Slashdot Mirror
Raisethefist.com Raided
mfb and others wrote in about a raid on the operator of raisethefist.com last week. It was first reported on Indymedia.org here and here, followed by an LA Weekly article. By far the best news piece so far is this one from Newsbytes.
OK, this guy says that he was busted because the government didn't like his opinions, but in fact he had been cracking web sites and putting in that troop.cgi thing. Somehow that doesn't sound like an opinion to me. There's also the question of bomb-making information which is potentially thornier, but also isn't really opinion (at least, not opinion about globalization - opinion about bomb policy I suppose might be a bit more debateable).
In the interview, Austin acknowledged that he vandalized the Web sites and that he knew it was illegal to do so. But he defended the act by saying it was necessary to get his message out.
...
"If I go to jail, then I will go to jail not based on my actions, but based on what I think," he said.
No, you incredibly idiotic dipshit. You are going to be Bubba's bitch because you hacked government websites, and in fact admitted it. Please, don't try to defend him -- it's guys like this that give us a bad name and deserved to be ostracized from the community at large.
"You're never ready, just less unprepared."
"People can rant and rave on the Internet all they want, but when they cross the line of calling people to action to violently overthrow the Constitution of the United States, they have a problem," said McLaughlin.
So when just another lone hacker kid defaces five Web sites, it justifies "surrounding and raiding [the] house with machine guns, shotguns, bullet-proof vests." Being labeled a hacker (correctly, this time) is really getting to be as dangerous as being called a child molester.
The Gardener
--
According to the FBI, 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. But he defended the act by saying it was necessary to get his message out.
Okay, so this guy was an admitted website defacer who posted denial of service tools on victim websites and knew it was illegal but did it anyway.. That he was doing it for some "anticorporate revolution" doesn't matter one iota.
But what I really loved was his comment, later in the article:
"But how many of us are really willing to engage in such an intense form of warfare through bauds and wires? Who's got the balls? Who's willing to sacrifice everything?" said the page.
Who indeed? Let's start with this numbskull. I say throw the book at him.
sulli
RTFJ.
The site seemed to be advocating the use of violence to solve means. Information on how to cause havok and insitute anarchy doesnt sit well with me and I dont seem why this is an issue.
Well, it so happens that the founders of the US forgot to include "but not if it talks about violence" part when they were writing the First Amendment -- you know, the "free speech" one. Actually, it seems to me the were pretty violent guys themselves -- starting a war and all that.
And if that guy's site was the first one where the feds found the bomb-making informations on the 'net... [rolls his eyes]
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
This guy is not a martyr. He was stupid and chose to piss in the US gov's wheaties. If you disagree with policies in the US we can still voice or beliefs freely. What noone is allowed to do and should not do is encite a riot. He was trying to do just this. He has messages claiming for everyone to unite and overthrow the US gov. Does that make him a threat? YES. Should the gov have reacted to him as a threat, YES. Did they need to go in their fully armed to and ready for battle? Yes. Police have information that they are to bust someone who has attacked multiple sites and attempted to attack military targets, plus he has been trying to get other people to use violence and weapons to overthrow the gov. He also instructs how to create bombs and other weapons on his site. They had to assume he would be armed. The only way to deal with that is with overwhelming force.
As long as the go ahead and press charges in a timely manner the gov has done the right thing in this case.
I am 31337 or something.
That would be correct. The United States of America is all for free speech. It's also a democracy, where you can elect a new government to install new laws if you disagree with the current state of affairs. Elected officials (who presumably represent a majority of the populace) will eventually populate the group responsible for interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court. Therefore, in a theoretical sense (before you start screaming about corporate america owning the politicians), the people do control the government.
By ignoring the political route and espousing the virtues of a violent overthrow, you have now entered the realm of "terrorist" or "freedom fighter." In a country where the freedom of speech is guaranteed in the very Constitution you want to do away with, you are more than likely to be considered a terrorist. And frankly, I would agree with that assessment.
Here's a suggestion: if you don't like the system and don't feel like changing the system, take your bombs and move to Columbia or the middle east.
