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.
Was he a minor at the time? He may have been banking on that. "Rub it in their faces, they can't touch me."
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
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!
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.
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";
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
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.
Ummm how about a License?
they dont sell TNT at your local Target store...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
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.
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.
No, but they do sell Coleman fuel, kerosene, propane, matches, butane, and dozens of other explosives, not only at Target, but at most major supermarkets as well.
There is also, constitutionally, no license needed to speak or publish. Even state secrets. Research the "Pentagon Papers."
Also have a look at the Steve Jackson case, where computers were legally defined as printing and publishing devices and constitutionally illegal to seize, as was all private corespondence by e-mail without a warrant specifically for that piece of mail. The government has no legal right to seize an entire computer. Only copies of those *files* that are directly related to the alleged crime. Your monitor or CPU are NOT evidence, and only evidence, under warrant, may be legally seized. Thus, at *best*, the government can only seize media, such as your hard drive.
The fact that millinos of Americans now believe otherwise is a sad indictment of what we have become.
KFG
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
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.
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...
"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
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?
Which country do you live in?
It's not illegal to call for a revolution. That's what Thomas Jefferson did, remember "We pledge our lives and our sacred honor" "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots"? Doesn't Bush call for the spilling of blood every other day, in some manichean war?
It seems reasonable that if you have a (perfectly legal) website which includes describing molotov cocktails that you actually have made these cocktails and some are in your home. As long as they are not used, you have a right to do this. Do you have a gun in your house? A gun is far more dangerous than some petrol in a bottle. Maybe we should arrest all the groups who argue against excessive govt. powers and who also stockpile arms. They also call for revolution.
And all he did was protest -- the only charges filed against him were jaywalking, not dispersing, conspiracy to not disperse, etc. The FUD about "weapons of mass destruction" and "terrorism" amounted to nothing more than duct tape and potting soil. Unlike the FBI, he never committed any violence, did not lie about his identity, and did not hide from any courts. Moreover he is not a terrorist. Read the trial transcripts before you're so quick to shout "terrorism" in a crazed nation.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
there was some question as to whether that allegation was true.
Its all in the link.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
Yes. He would have set NY on fire with the lighter, no doubt. The gas mask might have allowed him to (illegally) breathe should the police decide to attack him. Note that there was no molotov cocktail found on him. Nor was there any fertilizer in his car.
Of course, not carrying ID is a crime in the eyes of many, but he gave his full name to the police when questioned. Go figure.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
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?
keep thinking that way....when they come to question you...
" but I didn't do anything will be the pathetic cry you raise...."
Information is just that INFORMATION. If they caught him with a molotov there might be grounds. They DID NOT. This is an attempt at a smear job on an admittedly STUPID minor. Think back a ways, remember when you were young and stupid...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Just because they didn't find anything it doesn't mean he wasn't going to do something.
I see. This is sort of like the opposite of innocent until proven guilty. But who knows, if you prefer the pre-emptive strike approach, there are plenty of third world regimes which share your suspicion of protesters.
If I am a cop and I see a kid with a gas mask at a protest I am going to definitely just looking for him to do something wrong.
Sounds reasonable. But the anaogy is if you are a protester and have been gassed before (simply for protesting) then you might decide to bring a mask the next time -- I hope that sounds reasonable to you, too.
Moreover, there is a difference between "watching" a suspicious person before he does something wrong, and arresting him, holding him incommunicado for 4 days, and detaining him for an additional 10 days before you realize that you don't have any real evidence against him, and of course keeping his car and wallet.
Moreover, in their attempt to keep him in jail the FBI lied to at least one judge, spread lots of FUD, and acted in an abusive way, generally. Now you should agree that that's a lot different from "keeping an eye out" when someone wears a gas mask. The problem is that if the target is unpopular or upsets people in this post 9/11 nation, then the govt. can do just about anything they want to him, and they will keep the sympathy of people such as yourself. I hope you rethink your views on this.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
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...
