Slashdot Mirror


Secret Service Reads Livejournal

Prong_Thunder writes "A livejournal post written on October 18th (google cache, scroll down to 'a prayer for dubya') resulted in a visit from the US Secret Service nine days later, as it 'constituted a possible threat to the president'."

277 comments

  1. If you read the posts... by Apiakun · · Score: 5, Informative

    She goes on to say that they didn't just stumble upon the page and pay her that visit. One of the people that regularly reads her blog "turned her in". Pretty scary thing to happen, but in other countries it could have turned out much worse. *cough*China*cough*

    1. Re:If you read the posts... by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1

      No, the author claims that the Secret Service (or the FBI, I don't think the author knows the difference) claims that they "recieved a report."

      The author has absolutely no idea how the Secret Service or the FBI came upon her journal, except that they claim that someone "recieved a report." She says that the agents "as much as told [her]" that it was reported by a concerned citizen, but they did emphatically not actually tell her any such a thing. She's just assuming that she knows what happened.

      For all anyone knows, an FBI department recieved a report from the NSA, or the Justice Department, or another department of the FBI, or even from Santa Clause.

      Regardless, a Live Journal isn't a private journal. It's a public journal, for broadcasting your public thoughts. It's never been a secret that public statements that can be construed as threats against someone's life are not looked on favorably. Public threats against the President of the United States are especially stupid.

    2. Re:If you read the posts... by superyooser · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      *cough*China*cough*

      No country tolerates incitement to assassinate its leaders. I'm not at all disturbed by what happened to this militant hatemonger. I say KUDOS to the Secret Service for doing their job. I hope they put her through the wringer.

      What's scary to me is that this American (?) would spew such venom that you would expect only from outright enemies. Her sentiments are identical to those of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Yassir Arafat, Kim Jong-il, and every other dictator and terrorist out there. Her actions are clearly seditious. They represent not only a threat to George W. Bush but to the nation's civility and democratic processes.

    3. Re:If you read the posts... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And how do you read this as an incitement? Would it still be incitement, if we substituted Easter Bunny for God? Here, let's try it:

      Dear Easter Bunny:

      Wassup? How's it hanging? Yeah, I know it's been a long time since we talked. This probably stems from my belief that you do not exist. Anyway, the reason why I'm calling you is because last night, President Bush said that he could feel it every time we prayed for him, and since he apparently doesn't listen to anyone but you, Easter Bunny, I thought you might pass this along to him.

      Please kill George Bush. I hate him so much. I think he is a giant dick and I want terrible things to happen to him. I'm not really big on the specifics of how he dies, but if you could at least arrange it so that the authorities find his dead body on top of an underage black male prostitute surrounded by a mountain of cocaine and child pornography, that would really be super-awesome. And maybe you could have some media people there when the police find the body, so they can take pictures and stuff. That'd be fucking GREAT. Am I allowed to say "fuck" in a prayer? Shit, I just said it again. Ah, well.

      Anyway, that's my prayer, Easter Bunny. Please, please, please kill Dubya. And Dick Cheney. And everyone else in the Bush Administration. Maybe they can all commit mass suicide together or something. I don't know. You're the one with all the ideas. You come up with something. I need more coffee.

      Smooches and Huggles,
      anniesj

      Try it with Santa Claus and with Tooth Fairy. I still don't see the incitement.

      What's scary to me is that this American (?) would spew such venom that you would expect only from outright enemies. Her sentiments are identical to those of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Yassir Arafat, Kim Jong-il, and every other dictator and terrorist out there. Her actions are clearly seditious. They represent not only a threat to George W. Bush but to the nation's civility and democratic processes.

      What's scary to me is how you equate some girl of questionable judgement with Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Yassir Arafat, Kim Jong-il, etc. Either you don't really understand what a threat these people pose, or your one of those types that cannot handle any criticism of the government. It's that type that are the real threat to democracy.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    4. Re:If you read the posts... by XO · · Score: 1

      Now, THIS post deserves the FLAMEBAIT mod that I was talking about in the previous post.

      While her comments were completely uncalled for, and probably at least somewhat deserving of a swing-by the house to check up, what you are saying is absolute insanity.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    5. Re:If you read the posts... by superyooser · · Score: 1

      Have you listened to the bin Laden tapes? Have you read the transcripts of sermons broadcast on PLO TV? This girl "prays" for God to do the same thing that the terrorists pray for Allah to do. She is full of the same kind of evil and militant vitriol for America and its leaders that they are. Thank God liberals don't believe in owning guns.

