Slashdot Mirror
Raisethefist.com Update
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.
I submitted a story about this, I think it's cool Slashdot editors suck!
Rejected! Rejected!
Moo!
http://www.archive.org/index.html
This is a cool site!
I'm sorry, but if someone is that stupid to directly admit to what they've done (such as this kid did), they deserve what they get...
This early post for Ida! I love you!
Frankly, I'm getting tired of all these things I'm supposed to be outraged about.
Isn't this the guy who cried censorship... and then it came out that he was threatening to blow stuff up, and even admitted he hacked several government sites? Sounds like a wannabe myrtar, except without any intelligence. I'm surprised they let him go.
It has to be, or it doesn't work at all. It breaks done and ceases to protect anyone but those with 'popular' speech.
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.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
The teen was also charged with possession of a Molotov cocktail, which is considered an "unregistered firearm" by the FBI.
I can see the other charges being dropped, considering the somewhat shaky grounds they stood on, but he still had a makeshift bomb.
I'm all for 1st amendment rights, but a Molotov cocktail is just plain wrong.
I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.
I just checked, and of course it is...
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?
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
>
>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.
He didn't DO anything. He ran a website, where he expressed his opinions. If they were going to charge him for anything, they should charge him for hacking, not simply operating a website and having an opinion that does not agree with the United States. These new "anti-terrorism" laws seem to be being used to target our own citizens who do not support the government, rather than fighting actual terrorists. Btw, since when is a molotov cocktail a firearm? FBI=n00bs
Has anyone read through the article? The FBI's confiscated the computers, and they contain letters plotting to take on the Olympics, maybe in a form of domestic terrorism. They also confiscated some items they say were bomb-making materials. Free Speech doesn't cover making your point with explosives!
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
Did they pull the site? Seems that way. I was able to read some of the old material that wsa up via the google cache though. For anyone else that missed the first posting of this and just want to get an idea of the format of his site. Here is the link.
r ai sethefist.com+raisethefist
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+site:www.
Acording to the article it is against the law to publish information on how to make explosives. How do demolition componies, avalanche experts, fireworks companies, and those who supply these companies with explosives get around this?
If you go back and read the previous discussion on this, most of the posts were in favor of this guy getting slammed. Why try and bring up support for this guy again? It's obvious it didn't work the first time and that most people here think he should be punished.
Poor Sherman has no reading materials, perhaps they should give him a copy of Atlas Shrugged or Eat the Rich.
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.
Some men spend their entire lives trying to kill themselves for having been born. --Ross MacDonald
is raisetheFINGER. you know which one.
That instead of reading the articles, you read the court hearing instead. It provides *both* sides of the story, as well as the Judge's comments.
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?
I hate to make generalizations, but these radical anarchist types are all alike.
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.
13 February 2002
Source: Hardcopy from Susan Tipograph, attorney for Sherman Austin in New York.
See related documents:
Search warrant and affidavit:
http://cryptome.org/usa-v-rtf-swa.htm
Affidavit in support of complaint and arrest warrant:
http://cryptome.org/usa-v-sma-aca.htm
Dockets from Central District of California and Southern District of New York:
http://cryptome.org/usa-v-sma-dkt.htm
[38 pages.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-vs-
SHERMAN AUSTIN
Defendant
DOCKET NO.: M-02-253
New York, New York
February 7, 2002
TRANSCRIPT OF CRIMINAL CAUSE FOR DETENTION HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE HENRY B. PITMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
APEARANCES:
For the Government: VICTOR HOU, ESQ.
U.S. Attorney's Office
One St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
For the Defendant: SUSAN TIPOGRAPH, ESQ.
351 Broadway, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10013
Audio Operator:
Proceedings Recorded by Electronic Sound Recording
Transcript Produced by Transcription Service
KRISTIN M RUSIN
328 Flatbush Avenue, Suite 251
Brooklyn, New York 11238
(718)789-0620
THE CLERK: United States against Sherman Mark [sic: Martin] Austin. Counsel, please state your names for the record.
MR. HOU: Victor Hou for the Government. With me at Counsel table is Special Agent Kuhn of the FBI. Good afternoon, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon
MS. TIPOGRAPH: For Mr. Austin, Susan Tipograph. Good afternoon, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. All right. This matter is on for a detention hearing today. I'll hear from the Government first. Then I'll hear from Ms. Tipograph, okay? Mr. Hou?
MR. HOU: Thank you, Your Honor. The Government in this case seeks a temporary order of detention, only for the interval of time that the defendant can be expeditiously removed from the Southern District of New York to face the charges currently pending in the Central District of California in Los Angeles where the defendant resides.
The Government seeks a temporary order of detention based on two grounds Your Honor. One, on danger to the community, and two, that the defendant represents a risk of flight. The Government makes this applicatin before Your Honor based on proffer and also on the extensive materials which Your Honor has now received as a result of the Rule 40 affidavit and the underlying complaint, which was issued out of the Central District of California, and a search warrant affidavit which is an exhibit to that complaint.
The Pretrial Services Agency which prepared the report in this case did not have the benefit of this extensive material when they made their recommendation to Your Honor. 6 Therefore, the Government would like to list the factors in that evidence which is now before Your Honor as it relates to those two grounds I've just articulated.
With regard to danger to the community, Your Honor, one, there's no question this is a case about a crime of violence. This is a case about the defendant's possession of destructive devices and the posting of instructions about how to make bombs, very specific types of bombs, fuel bombs, fertilizer bombs, pipe bombs, and Molotov cocktails, on the defendant's web site, which he has admitted to operating from his home.
There's no question under the Bail Reform Act, Your Honor, that those crimes constitute crimes of violence, and therefore the Government's obviously entitled to a bail hearing on that determination.
A The Second Circuit has long held that items, destructive devices such as Molotov cocktails, simply have no legitimate purpose. They are, by definition, tools of violence. In this case, the defendant possessed Molotov cocktails. Pursuant to a search warrant which was authorized in the Central District of California on or about January 24th, the FBI searched the defendant's home. What did they find there? They found explosives. They found M-80s. They found remote control detonating devices. Again, these are items that have no legitimate purpose. They found bottles, over sixty bottles. They found the Molotov cocktails I mentioned.
They also saw in plain view the defendant's silver Toyota 1981 car.
THE COURT: Were there completed Molotov cocktails found?
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 etroleum products.
The FBI agents asked the defendant at that time whether it contained petroleum products, whether it was, in fact, a Molotov cocktail, and he denied it.
The defendant operates a web site, or used to operate a web site, which advocated direct action, violent action, to stop different events; most specifically, the World Economic Forum which just happened in New York. He also advocated direct action, violent action, to stop the 2002 Olympics held now in Salt Lake City -- I believe the opening ceremonies are about to begin -- by all means necessary, is what the web site said.
In fact, his web site, before it was dismantled by the FBI, indicated he wanted to burn the Olympics. And I ask the Court's indulgence. I'm going to have to use strong language which was inside the web site, but this is the language of the defendant. He indicated he wanted to burn the Olympics, and he wanted to fuck the corporate playground.
Your Honor, the web site indicates -- the defendant indicated to others that were going to visit this web site that it was essential, essential reading, for anyone who was associated with the groups that advocate or utilize sabotage, theft, arson, and more militant tactics.
The web site encouraged demonstrators to assault police, even encouraged them to use different-tactics, how to lure police so they could be more vulnerable to rioters and to more militant tactics; to use weapons of mass destruction; to use bombs, to explode bombs; to injure police and to blow up their cars, just like in the movies, the web site cautioned.
The web site taught users and visitors how to make different types of bombs, as I mentioned before, including Molotov cocktails and fuel fertilizer bombs. Therefore, the FBI was quite alarmed, obviously, when bags of fertilizer in the defendant's car, the silver Toyota I mentioned earlier, were found in the back of his car, along with fuel canisters. Again, these are the key ingredients to the fuel fertilizer bombs the defendant instructed others how to make.
That same car, that 1981 Toyota silver station wagon, made its way three thousand miles from California to New York, the same car, driven by the defendant, and he was arrested subsequently by the New York Police Department as he was demonstrating, as -- according to police reports, he was -- the defendant was part of a group of protestors that were about to attack what appeared to be the Plaza Hotel on 59th Street and Fifth Avenue, and he was arrested.
I believe the police received some leads that that was going to happen, and they intercepted. They stopped the plan before it happened. He was there with his car. Inside the car which was later uncovered by the police department after a diligent search was found an empty gas container, electrical wire, a shield which he had described -- the defendant described how to make to protect himself from riot police and whatnot, and other implements, the same implements which the Government contends are bomb-making equipment.
He brought his equipment three thousand miles from Los Angeles. Despite the fact that his house had been searched by FBI, he still came all the way to New York to disrupt the World Economic Forum, just as he had predicted and advocated in his web site, by all means necessary.
In fact, Your Honor, the defendant was also -- when he was arrested by the NYPD had no identification on him. What he had was a lighter, a black mask, and a gas mask. He came prepared, Your Honor, to do exactly what he said he was going to do. When officers saw that he had keys to a car, they asked him where the car was located. He indicated to the police officers that he did not know where that car was located.
He said then -- later during questioning he said it might be in Brooklyn. As I mentioned before, it was only after a diligent search did the police locate the vehicle. They obtained the defendant's consent to search the car, and they found those aforementioned items. The defendant is not just the passive purveyor of information about bomb making. He has fielded inquiries pursuant to the internet by other inquisitive would-be rioters: how do I make bombs? The defendant had the answers.