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
From the newsbytes article: "In the interview, Austin acknowledged that he vandalized the Web sites and that he knew it was illegal to do so. But he defended the act by saying it was necessary to get his message out." So he acknowledges he does something illegal, and then complains about being arrested? SWAT team may be overkill for an 18 punk hacker, but then again there were instructions on bomb making materials. In the heightened state of alert for all police forces since Sept 11, they'd be foolish not to be prepared. People may try to simplify this to a "free speech" or "destruction of the free internet" argument, but I think this case is pretty much cut and dried.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Looking at what info I found on a mirror of the old site (already down im afraid). It looks as if they were more than a tad on the extremist side. For one he knowingly admits to circumventing the law in order to "get his message out" that was his first mistake. Second he appears to have information that more or less (at least implies) that the goverment needs to be overthrown (not changed). The diffrence being overthrowing consitutes violence where changing implies through voting and so forth. Sounds to me like this bust was a good thing. Not a bad one
Am I lying when I tell you that im telling the truth? Or am I telling the truth when I say that Im lying?
but who can take seriously any person who still lives at home with mommy? He has no conception of what it means to be an adult, so I can't imagine how I'm supposed to take him seriously as a source of political information. I'm not saying people who live with their parents shouldn't have political leanings and causes, but I have trouble taking him seriously if doesn't even have to earn a living. (Which i guess gives him time to run this website, so maybe this is the way to go).
Then again, I'm pretty much in agreement with his comments about the current climate for those of thus dislike the actions of the United States. I think we're going to be seeing a lot more of this as days pass.
If i was to walk around handing people pamphlets on how to create bombs and encourage everyone to kill everyone that disagrees with me, i would be arrested and rightfully so.
If i put up a web site that tells people how to make bombs and encourage everyone to kill everyone that disagrees with me, suddenly i am a poster boy for free speech?
Posted on the raisethefist.com site:
"anyone actively disagreeing with policies of the U.S is now automatically rendered a 'terrorist' in the eyes of national security."
Perhaps that's so, but I'd venture to say that those disagreeing with the policies of the US and publishing information on how to make bombs are more likely to get noticed than those who simply disagree. They claim that "The sysop of this site does not endorse nor use any method of violence" but bomb-making and anti-government rhetoric on the same site are at the very least an implicit threat.
IANAL, so I can't speak to the legalities of it. But I know that if I were a FBI agent, I too would have wanted armor when I went in there.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's my version of a legal denial of service. Turn about it fair play. What was it those other activist idiots were calling this thing? A virtual sit-in? This is slash-dot's virtual sit in.
This site and this guy claims to support free speach. But - being somewhat of an anarchist - he forgets that free speach doesn't mean that everything everyone says about anything to anybody should be free and up for grabs. Cracking is never right, nor is breaking the law. But then again, he's an anarchist who will go to jail for his acts, not his thoughts/belives. like he claims he will.
Regarding the FBI raid, they must be high on something themself. 2 officers with handguns and a solid kick on the door would probably have been more appropriate.
Look a monkey!
I remember something that David Dellinger (peace activist since WW II) said on the topic of weapons and activism. Essentially the army is way to well armed to confront in an armed fashion. Possesion of weapons will only give one a false sense of power and leave one ripe for arrest or extermination. According to what he said, the FBI would actually try to get activists interested in weapons in order to have something to come down on them on. Kinda like the big guy who can kick your ass as soon as he goads you into taking the first punch.
Its almost as if armed drug dealers run this country and try to control us with the things they do best. Anyone know if this years Afghan smack has made it to the US yet. I'll bet its gonna get real cheap soon.
Vivez sans temps mort
I think you'd better be careful on that there slippery slope, because the next step is "how many of us really want 'that hacker kid' down the street having the knowledge of how to reset my router or how to access my bank's poorly-secured web site?" A lot of the things that people on this site know and converse about freely could be just as dangerous to the public as bomb-making instructions.
I'm not defending hacking or blowing up people with bombs, and I'm not entirely defending this kid either. I'm just saying that we need to differentiate between the knowledge of how to do something, the tools for doing something, and the actual doing of the thing. Responsibility should be laid against those who actually commit crimes, not all of those who know how to. Providing bomb-making information (which is available on any number of other sites) does not seem to be such a major crime.
Although hacking a DoD site definitely was a big mistake. On those grounds alone he should go down.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
It is not the Government's right to say "Peaceful, organized protest is OK, but anything else (like posting a call to action website) is illegal
You know what - according to the Constitution it is:
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Well, OK, I think it matters.