    6. Re:If you read the posts... by ezeri · · Score: 1
      I'm going to reply to you even though my comments are more of a general reply to everyone here who clearly doesnt understand how the Secret Service operates.

      The Secret Service has two branches, the "police" branch, the one that investigates forgeries and counterfiting, etc, and the "security" branch, the one that is responsible for protecting not only the president, but other high level goverment officials, lilke the VP, etc. You dont have to do anything illegal for this Secret Service to investigate you. In fact most of the people they investigate have and probably will never commit an illegal act. This is essentialy a shake down, this girl may or may not be an actual threat to the president, in fact it's very unlikely that she was, but however small the risk, it is the Secret Services responsibility to keep an eye on her. Visiting her was not done to gather information on her, or see if she was actualy a threat, there are far better ways to do that, but if the Secret Service had to keep a close eye on every nutjob, or possible threat to the president, they would need far more resources than they have. So instead they make a nice friendly visit, this is one power that the Secret Service has that no other law enforcement agency in the US has, they can force someone who has commited no crime to talk to them. Once again though, this isn't for gathering information, rather, the point is to let the target know that they are being watched, after all someone who feels they no longer anonymous is less likely to go ahead with plans they may have, so by leting every possible threat they can find know ahead of time that they are being watched, they hope to scare off those few who may have actualy gone through with anything, and accomplished it with far less manpower.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
    7. Re:If you read the posts... by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1

      this is one power that the Secret Service has that no other law enforcement agency in the US has, they can force someone who has commited no crime to talk to them.

      This claim is extraordinary. Can you give any reference?

    8. Re:If you read the posts... by ezeri · · Score: 1

      To be honest I dont have any reference, I got that from talking to a Secret Service agent a few years back. But it realy isn't that extraordinary, this right here is an example of it though, the girl had commited no crime, but it was not a voluntary interview.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
    9. Re:If you read the posts... by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1

      No-one has presented any evidence that this was not a voluntary interview.

      Regardless, I think you have it backwards. There are circumstances where you can be compelled to answer questions, as long as you're not incriminating yourself. In simple (and misleading) words, in America you can only be compelled to talk if you haven't committed a crime, in all cases. This has nothing to do with the Secret Service, though the Secret Service may have different procedures for compelling that testimony than other law enforcement organizations.

      I suspect you either misunderstood what the Secret Service agent said, or he was lying to you.

    10. Re:If you read the posts... by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 1

      The US Secret Service is charged with protecting the president of the United states. (Amoung other things) They take that very seriously. There are many threats against the president every day, they track them all down. 99.9% of them are some bozo spouting hot air, but the other 0.1% of them are not. If you state in a public place (which live journal is) a wish for the president to die, the US Secret service may well look into it. You have no expectation of privacy on a livejournal post (or one on slashdot for that matter). And threatening the life of the President is a crime. For that matter threatening the life of anyone is a crime in the US, just for the most part at a lower level. As for how they found her journal, for all we know they used a very cleaver google query. It would be quite easy to query google every day for pages that have been added to the index with the correct keywords and then have an agent go look at each of them.

      --
      Erlang Developer and podcaster
  2. .mil by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 1

    Anyone who reads their web logs knows that there are all sorts of interesting people who are reading your blogs and sites. My personal site gets all sorts of .mil traffic.

    1. Re:.mil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to disappoint your ego but anybody surfing from a military base has a .mil TLD. I don't think the military is reading your site for information about building nuclear warheads.

    2. Re:.mil by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 1

      What? My blueprints aren't cool enough? Sad. . . . .

  3. Halfway issue by captnitro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I read about this, but hadn't seen the post. To be honest, it's strong, but I'd stop way short of calling it investigation-worthy, or even worth a trip to the kid's house. (But, the Secret Service investigates all threats made against the President, so that one's out of my jurisdiction.)

    If someone said this at a public event, or on the radio, or written it in a newspaper:

    Please kill George Bush. I hate him so much.. I want terrible things to happen to him.. And maybe you could have some media people there when the police find the body, so they can take pictures and stuff.. Please, please, please kill Dubya. And Dick Cheney. And everyone else in the Bush Administration."

    He would be having a much, much worse night than a visit from a couple of guys in unmarked cars. I see this is marked under "Politics" not YRO, which makes it sound like a free-speech issue. It is, but it's not like Bush just started enforcing that when he took office OMGWTF LUONG LIVE TEH AMERICA!!!. It has, and always was, a felony to threaten the life of the President. Actually, it has been, and always was, a felony to threaten anybody's life; but not everybody has as diligent a private police force as the Service.