The defendant's own words on the web site, Your 18 Honor, I believe speak for themselves:
Yeah, motherfucker, I'm a terrorist to the United States Government. I'm a terrorist to capitalism.
In another segment, he said: We don't gather weapons, plan extreme operation, and risk our lives for nothing. This is real.
The Government takes this threat very, very seriously, Your Honor.
With regard to flight risk, there's no guarantee that the defendant will go straight from New York to California and report, as he must, to face the charges now pending in the Central District of California. We have obvious concerns that the defendant will stop on his way to Salt Lake City to disrupt the Winter Olympics, as he promised.
The Bail Reform Act requires Your Honor to look at several factors, including the weight of the evidence. Your Honor, given the Government's proffer here today, given the extensive affidavits already submitted in connection with the Rule 40 affidavit, there is overwhelming evidence against the defendant. He has made admissions. He has admitted that he operated the web site.
The results of a search of his residence by the FBI in L.A., at his residence in California, the Molotov cocktails, the remote control bomb detonating device, the search of his automobile here in New York -- all of these factors inexorably lead to the conclusion that this defendant will be convicted, or at least there's a strong potentiality of that occurrence.
In addition, Your Honor he does face a substantial sentence. He faces a statutory maximum of twenty years under the 18 United States Code section 842(p)(2)(A) offense. That maximum sentence is governed by section 844. In addition, Your Honor, his conduct is escalating. The defendant was arrested some time in May 2001 for conspiracy and for disruptive conduct. This happened in Long Beach. That case is -- my understanding is it's still pending, and he's released on bail. Even though he was on bail, Your Honor, for disruptive activities, and even though the FBI came to his home and searched his home and found all those bomb-making implements, and anarchist literature, and all these other items, he still drove his car three thousand miles from California to New York, determined to carry out his plan. This wasn't a misguided youth, Your Honor. This was a man on a mission.
Your Honor, the Bail Reform Act asks you to consider whether the defendant is currently on release pending trial, asks you to consider that as a factor. He was. He was pending trial. That's my understanding. He was out, and he came, and he committed these acts.
The Bail Reform Act also asks Your Honor to consider the character of the defendant. We ask you to consider the character of the defendant by his own words, but not only words alone, but his deeds as well. His deeds, in coming to New York, I think speak volumes. He's lied to the police. Your Honor, he lied to the police about possessing Molotov cocktails. He said no, I just -- I put it on my web site, I don't actually make them. Of course he had over sixty bottles in his room, and he had gasoline in his car, tanks of gasoline in his car.
He had fertilizer in his car. He instructed others how to make fuel fertilizer bombs and encouraged people to make more devastating Molotov cocktails on his web site. He instructed them. The most high explosive and lethal mixture is ammonium nitrate-based fertilizer mixed with gasoline. Just stuff the bottle with this mixture and light the fucker -- this is what the defendant's own words dictate. And he had all the materials. He had all those materials, Your Honor. And it's just because the NYPD stopped him, we believe, that more serious consequences didn't result.
Finally, Your Honor, his web site encourages deception -- how rioters can use different techniques to evade the police, how not to -- be careful not to leave DNA evidence when you use bombs, because sometimes not all bombs explode where you want them to, encourage rioters to use these destructive devices against law enforcement officers. There simply is no constitutional right to injure law enforcement officers doing their jobs.
Finally, Your Honor, the defendant lives at home with his mother, yet his mother has exercised little to no moral suasion over his actions. She did not stop him after her house was searched by the FBI. And in fact, in the days preceding the search I am told by the FBI agent in charge of the case out in Los Angeles the mother did not even know where his whereabouts were. He was disappeared. He didn't leave a forwarding number, didn't say where he could be reached.
This is an individual who is not controlled by his family, and to the extent that there is any moral suasion that they could exercise, begging him to come home and face these charges, I would submit, Your Honor, that that is insufficient. For those reasons, Your Honor, the Government seeks a very, very narrow order of temporary detention in this case to permit the defendant to be brought by the United States Marshals from the Southern District of New York to L.A. to face those charges.
At that time, the district which knows him best, where the evidence is located, and where the defendant's family is located, should make the ultimate determination about whether or not the defendant should be held on detention pending trial. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. Okay. Ms. Tipograph?
MS. TIPOGRAPH: Thank you very much, Judge. First, Judge, I just want to, obviously, make it clear for the record: pretrial services, who certainly understood the seriousness of the charges, found that Mr. Austin, who is eighteen years old, has lifelong family ties to California. He lives with his mother and his sister. There is no known instance of failing to report. He voluntarily gave a urine sample, and it tested negative for drugs .
And pretrial services found that conditions do exist that will reasonably assure Mr. Austin's appearance in court and that he was not -- while the charges were serious, they did not believe he was a danger to the community.
And I would like to sort of give perhaps a more realistic version of the facts in this case. On January 16th of this year, the FBI applied for a search warrant in the Central District of California, and according to the application for the warrant, the investigation into Mr. Austin and/or web sites attributed to him began in, I believe, May of the year 2001.
That investigation, according to the search warrant application, was looking into both computer fraud and one of the charges that he's facing now, distribution of information relating to explosive destruction devices and weapons of mass destruction. That investigation started, according to the affidavit, in May of the year 2001. After eight months of investigation, from May of 2001 to January of 2002, Mr. Austin was not charged with any crime, and nor did he participate in any acts of violence.
What is his criminal history? It's noteworthy because the assistant raised it, and also the agent raises it in her Rule 40 removal affidavit. On May 1st of the year 2001, approximately the same time that Mr. Austin and his web site was the subject of an investigation, he was arrested in Long Beach, California. According to the agent's complaint, he was charged with two counts of riot, unlawful assembly, and conspiracy to commit a crime, although the rap sheet which was provided by pretrial services has him charged with two minor offenses, both of them, I believe, misdemeanors. One of them was to conspiracy to'commit a crime, and the underlying crime which was a refusal to disperse.
It was at a demonstration, there's no question about it. Mr. Austin asserted his innocence of those charges and is fighting them, has made every court appearance he was required. He was arrested under his own name. His rap sheet lists him in that offense as eighteen years old, five foot seven, and a hundred and twenty five pounds. There's no charge of the use of any weapons in that offense. There's no charge of any use or violence. It's a refusal to disperse and conspiracy to commit a refusal to disperse.
The agent in California also indicates that on June 24th of the year 2001, in San Diego, California, Mr. Austin was ticketed for a traffic violation, that violation being a pedestrian crossing against a 'don't walk' or 'wait' signal. And that was at a demonstration against biotechnology and genetic engineering. There were twelve people who were similarly ticketed along with Mr. Austin. All of those tickets were dismissed. Obviously, I can't address why; I wasn't present when they were dismissed.
He was cited in his own name. He didn't give a false name or false address. He gave all the accurate information. There were no allegations of the use of any weapons, no allegation of any violence, and that he appeared in court when he was required.
And in New York City on February 2nd of the year 2002, Mr. Austin was arrested by the New York City police along with twenty-seven other people, and I won't say charged, because he was, in fact, never charged. He was booked by the New York City police for unlawful assembly, which is a B misdemeanor, and disorderly conduct for blocking pedestrian traffic, which is a violation.
He was arrested under his own name, despite the fact that the assistant claims that he came three thousand miles to commit crimes of violence, and to disrupt, and use weapons, and bombs, and weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Austin was arrested under his own name. He didn't commit, any acts of violence. He didn't have a weapon.
Agent Kuhn, in her affidavit, and the assistant in his presentation to the Court, talks about the significance of what is in Mr. Austin's car when he voluntarily gave them the keys to the car and consent to search that car. And what was found in the car, they claim, was a gas mask, and a shield, and, I believe, a -- an empty gas container, a shield, and other implements.
Now, let's talk about what those -- first, --
THE COURT: There was also an open bag of fertilizer, as I recall.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: Well, no, no, that's a different that's a different time than this allegation took place, Judge. I'll get to that in a few moments, if you'll let me.
THE COURT: No, I will, but let me just make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying that there was no fertilizer in his car in New York?
MS. TIPOGRAPH: Judge, the alleged fertilizer -- I'll explain to you about the alleged fertilizer.
THE COURT: All right, go ahead.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: On January 24th, the FBI executed the search warrant that they had obtained eight days earlier. obviously this investigation was significant, and they were worried about Mr. Austin having violence and bombs and making equipment. But yet despite the seriousness, the FBI waited eight days in order to execute the search warrant. When they executed it, they executed it in the house, and they claim that they saw through the window of Mr. Austin's car a bag of fertilizer. They did not search the car, Judge. They did not go back to a magistrate to ask for permission to search the car. All it is is an allegation that there was a bag of fertilizer. Judge, it was approximately a half empty bag of potting soil that was disposed of. So that's the alleged fertilizer, Judge.
A claim that the -- the FBI would have you believe that when -- as they executed this search warrant on January 24th they were investigating a man who was making bombs and Molotov cocktails, and yet they claimed to see gasoline container and a bag of fertilizer in his car, and they take no steps to seize those materials, nor do they take steps to go back to the magistrate to ask for permission to seize them, Judge.