Yes but mining companies dont mix their explosives from Kerosene, fertalizer and lighter fluid. The question is how do Mining companies and explosives companies get away with it... simple they're licensed by the feds, they say "hey Mr. fed! I want to blow things up. can you help?"
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
Yes, but you have inserted the strawman of TNT into the argument.
TNT is as irrelevant to the case at hand as is bubble gum.
Which is why * the charges have been dropped.*
KFG
"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)
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.
"Think back a ways, remember when you were young and stupid..."
:)
I don't think the previous poster has to think back too far
for a criminal case without inconvenience to those poor, mistreated suspects.
In this case, he was poor and mistreated, you hit the nail on the head. I'm assuming by your comment that you didn't read about his detainment. He had no cash, wasn't given the opportunity to shower for 4 days, no change of clothes, no phone call, no HEAT for god's sakes. He was basically thrown in a meatlocker like a scumbag and left to rot while they figured out what they wanted to do with him.
Perhaps you should read the background on these stories before voicing an uneducated opinion.
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
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.
Yes we should immediately lock up every body who might commit some crime. We should also lock up anybody who says things which might lead other people to commit crimes. Yes by golly that's the america I want to live in!
War is necrophilia.
Anti-Semite? Chomsky. Chomsky, for crissakes. The man's Jewish.
Minor mistake in your subject line: "How innocent people are treated." Or doesn't "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" apply any more, and has the USA joined the proud club of banana republics? Hey, guess what, they even dropped charges against the guy....
Just to avoid confusion caused by my sarcasm, I agree completely with your post.
MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.
Really? I am so glad you believe in the Constitution, and have library skills. Here is some food for thought from that Constitution:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And from the dictionary:
Main Entry: abridge
1 a archaic : DEPRIVE b : to reduce in scope : DIMINISH [attempts to abridge the right of free speech]
(definition ironically abridged in order to satisfy slashdot's troll filters...) :(
Just because our illustrious government has been ignoring the constitution for the past century and you seem to think that the right to peaceably assemble and speak your mind are too radical to stomach does not make it so.
As for your reference to the "20th terrorist" I would be concerned too if I was a lawyer whose client was being charged with crimes which occurred while he was in jail.
As for your claim this guy is a "skinhead." Well, that is just unjustified, as he clearly is not. IN fact our government routinely protects skinheads and the Klan when they protest, even when they are in town to gloat over their recent killing of a black man by being dragged to death by a pickup truck. Protestors of logging, war, US-sponsored terrorism, racist trade agreements, and pollution, well, they are clearly dangerous and must be immediately gassed and attacked.
True. Castro has only executed about 54,000 Cubans for political reasons, a mere factor of 3.6 more than those killed in Argentina's "Dirty War", or 27 times the number of political opponents' deaths and dissappearances attributed to General Pinochet.
Obviously, Castro's significant degree of restraint compared to other left-wing dictators is why the Spanish let him openly visit Spain while seeking the extradition of those involved in the Dirty War and Pinochet. The right-wing must be held to a higher standard.
This guy wasn't advicating anything but murder. You can play semantics all you like but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Please read the court document. He did NOT have a Molotov Cocktail. They assumed, at first, that what they found in the house were two incomplete Molotov Cocktails. However, after testing the bottles, they found that they weren't Molotov Cocktails at all, because the liquid in them was not petroleum-based, and was not explosive. However, the prosecution still contended that they found "Molotov Cocktails", even though in the same paragraphs he explained that the kid didn't have anything of the sort.
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.
You didn't just say the killing innocents is wrong. You said that people who might kill other people should be locked up.
You are considered a troll because in this case the person you were talking about did not kill anybody and was in fact charged with "failing to disperse" and "conspiracy to fail to disperse". It's amazing to me that's even a crime in this country but I guess it is.
War is necrophilia.
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
it's all about context. I can't stroll through your house and gather up misc. items and then brand you a terrorist. However, if you show up at my door holding a lighter in one hand, and a wick inserted into a bottle of Cheezwhiz filled with petrol in the other, well then we have different ballgame.