    This kid was trolling, plain and simple: free speech, on the internet or anywhere else, can't be taken for granted, though I'd like to think we should expect it to be. You're behind a keyboard, so it's easy to say things without realizing you have a world-sized audience. This is one of the reasons I don't have a blog; frankly, I have a Montana-sized ego, so people know I have a knack for expressing my opinion. But I'd rather not have a google-cached word-for-word dossier of my views.

    The only way, I believe, that this would have come to the attention of the Secret Service is if someone submitted it to them. And I respect their response -- they apologized and left.

    1. Re:Halfway issue by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      This kid was trolling, plain and simple
      Are you refering to your post or the quoted one? I ask, because you've carefully edited what she wrote to remove any sign that it was addressed to God. Instead, with your editing, it looks like she's inciting the reader to kill Bush.
      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Halfway issue by captnitro · · Score: 1

      Ellipsis:

      "the non-metrical omission of letters or words whose absence does not impede the reader's ability to understand the expression. For example, the last line in the following leaves the lexical verb understood: Hugh, he could fancy No one but Nancy, And Sally got antsy Just thinking of Chauncy, But Nancy liked Drew And Chauncy did too. (I.L.)"

      Apologies, I used two instead of three periods. Geez.

    3. Re:Halfway issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      omission of letters or words whose absence does not impede the reader's ability to understand the expression.
      I'd say that omitting the intended audience (God) impeded the reader's ability.
    4. Re:Halfway issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't think the Secret Service is going to stop investigating things because they put "Dear God" in front of it.

    5. Re:Halfway issue by fafalone · · Score: 1

      "I want" is not the same as "I myself will".
      It's not a threat, it's just an expression of a desire, there's absolutely no indication of a plan to act.

    6. Re:Halfway issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ive seen this reaction all throughout the posts on this topic. if the secret service stopped investigating things because they used a different grammatical form theyd be playing semantics instead of doing their job. "i want" vs. "i myself will" doesn't matter to them

    7. Re:Halfway issue by ezeri · · Score: 1

      The point of the trip wasn't so much to investigate, it was to let the girl know that they are watching, just in case she realy was panning on doing something. The Secret Service makes it a habit to come and visit just about everyone they consider a posible threat, no matter how unlikely they will actualy do anything.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
    8. Re:Halfway issue by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      whose absence does not impede the reader's ability to understand the expression
      What you omitted changed the meaning of the paragraph completely. The original was a prayer to God to kill someone. The version with the removed words was a call to the reader to kill someone.

      I'm actually amazed you have the gall to reply and to claim that the removal of those words did "not impede the reader's ability to understand the expression". You CHANGED THE ENTIRE MEANING OF THE PARAGRAPH.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  4. Thoughtcrime! by Poppler · · Score: 3, Funny

    Please report to the Ministry of Love for reeducation.

    --
    What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
  5. I doubt they read it by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 0

    I assume the secret service has a computer spidering the web and flagging "troublesome" content for further review. I doubt anyone reads your live journal to find out what color underwear you have on, or which pokemon character you are (except maybe your mom).

    1. Re:I doubt they read it by Yobgod+Ababua · · Score: 1

      RTOP people... it states clearly that the Secret Service said that the page was reported to them by someone. They did not stumble across it, nor is there some bureaucrat reading through LJ in an official capacity.

      One bit of confusion I have about the article... the author refers, seemingly interchangeably, to 'Secret Service' (part of the Treasury Department) and 'FBI' (part of the Department of Justice). Which was it that showed up?

    2. Re:I doubt they read it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      More like someone at the white house got an email:

      Dear Secret Service,

      I am a patriot (and an ass-clown). As part of my citizenly duties I have decided to use bureaucracy as a mallet for my amusement because I've always liked the way Moe handled himself.

      This random person on the internet THREATENED THE LIFE of OUR PRESIDENT, using words like MURDER, DEATH, KILL. They also talked about access to large quantities of COCAIN, CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, CHILD PROSTITUTES and egaging in ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES like MASS MURDER, STATUTORY RAPE, and ASSASINATION.

      Below is a quote from the site http://blahblah.blah, which I have removed all context from.

      "I...will...kill...Dubya. Then...dancing...naked I...thank...God...for Kerry in 2004."

      I know that you reading this, being a bureaucrat, you've really no choice to follow up on every threat if it has even the slightest amount of corroboration. Even though you can no doubt immediately see how completely silly it is to infer a threat to the President, I've no doubt that having set the gears of bureaucracy in motion they will grind inexorably to a conclusion which can only be described as "unsatisfactory" to all involved.