I would contend, Your Honor, that you can view their claims of the dangerousness of this kind of materials that they claim to have seen by the fact that they took no action to seize or to take that property. So the fertilizer -- the so-called fertilizer, which -- let's refer to it as the potting soil -- doesn't allegedly go to New York with Mr. Austin.
He drives to New York in a 1981 Toyota with a hundred and seventy thousand miles on it, with a gas container, electrical wire, and duct tape. Frankly, Judge, if I was driving across the country with a 1981 Toyota with a hundred and seventy thousand miles, I may have that equipment in it also. But the significance of the fact that that was in the car was that when Mr. Austin was arrested, the empty a container, and the wire, and the tape were in -- were locked in his car in Brooklyn while he was demonstrating in Manhattan, Judge.
There's no allegation that he used those materials. In fact, there's no allegations of any relationship to those materials to any weapons or bombs, Judge, because when you come right down to it, Judge, on January 24th the FBI searches Mr. Austin's house for hours, with machine gun-toting agents standing in the street. He speaks to them. They question him. He answers their questions.
And despite the fact that they claim to have found two Molotov cocktails in his house, they don't arrest him on January 24th. They don't arrest him on January 25th. They don't arrest him on January 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, or 31st. They don't arrest him on February 1st, but on February 2nd he's arrested with twenty-seven other people for unlawful assembly and disorderly conduct in New York. He's released. He's released by the New York City Police Department, and in fact is arrested by FBI agents inside the building at the Manhattan Criminal Court.
And in fact, when is the complaint from the Central District of California brought? It certainly wasn't brought before he was arrested, because the affidavit by the FBI agent in California that serves as the basis for the complaint that you are now being asked to remove Mr. Austin back to California wasn't brought until -- wasn't signed until February 4th. It wasn't signed on January 24th when they allegedly find a Molotov cocktail in his house. It's not signed on the 25th, the 26th, the 27th, the 28th, the 29th, the 30th, the 31st, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd.
It's not until ten days later, when all of a sudden Mr. Austin, who drives across the country, and eighteen year[s] old, to legally demonstrate against -- for issues that he thinks are of some significance and some importance -- the FBI arrests him three thousand miles away from his home. They certainly could have arrested him on January 24th. They could have arrested him on any date thereafter.
They have no evidence that in practice he's ever done anything of any violence, that he's ever used another name, that he's ever tried to avoid the police. And in fact, on every occasion when he's been given the opportunity -- he had two prior cases, a crossing against a traffic light in San Diego, and a refusal to disperse in Long Beach.
He appears every time he's required. He gives his correct name. He gives his correct date of birth. He tells them where he lives. He appears in court when he is required to appear in court. When the FBI comes and searches his house on January 24th, he answers their questions. When the FBI arrests him in New York on February 4th and they ask him for permission to search his car, he gives them the keys to his car and tells them -- presumably they found the car so he obviously must have told them enough information about how to find the car. And in fact, they found it.
I want to just go through -- Mr. Hou claims that the FBI found explosives in his house when they searched it on January 24th. Again, they claim they found two Molotov cocktails. Obviously, those charges will be constested in the appropriate jurisdiction. Mr. Austin absolutely and unequivocally denies that he had Molotov cocktails in his house.
And in fact, the conduct of the FBI confirms in some degree, Judge, that they didn't believe he knowingly had Molotov cocktails in his house, because I can't believe that after an eight month investigation, with ten or twelve FBI agents searching his house with machine guns in the street, that they would have found Molotov cocktails in his house and walked away, and said thanks for your cooperation, we'll get back to you whenever we have to, and they don't do anything for ten days until he's arrested in New York.
His web site -- Judge, I haven't seen all the papers on the web site. Frankly, I would assume that there are significant First Amendment issues about the arrest and investigation of Mr. Austin based on his web site. Those will be litigated in another jurisdiction, and I'm not going to do that here. But obviously there is a significant amount of litigation that's going to go on about this. This is not these are First Amendment issues which will either get upheld or not upheld by an appropriate court.
Again, the claim that he had a bag of fertilizer in the back of his car -- absolutely, unequivocally deny it. the fact that the FBI didn't attempt to seize that so-called bag of fertilizer confirms that they didn't believe there was any fertilizer in his car.
A group of protestors about to attack the Plaza Hotel, allegedly -- again, he's charged with disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly. No charges are ever brought. He's released. Again, inside the car: an empty gas container, shield, and other implements. He brought his equipment three thousand miles away. He brought his, quote, equipment three thousand miles, but his so-called equipment sits in his car while Mr. Austin is demonstrating in Manhattan.
Whether you or I or anybody else agrees with what he believes in or doesn't believe in, or what he was demonstrating for and against, his so-called implements of destruction -- a metal shield, an empty gas container, electrical wire -- which he tells me were stereo wires for his car -- and duct tape those, the implements of mass destruction, were left in his car while he was demonstrating in Manhattan.
He came three thousand miles to disrupt the World Economic Forum. Judge, he came three thousand miles to exercise his First Amendment rights to protest. And what implements of terror and violence did Mr. Austin have on him when he was arrested? A black mask, a gas mask, and a lighter.
No guarantee that defendant will go straight to California and that will stop in Salt take city there's not the slightest bit of belief that that will happen. Nothing that Mr. Austin has done in his eighteen years of practice in the world is consistent with that, and in fact everything he's done is quite consistent with just the opposite. He has openly protested and demonstrated for issues of importance to him.
He's never engaged in an act of violence. He's never possessed implements of violence. He's never been charged with violence. He's never been charged with trying to hide his identity or anything else. And I think it's noteworthy, Judge, that while you don't presumably have jurisdiction over this, Mr. Austin, who is eighteen years old, who was not arrested or charged with committing any acts of violence, is being held on Unit South of the MCC. I believe his closest neighbor is the people charged with the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Africa.
In the four days or so since he's been in custody, he has not been permitted to make a phone call. He has not gotten a shower. The only clothes he has are the clothes that he's wearing. I would note for the record, Judge, that Mr. -- every time I've seen Mr. Austin, he's been shaking because he's cold. It's cold in the back. He doesn't have a sweatshirt. He doesn't have a jacket.
And you deciding that if -- you making a decision that he's going to be detained and essentially sent back to California in the custody of the marshals, while I'm certainly not pointing fingers at the United States Marshals, who I have no doubt will deal with Mr. Austin in the most professional manner, but based on my experience he will take the slow boat to California. He will stop in county jails across the country, and I am very concerned for his safety, given that already guards at the MCC have called him a terrorist.
And what's that going to mean? One of the stopping points for federal prisoners who are transported across the country is the Oklahoma City jail, Judge. I am very concerned for Mr. Austin's safety, given that he has been labeled a terrorist, in terms of what will happen to him in county jails in places like Oklahoma City where the people there have very ood reason to be concerned about terrorists.
Austin is not a terrorist, Judge. Nothing he has done would indicate anything to that extent, and he has a very close and loving family, Judge. Perha s when his mother said she didn't know where he was, perhaps she was less than -- perhaps she was exercising the love and concern of a mother for an eighteen year old child and wanted to protect her child. She was present when the house was searched. Mr. Austin was present when the house was searched. They answered the FBI's questions.
Mr. Austin has lifelong family ties to California. He's lived there for eighteen years. He was born there. He was raised there. He has a twin sister. He's a high school graduate, Judge. He does independent freelance computer programming. I am certain that the Court can issue an order releasing him that includes in it a provision for him to take a direct flight from New York to California. If the Court wants somebody to accompany him, a family member, I'm sure that can be arranged, Judge.
While I don't agree with the concerns of the raised by the Government, certainly this Court has the power and authority to fashion conditions that would ensure that Mr. Austin gets to California quickly and safely. And those are two factors, quick and safely back to California, that frankly think would be more assured if he was traveling on his own than if he was traveling in custody, Judge.
I'm going to ask you to release him. There's nothing about this case which requires you to hold him. And in fact, everything about Mr. Austin his conduct in his past dealings with the criminal justice system, and the FBI's dealing with this case -- they waited eight days to execute the warrant, and then they waited another ten days to arrest Mr. Austin, despite the fact that they claim that they saw in plain sight two fully fashioned Molotov cocktails.
I would allege, Judge, that their conduct in this case underlies the strength of their claims.
MR. HOU: Your Honor, very, very briefly.
THE COURT: Just one thing. Ms. Tipograph, are you suggesting -- I keep an open mind till I hear all the arguments, but are you suggesting that he be released on his own recognizance?
MS. TIPOGRAPH: Judge, I'M -- I -- ultimately, Judge, you're going to make the decision. I think that, frankly --
THE COURT: No, I --
MS. TIPOGRAPH: If you want to release him, I think you can release him on his own recognizance, and part of the order being that somebody, a family member or some person, someone in authority -- a family member, an attorney -- accompany him back to California.
He has a grandmother who lives in New Jersey, Judge. I'm sure that he can stay there until arrangements could be made to get him out of here. If you release him today, Judge, he'll be on a plane first thing tomorrow morning.
THE COURT: All right. Okay. Thank you. All right. Mr. Hou?
MR. HOU: Your Honor, if I may, the defendant's counsel has now attacked the FBI's conduct in this case to somehow indicate that there is a weakness in this case, or that they failed to act. Let me be very, very clear what the Government has done in this case and what the FBI has done in this case.