There are lots of articles on Slash about different countries taking away their citizens' rights, based on the assumption that if some information's on the net it's far more dangerous than if it's simply in print.
This is a tech-savvy activist, using the internet as his tool to get his message out to the world. Bravo.
However he crossed the line a number of times by hacking other machines, using a pretty lame-ass excuse: "I had to get my message out!" Sure, Charlie, I have a feeling you're preaching to the converted.
I had an argument with a coworker last summer during the WTO conference (or was it G8? I can't remember). An anti-corporate web site was giving out information and software to stage a "virtual sit-in" to protest against companies involved. Basically, they were advocating a gigantic DDOS against a certain few companies, including Cisco, one of our clients.
He thought it was cool, I thought the entire thing was 100% lame: WTF do they hope to accomplish my not letting me do my work? Are they somehow more important than me? Does their "message" get out by DDOSing a few companies? No. They'd be better off by actually writing letter to the companies they hate, but of course, that takes actual time and effort. It takes little to download someone else's work (the DDOS programs) and run it, then go back to whatever you were doing, thinking you've accomplished some great blow for democracy.
I don't buy it one bit: it's lame, far too easy and cowardly.
So I propsed that on the date and time they went to put up their links page to all the DDOS software, we hit THEM first, in a pre-emptive strike, just to give 'em a taste of their own medicine and see how much they like. But we didn't. I would have had a good laugh though, I just didn't want to sink to their chickenshit level.
Ah well. I'm glad this guy got arrested for his hacking crimes, I just hope they don't pull a Mitnick and give him his fair chance. Doubt it.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Do you seriously think that hacking other people's sites and inciting people to violence is covered under the first amendment? The amendment no longer applies once you start affecting the rights of others. Hacking web sites is illegal since it affects the owners rights. Incitement is illegal since it affects the rights of the victims of the resulting violence.
What this guy did was illegal, whatever you feel about the bomb recipe. You cannot do what he did and blame an oppresive government for noticing. What if your child blew himself or another family member up because they saw this cool bomb recipe on the web? Would you be so pro his first amendment rights then? Would you say he was innocent? How about if he was responsible for killing a family member through incitement, would you not want to see him hang?
I don't think that the government is perfect, far from it in fact. I think that the government tries to go too far in controling web content, but when it comes to something like this, I'm all for it. Be realistic.
Why is it that people always hear what I say, and not what I mean?
From reading the articles, this guy was engaged in illegal activities (by his own admission), was caught, arrested, and is awaiting trial. So why are we even discussing it?
This guy is no Sklyarov, arrested in the US for actions he performed legally elsewhere (sort of like legally visiting a prostitute in Nevada, and getting arrested for it in New York). What he did was illegal, he knew it, he admitted it.
End of story, to my mind.
Yes he should have been arrested. I agree with the way it was handle(based on the story I read).
The real question is Will he be treated different then any other web site vandle because of his views?
if not, then fine. but if he gets a stricter sentance because of his anti-government views, then we have a problem.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Most people would support an amendment making it illegal to pass around bomb-making information."
Probably true, but that would mean among other things banning stuff like chemistry books, and my personal fave, the USMC Improvized Munitions Handbook, available courtesy of the government printing office. And I guess you'd have to be in the military for life, so you couldn't get discharged and tell anyone what you may have been taught.
Yeah, they caught some kid who doesn't like the government. He defaced websites and installed a (probably unworking) cgi script to log into a government site. Go get'em cowboys! Take all his computers, and make an example of him.
Meanwhile, REAL terrorists plot to REALLY blow shit up. And guess what - they don't fucking RUN anarchist web sites. They're smarter than that, and obviously smarter than US intelligence. OBL is on the loose. Omar is on the loose. Yeah, lock some fucking geek up, and take away his web presence. That makes me feel safer.
-Dean
Do you seriously think that hacking other people's sites and inciting people to violence is covered under the first amendment?
First, no -- but I never claimed that. Second, it depends. You might want to keep in mind that the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect unpopular speech -- a web site devoted to making cookies doesn't really need consitutional protection.
The amendment no longer applies once you start affecting the rights of others
Not true in general. For example the free speech argument routinely trumps privacy rights for newsworthy events and/or people.
What this guy did was illegal, whatever you feel about the bomb recipe
I thought in the US the defendant was presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law. You might at least have put an "IMHO" in there.