    3. Re:I doubt they read it by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1

      it states clearly that the Secret Service said that the page was reported to them by someone.

      No. She claims that the agents who came to her house claimed that they recieved a report. So, they claimed that someone or something generated a report that eventually made its way to these agents for followup. I'm pretty sure we could have figured that out on our own, thanks.

      She is guessing that one of her civilian readers reported her, but there is absolutely no evidence presented that this is or is not the case.

    4. Re:I doubt they read it by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 0, Redundant

      More like,

      Dear Secret Service:

      I am a computer program run by the NSA to search for threats against the United States on line. As part of my programmed duty, I am reporting the following live journal article....

    5. Re:I doubt they read it by XO · · Score: 1

      Why do people (not the parent of this post, but in other replies, and in other threads on this main) have such a hard time believing that it is possible that maybe an actual human reported this?

      There are people out there who are completely unreasonable.. (i work in a ghetto area, trust me, it happens to everyone.. some people are never reasonable though) who would take this as a serious threat, and report it.

      Just remember, Asscroft wants you to report your fellow citizens when they do strange things.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    6. Re:I doubt they read it by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1

      It is that this was reported by a civilian. It also possible that this was reported by a law enforcement agent or government contractor.

      No evidence has been presented either way. We simply know that they were acting on a report.

    7. Re:I doubt they read it by XO · · Score: 1

      Exactly my point. There's tons of people on this thread who refuse to believe that it wasn't from an automated report.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
  6. *NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by nuxx · · Score: 4, Informative
    That girl wasn't too bright to get herself into trouble. If you read the original post (also mirrored here in PDF format) she made threatening statements about the President. The Secret Service, doing it's job of protecting the President, investigated, found nothing, and went about their way.

    For more information as to what they were likely under take a look at US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41, 871(a):

    Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.


    That said, this has nothing to do with the First Amendment and free speech, because while there are protections of free speech, it is well established that there are things you cannot say. These are commonly summed up as the 'yelling FIRE in a theater' statements. This also does not apply to anything Patriot-act related. It's a simple Secret Service investigation of a percieved threat. End of story.

    Hopefully she has now learned that publishing something on the internet (and that's what LJ is) is not much different from standing on a street corner and shoting something, except with an eternal echo.
    1. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by NiceGeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry, how does a prayer that something happens constitute a threat? No where in that post did she say she was going to do it or encouraging anyone else to do it. (Unless you count God) She was merely expressing a hope that it does. I don't share her opinion - I don't think Shrub is an evil person - just simple minded and easily manipulated - which is reason enough to get him the hell out of office.

    2. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by bretharder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      She asked God to kill GWB.
      She didn't say "I'm going to kill GWB".

      It's not a fucking threat.

    3. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I read the Google cache of her comment and cannot see how it was "threatening". Threatening, in general, doesn't mean to "wish God would kill someone", it generally means to imply a threat exists or to create one. If she was organizing the killing of our beloved leader, or even encouraging others to do so on her behalf, then that would be something, but...

      ...but just asking God to do it is stretching things. It's clearly not serious, it's clearly not an attempt to kill anyone, and it certainly doesn't fit into anything of the quoted US code: It isn't a document containing a threat to take the life of (...) upon the President of the United States (...) or (...) otherwise (is making) any such threat against the President"

      Be reasonable, please. Don't stretch definitions to this kind of degree.

      I realise, incidentally, that I may simply not understand your point of view because I'm an atheist. If you're a God-fearing Christian, and seriously believe that God, on receipt of a message from a foul-mouthed blogger, would say "Well, goodness. I better do as she asked and get rid of this Bush fellow", then, obviously, we're at odds, though such a view would seem wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin understanding someone who'd think that way.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by nuxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree, I don't think it was much of a threat, but it really is the Secret Service's job to investigate such things. I also don't think that the Secret Service feels she is a threat either, anymore, after they took a look and investigated things. After all, that's all they did...

      I think it comes down to not wanting anything to fall through the cracks. What if someone really was to want to injure the President and was really quiet about it, but occasionally let things slip and made ranting (such as the aforementioned) posts online? If something happened, the Secret Service would have it's head on a plate for having had a lead and not investigating at all.

    5. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by CXI · · Score: 2, Informative

      She requested the president to die, that is a threat plain and simple. It's their damn job to check into it, especially when someone specifically complained about it, and they'd do it regardless of who was president.

    6. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I ask a hitman to kill someone I am just as guilty as the hitman, I think. Just because you don't pull the trigger doesn't make you any less responable.