Upon obtaining probable cause to obtain a search warrant from the relevant authorities, they executed that search warrant within the relevant time period. They searched. They obtained items of interest that deserved extra testing. They tested, as I indicated, and they determined that despite the fact that defendant told them that the two bottles that they secured did not contain petroleum products and were not in fact, Molotov cocktails, they determined later that it were -- that those items were, in fact, Molotov cocktails.
There's a lot been made of the fact that somehow the defendant wasn't -- since the defendant wasn't arrested at that exact time, somehow the FBI fears that its case is somehow weak. That is simply not the case. There has never been anything wrong with the Government making sure that it has all its facts before it proceeds against very, very serious criminal charges against the defendant.
What did the FBI do after it presumably let Mr. Austin go? They put a watch out, and they notified officials in New York City, indicating -- warning agents of the secret service. Why did they warn agents of the secret service? Because the defendant made threats against the president inside a web site. He had a picture of the president of the United States with a target symbol on his head, and said wanted, dead or alive.
Again, this is a sample of speech, but violent speech, certainly. But we look and we judge the defendant by what he says and by what he does. The president of the United States was just here yesterday. The secret service had a legitimate right to know. The FBI notified the secret service and said we did a search of this guy's house, he has indicated that he wants to come to the World Economic Forum. And he did, and he showed three thousand miles away, and when the NYPD arrested him, the secret service and the FBI were immediately notified.
And that is how that course of events went. The FBI acted responsibly, and we arrested him with probable cause, not only -- in addition to all these charges that we have now, we do also know that there is an additional charge of hacking and different computer fraud, which defense counsel listed, but that's not at issue here, and that's something that we're going to litigate in the Central District of California.
But let me be clear, Your Honor. In addition, as I mentioned before, the pretrial services report did not have the benefit of the Rule 40 affidavit materials, and I notice now that the pretrial services report reflects and recommends that the defendant be detained on the basis of danger. Unless Your Honor has any further questions, --
THE COURT: No.
MR. HOU: -- I'm not going to retread any more ground. We do believe that there are no set of conditions or combination of conditions. Certainly, the defense hasn't given you any option, no proposal of co-signers, no proposal of monitoring or any specific proposal other than the release of the defendant and the promise -- the promise -- that the defendant will return forthwith to face the charges in the Central District of California.
As I mentioned before, Your Honor, what we have is the fact that the defendant was arrested before. He was on bail pending trial for this destruction, this conspiracy, Long Beach, California, and while he's out pending bail on that case, he comes three thousand miles here. This is after his house has been searched by the FBI, after his house has been searched by agents who found all these different implements. He comes out here.
I think actions speak louder than words, Your Honor, and what the Government seeks here is only a temporary order of detention so that the defendant may be expeditiously removed forthwith to the Central District of California. And let me just address defense counsel's final supposition, that somehow the defendant is going to be bounced around between county jails everywhere from here to California.
We did speak about this before this hearing today. I did address that concern with defense counsel. I told her that I would do everything in the Government -- and certainly Your Honor culd order that the marshals remove him expeditiously, within a suitable time frame.
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.
What Your Honor can and should in this case order is that the defendant be removed expeditiously and that the marshals bring Mr. Austin home to face the charges pending in the Central District of California, and permit that court, who knows him best, where the evidence is located, and where Mr. Sherman Austin's family is located, to make the ultimate determination about whether he should be detained pending trial. Thank you, Your Honor.
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.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: Judge, could I just add for the record that I am aware now that Mr. Austin's aunt is in court? Given that there's press here, I would prefer not to put more personal information about her on the record, but she's a college professor.
THE COURT: Um hmm. All right. All right, Ms. Tipograph, do you want to offer a surreply?
MS. TIPOGRAPH: No, Judge. I think I addressed whatever issues were raised in my --
THE COURT: All right.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: -- usual comments.
THE COURT: All right. [Pause) All right. Based on the information set forth in the Rule 40 affidavit and the attachments thereto, the pretrial services report, and the arguments and proffers of counsel for both sides, I am going to order that I'm going to enter a temporary order of detention and order that Mr. Austin be detained pending his appearance before a magistrate or district judge in the Central District of California, on the grounds of both risk of flight and dangerousness.
With respect to risk of flight, admittedly I think Ms. Tipograph is correct that he has -- there is no -- well, there's no evidence that he has failed to appear to face the charges that are pending against him in California, but the charges that are pending against him in California are of a substantially different magnitude than the charges that are pending against him in this court.
In addition, the affidavit submitted in connection with the Rule 40 affidavit established probable cause to believe that the defendant operated a web site which shows if it pans out and is proven, which suggests that defendant does not -- let me rephrase that -- which gives me no confidence -- the statements in the web site give me no confidence that the defendant would comply with an order of his Court.
I'm looking at the February 4, 2002 affidavit Special Agent Pie or Pi, in which he says that defendant's web site contained, among other things, the following comment quote:
"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."
Comments like that give me no confidence that Mr. Austin would abide by an order of the Court directing him to appear in California.
In addition, I think there is -- I think the Government has also shown by clear and convincing evidence that there is a very serious risk of danger to the community which cannot be met by any bail conditions. Again, the information and the statements that were contained in the web site teach and advocate the use of weapons of mass destruction against governmental bodies and against private bodies.
There is also evidence that -- there's also some evidence here that suggests the defendant's interest went beyond a mere academic interest. I mean, the possession of sixty bottles in his room in California, the possession of Molotov -- what either were or are Molotov cocktails, remote control detonating devices all suggest conduct that went beyond a mere academic interest in these devices and I think create a risk of dangerousness.
Ms. Tipograph, I understand your point about the delay in the arrest or the delay in the FBI taking action after February 24th -- excuse me, after January 24th, excuse me. And it seems -- to some extent it seems it does not lessen the significance of what was found during the course of the search.
So because I think the Government has found -- has established by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a risk of flight here that cannot be met by any bail conditions, and has established by clear and convincing evidence that there is a risk of danger to the community that cannot be met by bail conditions, I am going to enter a temporary order of detention directing that the defendant be detained until he is presented in California, and my order is intended to be without prejudice to a renewed application for bail in California.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: Judge -- I'm sorry, I didn't mean --
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: -- to cut you off.
THE COURT: Go ahead. Go ahead.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: I was going to raise just some practical concerns, Judge. First off, obviously, this Court -- we haven't had a probable cause hearing in this court for purposes of the underlying criminal complaint, and I don't want anything that's been said or done in this court to waive Mr. Austin's right to have a preliminary hearing --
THE COURT: No, one of the things I wanted to get to was --
MS. TIPOGRAPH: -- in the Central District of California.
THE COURT: I know there's a preliminary hearing issue and the identity hearing issue, and we need to address those, but go ahead.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: Correct. I just wanted to make sure that there's nothing -- I was addressing -- both I and the Government were addressing issues of dangerousness and risk of flight, and not -- I don't want it to be misinterpreted that I was challenging or having a -- seeking to have a probable cause hearing in this jurisdiction.
Judge, I'm going to ask you to issue some order which puts some expeditious time limitation on when Mr. Austin can be returned to California, and I'm not questioning the good or bad faith of any federal agencies in this. I know -- in past cases I've had clients that -- took them anywhere from three to six weeks to get from New York to California, Judge. And I'm concerned about this.
THE COURT: Well, the threshold question, though, before an order of removal can be entered, the issue of identity needs --
MS. TIPOGRAPH: Judge, --
THE COURT: -- to be resolved, and --
MS. TIPOGRAPH: we're not going to contest Mr. Austin' s identity.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: I appreciate that he is -- the person who's before you in court is the person who's named in the complaint in the Central District of California. And I'm concerned in getting him back to California expeditiously, because I'm quite confident that he can successfully fight these charges, and obviously I'm interested in getting him back there as quickly as possible so that he can contest them either in a probable cause hearing or whatever other forum is available to him.
Secondly, as I said, Judge, he has no clothes other than -- if he's going to be transported, the man -- the kid -- excuse me, Judge, I'm fifty one years old -- weighs a hundred and forty five pounds. Every time I've seen him, he's been sneezing, coughing, or shivering, Judge. This is not right. You know, he's been accused of a crime. He's not convicted of a crime. And frankly even if he was convicted of a crime, Judge, he has a right to be -- he's not been given a shower for four days.
I would want to make it clear for the record that obviously Mr. Austin is represented by counsel, and that he should not be questioned by any person from law enforcement under any circumstances or conditions. I'm asserting clearly his right to counsel under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and --
THE COURT: Well, let me suggest this with respect to the timing of his removal. I will enter a removal order today. Mr. Hou, have you had a chance to confer with the marshal about Mr. Austin's removal?
MR. HOU: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What I was going to suggest is -- look, we can put this on the calendar for control purposes for tomorrow. Mr. Hou can confer with the marshals in the interim, and we can come back tomorrow and find out when Mr. Austin can be removed.
MR. HOU: Your Honor, I would be more than happy to confer with the marshals to determine the most expeditious time that Mr. Austin can be removed to the Central District of California. That would be no problem.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HOU: If tomorrow is acceptable to the Court, that would be fine with the Government.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: Judge, the only -- my only consideration is I put over a dentist appointment from today is until tomorrow. If we could possibly do this at around twelve noon tomorrow, --
THE COURT: Yes. What time is your appointment? We can --
MS. TIPOGRAPH: It's at two o'clock in New Jersey, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: This would give me a -- if we did it at twelve --
THE COURT: We can do it earlier than that, if you want to do it earlier.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: I have an appearance in state court in Brooklyn, though, in the morning, so I -- I suppose we could do it at eleven thirty. We could calendar it for eleven thirty, because hopefully I'll get out of Brooklyn --
THE COURT: All right.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: -- quickly. I'll make sure to be there at nine-thirty in the morning.