What if your child blew himself or another family member up because they saw this cool bomb recipe on the web? Would you be so pro his first amendment rights then?
Well, yes, actually I would. I may personally go and throttle the bastard, but that wouldn't change my position on the First Amendment one bit.
I don't buy your "surrender your freedom to get some security" argument.
Be realistic
I am quite realistic. But we are not talking about what the government is likely to do or what you can expect to get away with. We are talking, basically about right and wrong. The connection between what's stupid to do and what's morally wrong is not always that simple.
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Maybe we should be fighting terrorists with better foreign policy, and a review of our commercial morality. The US founding fathers were once considered terrorists, you know. How can we expect corrupt countries like Columbia to reform if, with our new terrorism policy, we don't allow the people to rise up?
Besides, how hard is it to take a 6" length of pipe, fill it with gunpowder and ball-berings, insert a fuse, and seal it? Did you learn nothing from Operation: Swordfish?
AntiChristX
Daring to remain below 5 karma indefinitely
Seriously, c'mon.
First, activists are not terrorists, and that kid's no activist. My brother-in-law is an activist {PETA} and his arguments are intelligent, well researched, more than reasonable, and effective. I haven't given up meat yet, but I've cut down on milk. Thus, someone is listening to him and he's effecting change. That is what activists do.
RTF is nothing more than a dumb ass kid preaching to the disenfranchised (yeah, like that's tough). He has no real concept of anarchy, no understanding of WHY the world works the way it works (no matter how screwed up it gets), and no reasonable solution. So in effect, he's running his position on poor instinct and bad judgement. He effects no change because all he's trying to do is scare people into either buying his position or dying in the chaos of upheaval. I guess it never occured to him that most of the rest of us couldn't give a rats ass about what he thinks ("getting the message out"... what a load. Your message is out, and it sounds like a big steaming pile of crap. Now you're going to try and play the victim card & blame it on the government? Where do you come from?).
Then, he's got the balls, audacidity or insanity to claim the agencies involved used a lot of hardware - no shit sherlock. You ran a website that advocated voilence, vandalism, and had BOMB making instructions on your site. Gangs are dangerous and have guns. You have politicol motivation, half a brain (1/2 more than most local gangs), and a dangerous message with instructions on how others can perform those acts too. Plus, you broke the LAW... you... IDIOT! You bet they're coming heavily armed.
And by the way, the definition of terrorism is, and I quote "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons". How 'bout that. You're a fledgling terrorist according to the very definition of the word. Good luck to him and for the FBI, keep up the good work.
If any of you feel any sympathy for this guy, you need to evaluate whether or not that's because you agree with him or just hate the feds, because that's one *'d up kid. And I'll bet the thousands of other sites that host the same kind of information (anarchists cookbook, etc.) don't advocate or act upon an idiological soapbox, which is why this kid was nabbed.
/rant. sorry.
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
The right of the people to overthrow their government when it fails to meet their needs is written in the Declaration of Independence
and..
Its important not to forget the freedoms that make this country worth fighting for.
One of those important freedoms is the right to vote for who will represent us in the government. One of the most important causes of the American Revolution is that the American colonies had no representation in Parliament. We can't make that claim about the current American government.
As bad as our government might be, it is still composed of people who are chosen by a majority of Americans. Sure, we might be given some shitty options to choose from, and those of us who are intellectual might be outnumbered by the ignorant masses who fall in love with guys like George W. Bush, but the fact remains: The members of our government are there because a majority of the country chose them to be.
But who voted for all these militia groups and anarchist groups who want to violently overthrow the government? How many people want them to succeed? Which one should succeed, if any? How free would the country be if they succeeded? Would the leaders of these groups let the country vote on a new leader every few years? And what happens after the revolution, anyway? It's not like all the wannabe-revolutionary groups agree with each other, so there would just be more revolutions--and they'd all be justified, by your argument--as each group takes it's turn trying to establish its own ideology.
How free are people under that situation?
Anyway, I'm not even going to touch on the craziness of expecting a government to say "Yeah, people have the right to overthrow us. Go ahead." ;)
The US regularly has bombed foreign media buildings because they are 'propaganda' tools yet if someone did the same thing with CNN, ABC or any other swill stations, it would be considered terrorism.