    7. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      that is a threat plain and simple.
      How is it a threat? What is she doing by wishing death upon the President that is, in any way, increasing the chance that the President will die?

      If it doesn't increase, and isn't intended to increase, the chances of the President dying, it certainly isn't a threat by any stretch of the imagination. It's just a juvenile, foul mouthed, pointless barrage of hate.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    8. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by temojen · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ...containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon...

      What this boils down to for me is whether:

      I don't like X and wish he were dead.
      is the same as:
      I don't like X and will kill him.
      . I don't think they're the same at all.

      It sounds to me like whoever reported it over-reacted, and the SS were just doing their jobs.

    9. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      No, it's a freedom of religion issue. She prayed that God do something for her.

      You know you live in a police state when you are "Shaken Down" by the Praetorian Guards for praying.

      I'll say this about The President:
      We deserve what we got. The republican party and the democratic party just feed us their little prepackaged presidential candidates and we blithingly "choose" between the two most corrupt and ass-kissing people in the country.

      As The Governor of California said: "Girlie-men." (taken out of context, of course)

      Read Paul Graham's What You can't say.

      And you, annie, enjoy the ride.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    10. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Also it could be semi coded speach, you know a request for a hit is exact the way it was worded. Except well it was to God.

    11. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by TheCarp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While true, there are a few issues here.

      A) The "Hitman" here is "God". There are no legal proscriptions whatsoever about god killing someone. Hence it wouldn't actually be murder (murder is by definition illegal killing - as long as its legal it can't be murder). If this were not the case then the FBI shpould be looking for god as he has several billion suspicous deaths to answer for.

      B) No law can possibly apply as any law that applied to a request made to god would be to make a law 'respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' (which is also why point A is the case..)

      C) Satire

      Read the post. This is obviously not even a serious prayer as it begins with a statement that the prayer does not believe in the existance of the prayee (herein refered to as "god"). Hence this is more of a stylized wish than a prayer. I am aware of no proscriptions about wishing bad things would happen to people.

      Can I conspire with a hitman that I don't believe exists? Maybe. What if there is reason to believe that I didn't know he was serious and was joking? Think, throw
      momma from the train.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    12. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by chris_mahan · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I love it. From now on, everybody please use "SS" to stand for Secret Service.

      Before all the flames start. When I was 7-10, I used to sleep in a bed in a room upstairs at my great-grandmother's house, near Paris France.

      She later told me that during the second world war, two SS officers were billeted in that room. One of them slept in that bed from 1940 to 1944.

      My mother was born in 1943. At that house. My grandfather spend 2 years in a german work camp, in Baden-Baden, then returned to France to work the farm so that german troops could eat. The only reason my mother got enought milk and food is because those SS officers made sure she did. Also, early in '44, the young one came back early and cried in my great grandmother's arms. His entire family had been killed in an American bombing raid in Germany. He was 22 or so. In July, as the american approached, the two germans left with their units. My great grandmother never saw or heard of them again.
      All this to say that they were well meaning and doing their jobs with the diligence required by wartime military discipline.

      The Secret Service ought to chill and let people express themselves.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    13. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      IIRC, there was a minor fracas recently (in the last twelve years or so) when the secret service visited a woman who was using witchcraft to wish the President dead. I'm really quite fuzzy on the details; it may well have been early in Clinton's terms.

      Considering I was living in South Florida at the time, it may have been a Santeria practitioner. Judges and local officials occasionally wake up to find chicken feet and blood on their doorstep, and the news periodically trots out a story about it.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    14. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by k4_pacific · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, Bush believes in the power of prayer, so, to him, this IS a legitimate threat.

      --
      Unknown host pong.
    15. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by exi1ed0ne · · Score: 1

      This is not the "end of story" unfortunatly. Without any due process whatsoever, this person will have their rights restricted. Ask Sen. Kennedy how easy it is to get off the no fly list. While I admit it was kinda stupid, even the S.S. thought it was harmless. Why the FBI file? Why the possibility of a phone tap? This is a severe curtailment of the 4th and 5th amendments.

      --
      Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
    16. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by M1FCJ · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Unless God exists, Bush won't be killed. Since he doesnt...

      On the other hand, if you think you are god and this stupid girl asks you to kill Bush... That's your problem, mate.

      I can't understand how this can be a threat especially the requested entntiy is a fictional character...

    17. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by superyooser · · Score: 1
      It's quite obvious to me that she doesn't believe in God.

      So, she intends for a person to do it -- herself or somebody else.

    18. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1
      I read the Google cache of her comment and cannot see how it was "threatening".