(Off the record discussion between the Court and Clerk)
THE COURT: All right, eleven-thirty tomorrow well have this back on.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: Judge -- I'm sorry, Your Honor. I didn't mean to --
THE COURT: No, go ahead.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: -- interrupt again.
THE COURT: Go ahead. Go ahead.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: I just wanted to add -- and I spoke to Mr. Hou about this informally -- the FBI has custody, or possession, or control in some manner of Mr. Austin's car, his 1981 Toyota with a hundred seventy thousand miles on it, which had in it his wallet, amongst other things. They also have the car keys. I don't know what the FBI's intentions are with the car, because obviously Mr. Austin is not going to drive his car to California, but if the FBI was going to release it or -- I want to try to make arrangements with his family to see if it could get transported to California.
THE COURT: Well, you should probably talk to Mr. Hou about that offline. I don't know -- sometimes the Government wants to retain some property as evidence. Sometimes they don't.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: I understand that. I'm --
THE COURT: I mean, that's why I think you should you should probably confer
MS. TIPOGRAPH: Very well, Judge.
THE COURT: with Mr. Hou offline in the first instance and see what can be done. I mean, look. I will enter a medical order indicating that Mr. Austin has felt cold and see if there's something that can be done.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: I mean, I visited him yesterday at MCC, Judge, and it was unbearably cold, and I had a sweater and a shirt on. He had on, you know, a cotton shirt and a cotton t-shirt and shivered the whole time we were -- I was interviewing him.
THE COURT: All right. All right. Well, I'll enter a medical order, and hopefully that will ameliorate the situation.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: Well, I appreciate that, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Anything else from the Government at this time?
MR. HOU: Nothing f rom the Government. Thank you Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Tipograph, anything else.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: Nothing further, Judge. Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Okay. So eleven thirty tomorrow. All right.
(tape off/tape on)
THE COURT: -- hung up in Brooklyn, Ms. Tipograph, just call eight oh five, four oh five one.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: Very well, Judge. I don't anticipate -- I think eleven thirty will give us --
TRE COURT: Okay.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: -- enough time, but I will call if there is --
THE COURT: Okay. If you get hung up, yes.
MS. TIPOGRAPH: -- a problem.
THE COURT: Okay.
* * * * *
I, KRISTIN M. RUSIN, court approved transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
Transcript is certified original only if signed in green ink.
2/11/02 [Signed]
So he's an angry 18 year old who hacked some websites and thinks the Anarchist's Cookbook is 1337. So they shove him in a New York holding area (it's been pretty fsckin cold here lately), denied a phone call, denied any way to keep warm, and he has only been *accused* of putting up malicious information. Note, information. He has never committed an act of violence.
Now where's Kenneth Lay in all of this? Him and his cronies ripped off employees and investors for hundreds of millions of dollars. Is he being held in some freezing cold jail cell, not allowed to shower? He has a couple hundred million in the bank. I think the difference in risk of flight is quite evident here.
Slappy the angry teenager has not done anything to hurt anyone (and please don't whine about web site defacement). Kenny boy has plundered thousands of peoples retirement funds and left them high and dry. Who's the real criminal here?
Here's some shameless karma whoring for all of you who want to get a taste for what kind of content this guy had on his site: You can find a decent representation of what used to be there at Archive.org.
1. They don't know fertilizer from potting soil.
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.
After reading that court transcript in full, it's scary how much weight his website writings had in regards to the way the judge percieved his character as a "flight risk". I'm certainly not saying he wasn't guilty of other things but it seems that the defending attorney definately had a point when she said that he hadn't acted in violence at all.
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.
--
|-_-| . o O ( bEef!)
True, that is covered by the right to bear arms, also a constitutional right, covered in the second ammendment.
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
Here is a copy of the site if anyone is interested:
a is ethefist.com/index1.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20011218062013/www.r
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.
My mind works like lightning. One brilliant flash and it is gone.
My complaint about Dick Cheney:
May I be cynical for a bit? I hope you don't mind,
but with Cheney's latest barrage of
malodorous notions, I can't resist the urge to make a
few cynical comments. To get right
down to it, some of the facts I'm about
to present may seem shocking. This
they certainly are. However, it's time that a few
facts had a chance to slip through the fusillade of hype.
What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it
in the form of a question: Where are the people
who are willing to stand up and acknowledge
that Cheney, in his infinite wisdom, has decided
to destroy the natural beauty of our parks and forests?
On the surface, it would seem to have something to do
with the way that his whole approach is repugnant.
But upon further investigation, one will find that
by allowing Cheney to put mephitic thoughts in our
children's minds, we are allowing him to play puppet master.
As for the lies and exaggerations, Cheney's
epigrams are rife with contradictions
and difficulties; they're entirely maladroit,
meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited
for a supposedly educated population.
And as if that weren't enough, if Cheney is going to
obstruct important things, then he should at least have
the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, a
true enemy is better than a false friend. And
second, many people respond to his debauched vituperations
in much the same way that they respond to television
dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but
they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything
about them. That's why I insist we pronounce the truth
and renounce the lies.
Even people who consider themselves scornful
foolhardy-types generally agree that Cheney's slurs
symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion
-- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us
lose more than a little freedom. One might conclude
that Cheney is incapable of writing a letter without using
such phrases as "crapulous pop psychologists", "loquacious
exhibitionists", "oppressive personae non gratae", or
some combination thereof. Alternatively, one might conclude
that Cheney has a different view of reality from the rest of us.
In either case, if you're not part of the solution,
then you're part of the problem. His historical record of
fickle pleas is clearer than the muddled pronouncements
of his apple-polishers for a variety of reasons. For
instance, the worst sorts of inconsiderate Neanderthals there
are must be treated with political justice, not with
civil justice, as they are sincerely not real citizens. Let me
rephrase that: I wonder if he really believes the
things he says. He knows they're not true, doesn't he?
A complete answer to that question would
take more space than I can afford, so I'll have to give
you a simplified answer. For starters, if
we let him cause riots in the streets, then greed,
corruption, and tribalism will characterize the government.
Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens.
And lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of the
media and educational institutions.
Even Cheney's bedfellows couldn't deal with the full impact of
Cheney's refrains. That's why they created "Cheney-ism," which is
just a garrulous excuse to force square
pegs into round holes. He plans to drag everything
that is truly great into the gutter. He has instructed
his votaries not to discuss this or even admit to his
plan's existence. Obviously, Cheney knows he has
something to hide. Most of you reading this letter
have your hearts in the right place. Now
follow your hearts with actions. I have traveled the length and
breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can
therefore assure you that Cheney's artifices cannot stand on
their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate
artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that Cheney's
warnings can give us deeper insights into the nature of
reality. We can and we must protect ourselves by any means
necessary against the unrestrained bestiality
of stupid, quasi-macabre paper-pushers. And that's the honest truth.
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
After someone defaces websites, and promotes the overthrow of our government through violence, it only tells me that uor judicial system works.
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 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.
It doesn't prove anything about our "judicial system." It just proves that perhaps there's something wrong with the people running it. DUH.
People make careers out of being politicians, law makers, law enforcers. It's a job for them and it's something they don't want to lose. So if you're in an elected/appointed position you do what you can to stay "employed."
Our judicial system as it is on the books is something that is tried and true (over 200 years without any major overhauls.) The only thing that's changed since then is the people.
No sig for you!!
There are limits, such as threatening to assassinate the President (which will get you life in prison if you think that is protected by 'freedom of speech'). Freedom of speech allows you to say whatever you want about your government, but the freedom of speech does not grant you the right to threaten the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of your fellow citizens. If you've got a legitimate complaint, use legitimate tactics to be heard. If you're a nut-job, don't expect a lot of people to listen however. And if you still really think this a freedom of speech issue, remember that there are plenty of other bomb making sites left on the net who have not been harrassed. Why? Because they're not nut-jobs.
This dork promised violence to two events and then apparently took steps toward carrying out those promises. He would fall under the nut-job category, so please don't try to make a freedom fighter out of him.
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
Why do you insist on following this up with the same misrepresentations given in the earlier story? This guy's criminal misconduct has been pointed out repeatedly, but you still post selective information implying that this is abuse of power curtailing his freedom of speech. Surely it is incumbent upon you to take note of all those (5 Insightfull) moded posts in the earlier article which gently inform you that he fully deserved what he got, and probably then some. Maybe this time you can take note of all the posts in response to this article telling you that the guy is a criminal and monumentally stupid with it. Aside from hacking web pages it is not legal to advocate the violent overthrow of the government. More to the point this government is a DEMOCRACY, if this guy wants to overthrow anyone he can take it to the ballot box. He gets one vote just like the rest of us.
for what he *did,* not what he said.
.$100 fine and 40 hrs. community service.
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
Interpretation of the Constitution requires more than an elementary education about how our government works. Get educated.
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 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.
And should be treated as such, even if he didn't do the popular thing and smash Starbucks windows. That he got away with it is the injustice here.
sulli
RTFJ.
