and they should visit me, and i should be punished
You will find that in many countries, police can't do much, except bring the person who threatens in, talk to him/her, then release him/her. Court could try to prohibit that person from approaching/contacting you, but that is all pointless if person is planning to kill you.
Once that person kills you, then the police can actually do something. Paradoxal, but that's how it is.
this is not rocket science here folks. if you make a statement of intent to do bodily harm, it is going to be taken seriously, and it should be taken seriously
if you
Re: (Score:2)
"Once that person kills you, then the police can actually do something. Paradoxal, but that's how it is."
This is acceptable to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Not the same. I can say I wish someone would kill Rand Paul, but that's not the same as threatening to do it myself.
Hell, didn't the CIA have an assassination market under the guise of payment for predictions on the date of death of people?
Imagine his power (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Healing Time (Score:2)
Well now he has 5 years to let his back heal without too much else to worry about.
Missed opportunity for DCRI/DGSE (Score:4, Insightful)
What ever happened to old fashioned spycraft? You know who he is, put him under surveillance, monitor his emails/phone/travel/visitors, he's in contact with al Qaeda, let him run with it. If he is directed to meet any local AQ contacts, bam, new surveillance targets. If he organises an actual attack, you intercept and now you have him and possibly a whole local cell, and not just for writing a few stupid emails. Hell, if nothing happens, then arrest him, wave terrorism charges at him, but only to turn him and send him out to work for you; give him a better story to lure out AQ, say he has access to radioactive material for a dirty bomb, but needs explosives and a bomb maker...
Its a statistics game; not security (Score:2)
Another bad guy caught with another headline to make politicians and managers look good by playing the numbers game. Why delay another stat at great expense and lost political points when you can get results TODAY? Besides, enemies give you more purpose why would you want really to eliminate them completely?
Run the system like a business, short term gains at low cost and with high volume. Why invest in long term things that will benefit the people who get your job afterwards? If you don't perform as well
What a fucking farce. (Score:3)
The security services uncovered a series of email exchanges between Hicheur and an alleged al-Qaeda member called Mustapha Debchi.
OK, Alleged. Someone alleged to be part of the Al-Qaeda. Why would that be a crime?
After his arrest in 2009 police found a large quantity of Islamist literature at his parents' home.
This is utterly ridiculous! What the fuck? Where is his religious freedom? I'm atheist as fuck, but if this dude had Christian literature it wouldn't have even garnered attention. Fuck everything about this.
Re: (Score:2)
The Moral of the Story is... (Score:2)
...don't associate with people named "Mustapha." Also "Damien", "Boris" and "Rasputin".
It won't end well.
In other situation... (Score:2)
...I would welcome a 5-year prison sentence for a person who calls himself a physicist while entertaining idiotic superstitions. But this is a matter of incompetence and possibly fraud, not terrorism.
I wonder about the sentence disparity (Score:2)
Murder: Get X years, life in prison, or death penalty
Attempted murder: Get X/2 years
Why are we rewarding people for failure?
Re:I wonder about the sentence disparity (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this modded interesting? I have a strong feeling it does not work that way, and "we" are certainly not doing that on purpose. Funny maybe, interesting? Nah.