      It wasn't the content that got her into trouble, it was the fact that someone turned her in.

      Furthermore, the Secret Service must investigate all threats on the president's life no matter how ridiculous they seem to be. If I tell the Secret Service that you implied to me that you were going to do something to the president, I guarantee the Secret Service would contact you. They take all threats very seriously.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    19. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by jgardn · · Score: 1

      You all are missing the point. Yes, a wish for the death of the president *is* a threat. If she wants the president to die, then she may help someone else kill the president or kill the president herself.

      If I wanted you to die, wouldn't you want to know more about me?

      I can't even believe there are people in this country that want to see the president dead. I'm a staunch Republican, and I never wanted to see Clinton dead. Impeached, yes. Dead? No. At least not without a fair trial before a jury.

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    20. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      No, it's a freedom of religion issue. She prayed that God do something for her.

      No, it's a freedom of speech issue. A prayer is between you and God. As far as I know, God does not read Livejournal postings, so this is ordinary speech formatted as a prayer.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    21. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      yeah, and I request a billion dollars.

      requesting is not yet a crime.

      yet.

      /vote out bush and his Thought Police

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    22. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by dubious9 · · Score: 1

      They can't use common sense. They must evalute every sentance with "the president" preceeded by "kill". If you ask god to do it, then you could concievably have a person with whom you communicate under the moniker "god".

      It's simply illegal to make such statments even if they are non-sensical. Can you imagine something happening after such a threat was discarded. "Oops sorry, we didn't think she was serious".

      Come on now, I don't feel for her one bit. I don't much like the man as president but I'm sure he's a good person. I do not wish anything upon him except long life. Now if I were invesitgated for using the words "president" and "kill" and "wish" in the same post then that would be overboard.

      --
      Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
    23. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by glowimperial · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that the current adminstration actually believes actively in god, in some cases, claiming that their political decisions are guided by god or their relationship with god. So from their perspective, this might constitute an actual threat. As completely ridiculous as that sounds, it's no more absurd than their basic belief in the concept of god.

    24. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, all those people wishing him dead, be them "Christian" or "Muslim", are just not as tight with God as Bush is? See, that's the real fallacy. If Bush has to fear threats from God, then God has problems with Bush. If God hasn't killed him yet, either there is no threat because Bush is protected, no threat because God doesn't go around killing people because of prayers, or no threat because there's no God. Bush isn't dead, so there's clearly no legitimate threat.

    25. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by eXtro · · Score: 1

      But if you're a Christian then God is the ultimate jury and fair trial.

    26. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by WarPresident · · Score: 1

      Sorry, how does a prayer that something happens constitute a threat? No where in that post did she say she was going to do it or encouraging anyone else to do it. (Unless you count God) She was merely expressing a hope that it does.

      He must be inundated with those sorts of wishes. What if God does take her up on it? What can the Secret Service do to protect their charge? They'll take a bullet for him, but can they take a lightning bolt? A plague? A swarm of locusts o'er the land?

      I put it to you that God should not be tempted further in this matter. He has already sent a deadly pretzel and a Segway at the President. The next move could be a leaky bathroom faucet.

      --
      Here come da fudge!
    27. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      realise, incidentally, that I may simply not understand your point of view because I'm an atheist. If you're a God-fearing Christian, and seriously believe that God, on receipt of a message from a foul-mouthed blogger, would say "Well, goodness. I better do as she asked and get rid of this Bush fellow", then, obviously, we're at odds, though such a view would seem wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin understanding someone who'd think that way.

      Draw water for the siege,
      strengthen your forts;
      go into the clay,
      tread the mortar,
      take hold of the brick mold!
      [Do anything you like, anything you can think of. But]
      There will the fire devour you,
      the sword will cut you off.
      It will devour you like the locust. {Nahum 3:14-15 RSV}



    28. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that the NSA has broken all of God's codes by now.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    29. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      No, it's a prayer, formatted as a blog.

      Regardless of the facts of this particular case, who the fuck are you to tell us what does and does not constitute prayer? Unless you're currently employed as a Prayer Inspector, you should keep such nonsense to yourself.

      Clearly, this is much ado about nothing. The SS investigated, and found no real threat. What would be interesting would be if she continued to make such "public prayers", but I don't think she's that dumb.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    30. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant troll.

    31. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Upon what basis do you draw your conclusion?

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    32. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      If you fart within 20' of a government building, the FBI will open a file on you.

      Try this:

      Call up the FBI and ask if they have a file on you. Their answer: "Not sure if we did, but now we do."

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    33. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by XO · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, what did Clinton do to deserve impeachment?