... governments are always above the law. (iftheyre poweful enough)
You only break a law if youre an individual
jon
Because it isn't relevant. The identity of the victim of a crime isn't relevant as to whether or not a crime was commited. Suggesting that the identity of the victim justifies the crime is the same logic used by whackjobs who bomb abortion clinics and shoot people all the while claiming that they're doing God's work.
If an act is wrong, it's wrong no matter who you do it to. .
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
If you call blowing up things with pipe-bombs "social justice" then you have your head screwed on incorrectly.
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
If all this little prick was doing was advocating the overthrow of the government and providing recipes for bombs, believe it or not I'd be right there arguing with him for the right to free speech. I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to my death blah blah blah blah.
But no, this guy was actively trashing web sites, admits to doing so, and then whines that he won't go to jail for what he did, but for his opinions.
No, he'll go to jail because he's just another whiny-assed fucking criminal who got caught, and is trying to hide behind other issues that have nothing to do with his crime.
My opinion is his homepage should now be at lockthecelldoorandthrowawaythekey.com...its like 'ol Beretta said, "if ya can't do the time, don't do the crime".
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
I'm reasonably leftist/radical myself, certainly at american standards.
What you're one of those anarchists? No, you vote for a reformist "social democratic" party? No? you don't believe that the USA should rule the world? Oh well, then you're entitled to deliver a pronouncement on how "interesting" Sherman's ideas were. Obviously you know NOTHING about the LA anarchist scene and how effective RTF was at being an organizing center. RTF was mainly a messageboard with occasional article, like indymedia or /. itself.
Yeah Sherman was dumb to do the cracking etc., but the BIG STORY is that the FBI spokesperson says that he is going to be charged because of the information on BOMB-MAKING. This is apparently legal due to the newly introduced USA-PATRIOT Act. This is a big change in the laws of the land.
The First Amendment standards for advocating overthrow/violent action are much higher than your statement lets on. Yes, Justice Holmes' "crowded theater" comment is frequently cited, but it has never been used as any sort of standard or test. The test (refined over the course of many years) is whether or not the speech in question created a "clear and present danger" that such violent action would occur. The clear and present danger test, after Brandenburg v. Ohio, is an extremely diffucult test for the government to pass. Basically, you have to have a massive crowd in front of you, have everyone in the crowd armed with weapons, as essentially control the crowd to the point where you could just yell, "Kill!" and they all would attack before you can be prosecuted. This extremely high bar was/is used because when the test was less stringent, the government was basically trampling all over the rights of alleged Communists/Communist sympathizers (see "McCarthyism"), as well as any other group they didn't particularly like at the time.
Oh, and the Constitution does not provide for abolishing or changing the government. Arguably this can be done through amending the constitution, but I don't think that's what you were getting at. The stuff about casting off an existing government when it fails the people comes from the Declaration of Independence (where it was stolen from John Locke), which is not actually a part of the laws of the USA.
Tuck
Tuck's Journal.
Or maybe he would read more people - or perhaps more books, unless the people happened to have stuff written on them.
.. etc. were boxed up" - awkward use of plurality. All equipment WAS boxed up. All disks, CDs, etc. were boxed up.
It's interesting to note the massive differences between the reporting styles on the sites. Of course I understand that there's often a perception that the mainstream media is controlled and/or biased against antiglobalization movements and so on, but nonetheless they are regularly far more credible than the propaganda and hyperbole spread by the 'indymedia' style of journalism. Mainstream media tends to want to ask the hard questions to these people, but it doesn't help when they haven't got any good answers. Paranoia about every contra-opinion being from a "mole" planted by their opposition, as evidenced on the discussion board, really doesn't help. It's like those who would declare any not-anti-Microsoft opinion here a "trolling employee".
As an article from a supposedly legitimate media source, they could at least spellcheck the articles. I don't really find myself trusting sources that can't get a single correct sentence in their articles, nor those that simply publish word for word what has been submitted. (Slashdot clearly marks it as a brief submission and qualifies it with comment).
But now to start being a grammar Nazi, or perhaps a grammar Ally. And it probably is bad grammar to start a sentence with 'but' or 'and', but I concern myself with things that read badly, or incorrectly, rather than technically frowned upon. No doubt I will make a few typos and technically incorrect usages of grammar here that the true grammar Nazis will enjoy picking up on, should they ever see a post at 0.
- "sorounded the founder" - "surrounded". And they surrounded the house. Not surprising that they would bring some heavy weapons if they figured he might have a bomb.