If you promise to car-jack the first black SUV on 5th ave and main street with a 9 mm handgun at noon, and are then caught standing on 5th ave and main at noon with a 9 mm handgun, your freedom of speech is kind of secondary to the fact that you're a dangerous moron with a gun.
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
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
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, Emma Goldman, or Anarchist People of Color. 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). 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.
he DID do something. hacking is a crime. so the fbi had every right to raid his house. threatening violence, and then the fbi finding a stockpile of homemade weapons is grounds for detention until all the facts are straightened out AT LEAST.
throughout my childhood i hacked many websites, and built many MANY bombs in the name of film. hell, i even built built 4ft high models of our school and filled it with 2 sticks of dynamite worth of explosives. (4 quarter sticks electronically ignited). i would sneak out during my tv production classes, and blow stuff up in a nearby forest with my friends.... who of course spent most of the outing smoking weed.
what i did was extremely illegal, and after columbine, and sept. 11th, if i was caught back then i would have probably been publicly shot. did i ever intend to harm anyone??? NO. was what i did illegal? YES.
I am on the side of this kid, but he did break the law, got caught, and deserves whatever they do to him.
if you support this kid, you are probably a libertarian. LINK
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
theres a difference between punk kids who need guidence and terrorists
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.
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...
"The defendant operates a web site, or used to operate a web site, which advocated direct action, violent action, to stop different events; most specifically, the World Economic Forum which just happened in New York. He also advocated direct action, violent action, to stop the 2002 Olympics held now in Salt Lake City -- I believe the opening ceremonies are about to begin -- by all means necessary, is what the web site said.
"In fact, his web site, before it was dismantled by the FBI, indicated he wanted to burn the Olympics. And I ask the Court's indulgence. I'm going to have to use strong language which was inside the web site, but this is the language of the defendant. He indicated he wanted to burn the Olympics, and he wanted to fuck the corporate playground.
"Your Honor, the web site indicates -- the defendant indicated to others that were going to visit this web site that it was essential, essential reading, for anyone who was associated with the groups that advocate or utilize sabotage, theft, arson, and more militant tactics.
"The web site encouraged demonstrators to assault police, even encouraged them to use different-tactics, how to lure police so they could be more vulnerable to rioters and to more militant tactics; to use weapons of mass destruction; to use bombs, to explode bombs; to injure police and to blow up their cars, just like in the movies, the web site cautioned.
"The web site taught users and visitors how to make different types of bombs, as I mentioned before, including Molotov cocktails and fuel fertilizer bombs. Therefore, the FBI was quite alarmed, obviously, when bags of fertilizer in the defendant's car, the silver Toyota I mentioned earlier, were found in the back of his car, along with fuel canisters. Again, these are the key ingredients to the fuel fertilizer bombs the defendant instructed others how to make.
"That same car, that 1981 Toyota silver station wagon, made its way three thousand miles from California to New York, the same car, driven by the defendant, and he was arrested subsequently by the New York Police Department as he was demonstrating, as -- according to police reports, he was -- the defendant was part of a group of protestors that were about to attack what appeared to be the Plaza Hotel on 59th Street and Fifth Avenue, and he was arrested."
A question of legal philosophy: is it illegal to call "Fire" if the theatre is, in fact, alight?
--
I don't want to rule the world... I just want to be in charge of mayonnaise.
"Molotov cocktail" is named after V. M. Molotov, the man who was the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union during World War II. When the Nazis invaded Russia during the Second World War, the Russian civilians used this cocktail quite successfully to destroy the German tanks. The phrase has been quite common since the 1940s.
<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>
Trolls throughout history:
Jonathan Swift
Sounds like the police were a bit willfully negligent on this one. And yes, demonstrations are a pain in the ass - and a very tense one - for police. THAT DOES NOT EXCUSE INCOMPETENCE.
As someone who attended the protest, I can attest that although it was probably a lot of work for the police, it was fantastically peaceful, the police were getting 1.5x overtime pay, and there were about 4,000(!) police deployed. When we got to the hotel where the WEF meeting was, only about 1000 people could fit in the free-speech area the cops set up for us (a block away from the WEF, by the way). The rest of the marchers left, so the the cops then outnumbered the demonstrators 4 to 1. The police then proceeded to separate the demonstrators by closing us off into even smaller gated areas, where we penned up for hours. We couldn't even leave to go to the bathroom. The entire demonstration turned from an anti-WEF march to a giant exercise in police violation of the right to peacefully assemble.
This Village Voice article by Esther Kaplan is a good explanation of what happened.
So what. If they can prove he did it, book him and convict. If he didn't , then he's that much more stupid. Don't want to be getting any false positives now do we.
THE COURT: Just one thing. Ms. Tipograph, are you suggesting -- I keep an open mind till I hear all the arguments, but are you suggesting that he be released on his own recognizance?
MS. TIPOGRAPH: Judge, I'M -- I -- ultimately, Judge, you're going to make the decision. I think that, frankly --
THE COURT: No, I --
MS. TIPOGRAPH: If you want to release him, I think you can release him on his own recognizance, and part of the order being that somebody, a family member or some person, someone in authority -- a family member, an attorney -- accompany him back to California.
He has a grandmother who lives in New Jersey, Judge. I'm sure that he can stay there until arrangements could be made to get him out of here. If you release him today, Judge, he'll be on a plane first thing tomorrow morning.
She obviously thinks very highly of her client!
He did a couple of things:
1) He got caught.
2) He advocated a very specific form of violence towards a very specific group of people (the police and world trade something-or-other), AND seemed to be taking steps to carry those acts of violence out.
3) Had very poor HTML skills.
4) (Just as an aside...) A molotov cocktail is specifically mentioned as a weapon to which there is no concealed weapons permit.
Hang him. Or make him eat 300 soft ice-cream fudge sundays. Trust me, after 6 you start to not care about politics anymore...
Ctimes2
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
This guy gives a bad name to good Anarchists, I mean the way to do it isnt violent direct action, even Che reckognized in the US thats not the way to go. It is I belive through the massive expansion ov goverment services to no particular end, they will suffocate under their own bloat and meanwhile create a pressure within the population that cannot be contained. Lead thm on wild goose chases whilst doing nothing illegal, pass large amounts of heavily encrypted data of say teletubbie pictures to iranian or iraqui email address, this would be fun, tie the iraquis up doing nothing particularly usefull and at the same time make the NSA and the FBI and CIA spend X amount of man hours to no avail, youvedone nothing illegal, but given enough useless crap when it comes time fro budget review I can see it now. 'Senator X to the Director FBI' >>
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.
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
It's clear the government was completely full of shit about the bomb-making materials and simply used them to concoct a reason to arrest this guy and hold him. Sitting here at my desk thinking about it for a moment I realized that in my house alone are enough "bomb-making" materials to blow an entire apartment building to hell, if constructed properly.
(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
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Here's a quote from this little darling, read by the judge:
"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.
I just cannot believe the transcript. To hear the government talk, this kid is the next Tim McVeigh and Osama Bin Laden all rolled into one. They make him sound like a crazed lunatic who jumped into his Toyota and drove across the country to blow up New York... and might blow up the Olympics on his way back.
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.
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
Boeing 737??
September 11, 2001 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.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
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
Remember Amalek.
fuck you
You cannot legislate away "violent speech" without undercutting the basic tenets of free speech. This is what the guy's point is. You are missing the critical point. If "The critical point is that somehing that is violent in nature is prohibited" is right, you would negate the French and American revolutions, both of which critically (most would say positively) shaped the modern world.
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?
is that they aren't really molotov cocktails until you light them and throw them. Until then they're just bottles with gas in them.
A Transmission From PlanetJIM.[end trans]
I live in a part of the country which is no stranger to anarchist wannabes, hippies, and all manner of people in some state of disagreement with that status quo. The worst of which are the professional protesters, people who will show up for a protest or march without really any deep understanding of the purpose, and you can tell who they are, because when you show them that their arguments are full of holes and don't hold up, utter something about how you're part of the problem or start trying to outshout the voice of reason. Ok, they'll still entitled.
There are, however the spoiled and neglected children of the rich or middle class who go off and find some cause to fill their idle minds. Give them one or two in the bunch who really are dangerous and you wind up with Daly Cops beating in the heads of protesters, often protesters who are protesting reasonably, but someone with a larger agenda sets events into motion.
Sometimes all it takes is a night in jail and being bailed out by parents to shake them up a little. Perhaps that's what the authorities hope for in this case, but counseling is certainly a must, not just for the kid, but for the parents as well.
And as far as anarchists go, they're really much more comfortable with the status quo. It's fun and popular to rage against society, but most of them wouldn't last a day in a place like Mogadishu(1993) or Bogata(past 20 years).
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Sounds like snake oil to me.
BH
Fools! They laughed at me at the Sorbonne...!
With everyone talking about his right to post that info on the web, I'd like to say something about free speech. Free speech does not mean that you can say ANYTHING that you want. Freedom come with responsibility, and liberties were not fought and died for so that some punk kid would be allowed to put obviously destructive material for everyone to see. Come on people, you wonder why this country is in the pisser? Its not the government, its not the education system. Its us! We continually demand that we get all our "rights" and we do nothing to show that we deserve them! Dont blame the government for losing your freedoms, blame yourselves for showing that you cant handle those freedoms.