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    34. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by XO · · Score: 1

      But, since God is omnipotent, She obviously is aware of all things that happen on LiveJournal.

      Yeah.. :)

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    35. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by XO · · Score: 1

      The line that said something like "To God, whom I don't believe in" or some such.. right?

      Hmm..

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    36. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by Thing+1 · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      I'm a staunch Republican, and I never wanted to see Clinton dead. Impeached, yes. Dead? No.

      Yeah, but: Clinton just got a blow job. Bush has indirectly slaughtered over 1,000 of your children.

      If it was my children dying because Bush had Dick in his ear telling him to go to war to make more money, then I'd certainly want "an eye for an eye."

      Back on topic, I read the cached version of her "prayer" and completely agree that it was satire, obviously so, and involved no real threat, from her or somebody else (other than God, who's going to kill all of us one day). Did the people who wrote the movie "Dead Presidents" get visits from the SS? (I love that abbreviation, makes them sound so Third Reichish.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    37. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by k4_pacific · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Bush probably doesn't think about things that deeply. He'd simply fall back on "God works in mysterious ways" and leave it at that.

      --
      Unknown host pong.
    38. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by driptray · · Score: 1

      She requested the president to die...

      Only if you read her at face value. I can't understand why people are taking something literally that is so obviously intended to be humourous.

    39. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Tell that to Thomas Becket.

      "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?"

      Whether or not it's a threat depends on who makes it, and that's what the SS was there to find out.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    40. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not to mention the little pun with the word "fuck" at the end, which signals to anyone with half a brain the whole thing is meant to be a joke. That being said, however, once a file is generated a bureaucrat's work is not done until it's closed; thus the perfunctory visit.

    41. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey mods, how was this guy offtopic? He answered the parent's question ("Dead?") about Clinton vs. Bush, and went on to discuss his reading of the girl's blog. Sheesh.

    42. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by NaDrew · · Score: 1
      Out of curiosity, what did Clinton do to deserve impeachment?
      He got a hummer in the Oval Office. Something poor, sexless neocons can only dream of.

      Okay, the real reason is that he lied about it before Congress. And you know what? I agreed that he should have taken some punishment for that. I don't know that it's "high crimes and misdemeanors", deserving of the impeachment fracas, but something.
      --
      Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
    43. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Secret Service must investigate all threats on the president's life no matter how ridiculous they seem to be.

      Hey, Secret Service! Everyone on Slashdot wants to kill monkey-boy!

      (That should keep them busy for a while.)

    44. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?"

      Sounds like he's asking for volunteers. That's very different than saying "I wish that God would rid me of this turbulent priest".

    45. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by theghost · · Score: 1

      This administration has already demonstrated that they believe in the power of prayer. From that standpoint, this is clearly a threat.

      Of course, they've also said that they believe God is on their side, so theoretically, they shouldn't be worried about this "threat." But...since they sent the SS out to investigate...maybe they're not so certain of their standing with the big guy. Hmmmmmmmmmm...

      HOLY CRAP - THIS IS PROOF THAT BUSH LIED ABOUT BELIEVING THAT HE IS DOING GOD'S WORK!

      I can see it now - "Godgate." Bush's obvious lack of faith will cause all his uber-Christian supporters to abandon him. LOL!

      On a more serious note, no, this was not a threat, but it's the SS's job to check out EVERYTHING. I don't fault them for that. I do think the original post was pretty funny.

      "...if you could at least arrange it so that the authorities find his dead body on top of an underage black male prostitute surrounded by a mountain of cocaine and child pornography, that would really be super-awesome."

      --
      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
    46. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by Zeriel · · Score: 1

      Wow. You're very nearly passing stratjakt for the #1 spot on my personal list of "dumbest slashdot user".

      Unless you're some kinda troll, but you're a touch too conssitent for that.

      --
      "America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
    47. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by displague · · Score: 1

      I don't like X, and will kill you if you ever suggest X again.

      Is this different? What happens after you suggest X again? What if I don't kill you?

      What's the crime in exageration or ellipsis?

      Perhaps, I did kill you... metaphorically, from my list of people respected for their view on X.. Perhaps this is all an example of acceptable free speech, but when I replace 'you' with 'the president', should I expect the SS to knock at (down?) my door?