- "The founder was currently asleep" - a very poor way to phrase things. 'The founder was asleep' covers it, currently throws up all sorts of confusion over the temporal situation.
- "woken up by a relative who said... [they] were currently up and down all of the streets" - badly explained given that we already know that he is in the house, which is surrounded. 'All of' is unnecessary and the whole 'up and down' bit is awkward. No apostrophy in "undercovers" (an unusual shortening of the name but passable).
- "with they're eyes focused on the premises" - "they're" is an obvious mistake. The whole image is pretty badly drawn as well; and presumably it is supposed to mean 'focused on HIS premises'.
- "Raisethefist.com founder aproached the door were 2 FBI agents demanded that he step outside" - an awkward use of present tense, missing 'the' at the start (appropriate in a play-by-play report which this half-heartedly attempts to be). "approached". "where".
- "Within seconds a swarm of FBI raided the house" - awkward form of shortening, leaving out the word 'agents'.
- "...around the house with a door baracade and additional weapons. "armed and ready"." - "barricade". The last bit follows on, needing neither a full stop before it (a comma or semicolon might be acceptable) and the quotes are not really necessary unless that was an order given at the time.
- "FBI and secret service entered the house, seizing all servers and political liturature." - the FBI is already supposed to be in there at this point. "literature".
- "Raisethefist.com was currently being ran within the founders room of the house, over a computer network." - this sentence is a crime against English. 'currently being ran' is terribly tense-confused ('being run' would be slightly awkward but okay), 'within' should probably be 'from' since the point of the website is to extent beyond the room, 'founders' needs a possessive apostrophe, and the comma is unnecessary (as indeed is the whole last section, unless this indymedia audience is completely computer illiterate).
- "The room was literarly ransacked" - "literally".
- "and all equipment, disks, cd's
- "has been under extensive government monitering" - "monitoring".
- "At times, Raisethefist.com has recieved over 100 hits from the U.S Department of Defense in a single day." - awkward use of 'at times... in a single day'. "received".
- "The FBI, police department, NSA (and who else) continuesly monitered the site on a daily basis." - "who else" makes no sense; is it a question ("who else would, but the NSA?") or a vague sense of a continuing list ("and various others")? "continuously monitored". "On a daily basis" is awkward if they are continuously monitoring.
- "Even government's... continuesly" - no apostrophe. Same spelling mistake.
- "vioces" - typo presumably
- "successfull" - got slightly carried away with the double letters there.
- "completly" - typo.
- "happend" - happened.
- "alot" - not a real word.
- "litature" - again.
- "they're excuse" - ugh.
- "Apparently, they're excuse for shutting it down was the 'militancy' portrayed on the site. This is not true. This was an excuse." - as was just said. It was their excuse for shutting it down. How can that not be true? It MAY not have been their REASON for wanting to doing it (but legally it probably was, or needs to be). The excuse (getting off grammar here) seems to be that it hasn't happened to many other controversial sites which are monitored (or monitered...). But there's far more sites with unfavourable (yet not 'militant') opinions that also aren't shut down. And it's hard to justify running a massive arms-laden FBI raid on someone who just said that the government was a bit crap, really.
At this point it starts drifting off into a slightly self-important, victimised, scaremongering speech, and it seems to be able to survive most of the length of these short sentences without too many mistakes creeping in.
- "havn't" - haven't. "monitering" - monitoring. "progresive" - progressive. "automaticly" - automatically.
"Based on what i've been told, i'll most likely be in jail, so most of my focus will be towards getting an attorney." - nothing really to say here (apart from the casual capitalisation) but I just find this an amusing final paragraph.
I find it interesting that espousing violent resistance to violations of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights has been redefined as "violent overthrow of the constitution."
Time to put bomb making instructions on my own web site too. I figure a reprint of the GPO's own pamphlet on how to remove stumps by using the 6 to 1 by weight ratio of amonium nitrate and diesel fuel would be sufficient. Or is that ratio by volume? Hmmm, time for a test on a stump or two out on the back 40.
Government is the one monopoly everyone should fear, and fight against every infringement of their rights.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
A particularly relevant paragraph from chapter 3 reads:
In addition to having allegedly broken some pretty straighforward computer misuse laws this guy was advocating violence against the state. I think that going in with guns drawn was a perfectly reasonable approach.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.