- "To have a right to do something is not at all the same as being right in doing it." -G.K. Chesterton
Is_onlist($user) ? loads_oftraffic : none
the purpose of hacking, in my opinion, is not to be used in violence, but to inform. an outlaw journalist uses illegal methods to find the facts and make them known to the public, because they feel that the laws prohibiting the release of this information are unconstitutional.
for example, i don't feel that there is anything wrong with exploiting a security hole, as long as the intentions are that the hole will be fixed.
every time i hear about something like this happening, the defendant always whines "free speech", and the whole bill of rights bit. unfortunately, speech is never free. it always comes with consequences. if you want to say something, do it with a little more tact than "Yeah, motherfucker, I'm a terrorist to the U.S. Government"
I have no desire to reach nirvana.
I find it really interesting that it's illegal to distribute materials concerning the manufacture of bombs, when an Army server has a whole big page on it.7 5/Apph.htm
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/21-
I wonder if you could point me to that portion of the U.S. Code? Then we'd finally have a way to unseat that idiot from Texas!
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
I live in a part of the country which is no stranger to anarchist wannabes, hippies, and all manner of people in some state of disagreement with that status quo. The worst of which are the professional protesters, people who will show up for a protest or march without really any deep understanding of the purpose...
One thing that amazed me at the recent WEF protests in New York was just how many people were truly informed about global trade policy. I thought that I knew a thing or too, since I work at a agriculture policy institute, but man, the depth of understanding of free trade policy that most of the people I met exhibited surpassed my expectations. It gave me hope on an otherwise crappy, police-tainted demonstration! :-(
Also, many of the demonstrators were representatives from labor groups, AFL-CIO, and there even was a delegation from Columbian and Guatemalan sweatshop workers.
Several comments:
In the state of North Dakota, Everclear is legal to buy and drink. Everclear + a rag makes a molotov cocktail. Therefore one could be prosecuted for having that - or any flammable hi proof booze, according to what I read about the "bottles" bit. Plhuueeze.
Pardon me for being sarcastic, but that kid is dumb. If he was really, really serious about what he (apparently) wanted to do, he wouldn't have been broadcasting it all over a public web site.
I demonstrated in college quite a bit, and the first rule of being an effective demonstrator is: Keep your nose clean!
Another thing: "Teaching the making of destructive devices" could be construed to include college physics and chemistry classes, where one can certainly learn enough to do so.
So keep your noses clean, students.
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
If possession of fertilizer is a federal crime (per bomb making), is then mere possession of steer manure cause for arrest? If so, then it only a matter of time before slashdot is raided and shut down entirely!
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.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
and the fbi likes to "play"with little kids. They also get their jolies off by..playing with slashdot kids.
"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)
The thing that you don't understand is: people who don't work have PLENTY of time to read all about global trade policy, the menstruation cycle of the Silverback Gorilla, Columbus' impressions of the New World and whatever else.
Professional protesters indeed. You could call them that, only they don't get paid. Or do they? Who paid the way for your precious Columbians and Guatemalans? No doubt the sweatshop workers they were "defending" on their little trip to New York.
you fucking 'tard. /. BELONGS to the ac. without ac's slashbullshit.org would shrivel and die.
:-)
and, if the average person were to analyse those articles which state that there is "solid evidence" that a person did "x," they would find those statements to be false. to bad we as a culture are a bunch of lemmings. those who can not connect this event to 091101 need an education rather than a flogging.
Actually, I think the AFL-CIO in New York State paid their way.
people who don't work have PLENTY of time to read all about global trade policy
It is a strange myth that "workers" don't have any idea of what they face in terms of global trade policy. A good testament of this that you might be able to find is the Documentary "Life and Debt" which was released as a major theater film in various cities. The tetimonies of Jamaican Farmers and farm workers show great understanding of IMF and World Bank Policy.
I think that what you mean is "Middle Class Americans" don't care about global trade policy or its effects on international labor
...I'd mod you up.
That'll get you far down the road of being a total loon.
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.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
Or the publishers of chemistry textbooks?
Or the publishers of chemical journals?
Basically all of these are VERY good sources for learning how to build bombs - do we make them illegal? What about the Nobel Prize, do we make it a crime to explain what reaction paid for all that money?
Our liberties come with responsibility. When you give no thought to responsibility you give up your right to speak your mind. for you obviously dont have much on it anyway. Freedoms are not free! Freedom without responsibility creates anarchy, and I dont know about you, but I dont particularly like anarchy.
The idea basically is, one has the right to say whatever they want, but must take responcibility for it, and then basically likening such speach to a weapon.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Sherman Austin, a rebel without a clue.
...terrorists plot to really kill people! Thank god an anarchist webmaster knows that he is being watched. I can now sleep at night.
-Dean
OFFTOPIC: The Bush administration is so smart! Let's see, nearly all of Al Quaeda is Arab; 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi; and yet we bomb the fuck out of Afghanistan! Way to go Bush! Say, you wouldn't happen to have any friendly oil contacts there, would you?
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.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
I will agree that there are MANY things wrong with the current shape of our government; since the Federal Government have overstepped their boundaries of power and the states allowed them, since they are/were LAZY and did not want to be bothered with governing their own state.
Personally I would love to see that we should destroy about 200 years of laws and rebuild from the foundation (Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Federalist papers; which explain why the Constitution was design as such and not the current views). People come first, not government interests and business. Capitalism should not weaken our liberities or freedom, but allow those that work hard to make a good living. The movie, music, and software companies usually make a HUGE profit, which does not properly profit those that did the work in the first place (one major example).
[On this guy's rebel cause]
But Thomas Jefferson and crew had a great advantage: they did not raise arms after they attempted to get things fixed with English first, then they built up their strength/allies before attacking the English and their supporters(who were months away by ship). They did not randomly throw bombs at crowds, but attacked fighting men until English forces surrendered and left the colonies (until around 1812). Austin is playing the coward with using terrorist methods to change the world; so if they lock him up for awhile, then it might do him some good. Bombs for blowing things up in your back yard is one thing, but against others: it just wrong and will not solve whatever you are fighting for, but will make matters worst.
Slashdot seems bent on turning this into a free speech issue, however the linked court transcript says that this guy had M-80s (plural), Molotov cocktails (plural), and remote control detonating devices (plural). Combined with the threats he made on his website, I can definitely see why the FBI would intervene, full force.
Anarchism is not idiocy. It may not be viable, because it presumes that people will act as mature adults.
But as the reliable as the sun coming up, you know that all human beings in a group acting as "mature adults" is, well, a complete crock. This a an anti-anarchist theory that has been tested and proven consistently wrong by historical fact for millenia. I understand the idea that you want people to play fair... its just idiotic and shortsighted. Yes, and uncontrolled world where everyone is friendly with their neighbors. Riiight. Can you say lynchings? I knew you could.
I don't like the cabal we have running the show either. But this is the closest we have have had in a long time (I mean in hundreds of years, not the last 3 hours) to anything resembling justice to the lower classes. It ain't justice, but its at least halfway fair in a few instances.
All the anarchists that I have ever talked with are quick to point out loopholes in the law for their causes. Loopholes that they couldn't possibly condone, BECAUSE AN ANARCHIST BY DEFINITION BELIEVES IN NOT SUPPORTING LAWS.
You reduce the world to ash, bring it back to true anarchy, and the 'mature adults' that you speak of that 'would prefer an anarchistic system' will try to build back that system that you revile so much faster than you can say "Hoplite Elite Guard." Your whiny, smash the state and raise the fist crap makes me sick. Face it, you like police protection, versus rampant gunfire and crime that would result.
The only times that humanity has tried to go communist or near anarchist has resulted in pogroms and totalitarian regimes that were the opposite of what they said, resulting in the collectivization and slaugter of millions.
Give it up. Your ideas are made by children. They have never functioned. They are used by madmen to promote destruction.
Acting legally with respect to article 51 does not mean just writing a letter to the UN. It means submitting a resolution to the security council, and having the security council pass that resolution. It's not enough for a state to just write a memo and declare itself to be following the UN charter, anymore than it is for you to declare yourself with a memo to be a law abiding citizen. The US submitted no such resolution for the reasons I cited. In fact, this quick memo sent to top the UN was, according to your sources, "interpreted [by diplomats] to mean that the U.S. did not feel the need to ask the UN for endorsement of the military strikes.." -- in other words, the anarchy which you attack in weak institutions, yet prize in powerful states. Sorry to have the truth disturb your rants.
People who tell others to rise up in violent revolt, provide descriptions of how to rise up in violent revolt, and are caught with instruments to engage in violent revolt aren't civilians.
Well, some of them are states, some are institutions, and some are yes, citizens such as yourself. Reread your own posts and apply whatever standards you use to judge others to yourself. You've advocated a bit of bloodshed and denial of others' humanity already in this thread. But it's different when the gun points in the other direction.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
I guess since nothing "real" happened in the computer world today, the Powers That Be at Slashdot had to dig up this story again, and take one more attempt to turn it in to a rallying point for Slashdotters to "stick it to The Man!"
The little bastard admitted to defacing websites, which is a crime. Throw his worthless ass in jail. If he were sending out spam, you'd be demanding he be castrated. If he had done something for Microsoft, you'd be demanding his head on a silver platter. But instead you want us to all ignore the fact he committed crimes and admitted to doing so, and instead concentrate on the fact that his own website was brought in to the picture. Maybe you can get John Paul II to make him a friggin Saint while you're at it.
I'm further disappointed to see that the little prick's website is gone...I was hoping to help increase his hits (not to mention his bandwidth bill).
This is not a First Amendmant issue. To raise this case to that level diminishes the importance of the cases that really ARE First Amendmant issues.
In this twit's case I don't want to raisethefist.com, I want to raisethefinger.com!
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
So he promoted the death of others, trying to plod influence on the shortsighted to follow his selfish "I-need-a-reason-to-fight" cause. What's so wrong with giving him a reason? I certainly would lock his ass up.
The problems with bombs are that most people don't think about them the way they should. All things equal, they have a good chance of hitting a relative, and they have a 100% chance of hitting someone's relative. WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT THAT WAY, IT MAKES YOU A MURDERER... A MISGUIDED MURDERER. YOU ARE GOING TO KILL SOMEONE'S CHILD. GUARANTEED. THERE ARE GOING TO BE ONE LESS PLATE AT A FAMILY REUNION. GUARANTEED.
IF YOU BOMB FOR SOME IDEA, DEAD PEOPLE ARE THE CONSEQUENCE, NOT THE PROMOTION OF THE IDEA.
I also love it when the pro-commie, anti-American nutties say that the FBI had 'no right to search' or 'they went too far.'
Well, when his little ass goes unchecked for a while and decides to blow up a building ala Fight Club, "cause he thought it was cool," then you will be wondering why innocents had to die, now won't you? But then again... anarchists and free thinking lefties don't want to associate with their mongrel cousins, the same way that right wingers don't want to stand too close to the loony Christians when they bomb abortion clinics.
I may be right wing, but I would turn their asses in. I know a few lefties that wouln't want to get involoved.
Once again, in the world of REALITY, and not the world of INTELLECTUALISM, you pay for your actions. If you attempt to build bombs or promote the attack of innocents over percieved injustices... well then, you pay in full.
If you have these items in your house, you have bomb making materials:
Batteries
Wire
bottles
pvc pipe
anything remotely flamable, as itself or in combination
anything remotely toxic, that can be easily publically distributed. (bleach and ammonia for example, never mix them)
Illegal firecrackers
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
of an asshole who can use the 1st amendment to destroy our country, he would be it. He has no fucking idea what this country is. If there was ever such a thing as karma, this kid would die choking on a ham sandwich today.
Have you ever taken a fucking history class? "bla bla bla, if we give the masses power, then there's gonna be lots of revolutions and so on so fourth". where the hell do you think the modern world came from? do the French/English revolutions mean anything to you? without all the "anarchy" you would still be donating 90% of your home grown wheat to the aristocracy. and you can forget that fucking computer you happily type away at.
poor kid.. Let's go raid one of their homes.
...but apparently this kid did make threats against the president on his web site. That, in and of itself, is apparently a federal offense. IANAL, but it seems like they're being rather kind to him considering that alone is enough to throw him in the slammer.
I'm surprised that nobody has expressed outrage at the appalling conditions in which accused (not convicted) people are detained.
Whatever the law says, the practical position in the USA appears to be:
Being accused of a crime by Law Enforcement is held to justify severe punishment. In this case, a 145-pound defendant was incarcerated, wearing a T-shirt, in an inadequately heated facility. His attorney told the court that every time she went to visit him, he was shivering. On later visits he evidently had a cold (surprise). His attorney also raises the possibility that he will be held with violent convicts and may well suffer violence from other prisoners. This is not seriously contested, it's routine. The rednecks always say, "Yeah, tough, that's part of the punishment." Like, it's part of the punishment for someone who has never committed a violent crime, to be beaten and/or raped by thugs, and it's part of the "punishment" for violent thugs, to get the opportunity to beat up 145-pound kids.
This guy has never been convicted of anything more serious than "failing to disperse".
Where's the justification for treating him the way he has been treated? Is this what American justice comes down to?
And I ask the Court's indulgence. I'm going to have to use strong language which was inside the web site, but this is the language of the defendant. He indicated he wanted to burn the Olympics, and he wanted to fuck the corporate playground.
Am I the only one who thinks this obsequiousness is appalling? I'm sure the judge retched at his first ever exposure to the word "fuck". I could approach some form of respect for the court system if it weren't so full of its own self-importance.
Sounds to me like when he showed up in New york, and just happened to be at the time the president was coming through, and jsut by chance his web site has a death threat against the president that they just wanted to get him out of the way for a while. They don't have a lot of solid evidence that they can "legally use" sounds like some issues of illegal search and seizure on the car part is here, and they didnt arrest him in a "timely" fashion on the items they did find. Im willing to bet the SS pushed him to the side while the president was stopping by with this little charge (which will get dropped). But don't mistake me he is guilty as can be. Of that I have no doubt, but it looks like someone forgot the rules (USA gov)
Am I lying when I tell you that im telling the truth? Or am I telling the truth when I say that Im lying?
This point was never addressed in the transcript by either the prosecution or the defense. Just that he had bottles, some wicks, and "petroleum products."
Well guess what, around my house I have empty bottles, wicks, and petroleum products too. Does this mean I too have an "unlicensed firearm?"
The empty bottles are sitting in the recycle bin. The wicks go with my antique Aladdin lamps, which burn "petroleum products", such as kerosene, lamp oil, or Exxon's "Clearlite". In other words, I'm simply prepared for power outages. Oh yes, I also have a gas can for the lawnmower.
Clearly, an FBI agent on a fishing expedition could make me out as being in possession of weapons of mass distruction. The same would probably hold true for almost anyone's house.
He ADMITTED to the web site defacements, ..
some confusion: The website defacements are a different legal proceeding, which will be brought against him, and he'll probably be convicted for that. If you read the court transcripts, you'll notice that neither the prosecution nor defense brought up the website defacements in this bail hearing, which was strictly to determine wether he was a menace to society in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and wether, as the prosecution claimed, he would blow up the olympics if he was allowed to travel back to California on his own.
No one, that I'm aware of, is defending his defacement of websites. And when he gets back to CA, he will face trial for that. But many people are concerned that a person who engaged in non-violent (no one claims he committed any violence) protests at the WEF was held in prison incommunicado and declared a terrorist by the FBI. Also, you might be interested to know that the charges dropped against him did not involve website defacements -- that's a separate legal track.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
i'm not naive, but i do see your train of thought. you are afraid of the consequences of letting somebody move to the bounds of legality. i also see this, but i'm afraid of what happens when "might happen" replaces "already happened." for the same reason that you want to head off the possibility of a crime being committed, i want to head off your way of thinking. allowed to run to the extreme, both are dangerous. extremes in general are dangerous. rather than the realist and the idealist meeting at a halfway point, they both run in the opposite direction. i don't think that criminals should get away with committing crimes they are guilty of. but i also don't believe that people should be punished for crimes they haven't committed, or "might commit."
I have no desire to reach nirvana.
In this respect the first amendment contradicts the preamble of the Constitution. There are situations in which the government cannot protect its citizens without in some way abridging the freedom of speech.
Oh, really? Please explain to me in very simple words how words printed on a page can harm you, me or any other citizen of the U.S? I have trouble grasping this concept.
There are situations in which the government cannot protect its citizens without in some way abridging the freedom of speech.
Forbidding Lying Under Oath (perjury) is the only abridgement I can think of that the government cannot protect its citizens without, as our legal systems relies on an impartial judiciary and honest witnesses. Without those, justice is reduced to arbitrary despotism, which is as bad if not worse than no legal system at all.
In my opinion, and apparently in the opinion of most others, one man's right to enable and urge others to kill a large number of people is not worth the possible deaths that may result from it.
Ah! I see. You are one of those people who believe that most adults are not to be trusted with responsibility for their own actions. So, most of us are sheep whose education and knowledge must be carefully restricted for our own good? Who, then, do you trust with weapons and powers for defense of the country and maintenance of public order? Apparently not the citizens of the country. I take it you prefer some small, "elite" group that is of course better than the rest of us to control such power and make the decision when to use it?
One's right to live is the most important right of all. It is the trump card and freedom of speech is really a petty thing next to it.
"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
-- Patrick Henry
Fortunately for this country, a lot of people don't agree with you. Your attitude is that of the Tories, the collaborators, and those who just kept quiet and looked the other way when the secret police came to take away their neighbors in so many places, so many times.
Those who founded this country, and those who fought in its wars ever since didn't think like you--and you should be thankful for that, or you probably wouldn't have the freedom to post on this thread without fear of arrest. That's assuming something like the Internet would be allowed to exist, or be accessed by commoners.
Now, please explain how allowing people to make information available and to rant like a twits is going to keep the government from its very limited purpose of maintaining public order and common defense? I must have missed the mind-control rays being used by the likes of raisethefist....
---dragoness
Ok... I love it when people make statements that are just plain wrong...
I love it when people who try to correct others succeed in demonstrating their own blithering ignorance.
200 years of Constitutional jurisprudence, modern Constitutional scholars, and recent court decisions all agree: the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is an individual right. Period. End of argument.
Don't believe me? Do your own Google search for citations and articles. "2nd Amendment individual right" is a good set of terms to start with.
The argument that the second amendment protects a "collective" right to a state militia is only advanced by goverment agencies who want to see citizens disarmed and by the fools in the "gun control" (i.e., disarmament and prohibition) movement who think we'll all be safe and live forever if no one has a legal gun.
---dragoness