      --
      Marques Johansson
    48. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by XO · · Score: 1

      I bet he would've admitted it if he were not in a public hearing. ;)

      I dunno about perjury, the only thing that I know of that he is nailed on is adultery, and that's just not a federal impeachment class crime.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    49. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by Guipago · · Score: 1

      I don't think the SS is the one to blame in any way shape or form here. They were doing their job. I honestly think the one to worry about is the person who decided that a prayer *was* a threat and reported the entry to the authorities making it the secret service's problem. An *aware* mentality is a good thing, but a paranoid mentality can cause some serious problems. -jenn

    50. Re:*NOT* a Free Speech and/or Patriot Act Issue by Eminence · · Score: 1

      Don't you think that only a small step divides wishing someone to be dead and actually doing something about it? For the sake of your own mind it's better not to wish anyone to be dead. You harm your own mind with such wishes. Even if you don't get to the point when you will start planning how to kill them.

      Getting back to the Secret Service - there is some logic behind their actions. After all, it all starts with a thought. The problem is that these should be protected.

  7. Post a public journal article... by crmartin · · Score: 1

    ... and it gets read by the public.

    And what did you bloody well expect, children?

  8. Hay it is an open network by mpost4 · · Score: 1

    If you put it on the internet any one can see it, don't say in your blog what you would not say in a crowed public venue. When you put on your blog (or slashdot comments or what ever) expect every one can read, your friends, your enimeys, the goverment, a foreign goverment, people you don't know. So the secreat service reads liver journal, big deal, this is not a invastion of priviace, they person put it there for the world to see, the world saw it.

  9. Bad mod, no donut! by BurritoJ · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    My kingdom for a mod point!!!

    I can't believe that the parent was modded as flamebait! I guess the left-leaning slashbots can't understand a reasonable response.

    1. Re:Bad mod, no donut! by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      I can't believe that the parent was modded as flamebait!

      I can... He carefully edited it out to remove the context of the words. She was praying for outrageous and unreasonable things... When you take that out, it seems like she's really asking someone to kill Bush.

      To put a bit of the context back in... the bold text is the text edited out of the LiveJournal post in question. italics indicates the so-called quote that was in the 'flaimbait' post.

      Dear God:
      Wassup? How's it hanging? Yeah, I know it's been a long time since we talked. This probably stems from my belief that you do not exist. Anyway, the reason why I'm calling you is because last night, President Bush said that he could feel it every time we prayed for him, and since he apparently doesn't listen to anyone but you, Lord, I thought you might pass this along to him.
      Please kill George Bush. I hate him so much.. I think he's a dick, and I want terrible things to happen to him.. I'm not really big on the specifics of how he dies, but if you could at least arrange it so that the authorities find his dead body on top of an underage black male prostitute surrounded by a mountain of cocaine and child pornography, that would really be super-awesome. And maybe you could have some media people there when the police find the body, so they can take pictures and stuff.. That'd be fucking GREAT. Am I allowed to say "fuck" in a prayer? Shit, I just said it again. Ah, well.

      Anyway, that's my prayer, Lord.
      Please, please, please kill Dubya. And Dick Cheney. And everyone else in the Bush Administration." Maybe they can all commit mass suicide together or something. I don't know. You're the one with all the ideas. You come up with something. I need more coffee.
      Smooches and Huggles,
      If you properly edit the stuf that just about any commedian says, I'm sure you can come up with something that seems (at first blush) to be very nasty.

      The edited quoting takes it so far out of context that it deserved a very clear disclaimer.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    2. Re:Bad mod, no donut! by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      I can... He carefully edited it out to remove the context of the words. She was praying for outrageous and unreasonable things... When you take that out, it seems like she's really asking someone to kill Bush.

      One, he only took out the "threat" part, and two it doesn't matter if it's only satire as many people have argued. It's well known fact if you threaten the presidents life publically, you will get a visit from the secret service. Even though it was satire, what happens when some nutjob takes it upon himself after reading it to 'be' god and answer the prayer?

      Bottom line is the secret service is going to visit you if you threaten a sitting president, they are obligated to do so. It does not matter which party that president is from.

      On a side note, you could probably be charged if you wrote in your blog that you were praying to god for your co-worker to die. If your co-worker read the post, then went to the cops, you would likely end up being questioned at least.

    3. Re:Bad mod, no donut! by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      No.. the threat part is the only part he left in. The bold is what he took out. the italics is what he posted. What he edited out is way more than what he posted.

      A prayer for co-workers to die might be taken as a real threat if people knew me as the kind of person who expected (and worked) to have my prayers answered. On the other hand, this is the 'prayer' of someone who admits to questioning the existence (much less the power) of God, and who prays for things like for Dubya to be found by the press, dead on a pile of coke with a black male prostitute. When pigs fly!

      There's a saying of a friend of mine... "Anyboy who takes this seriously deserves to." I think it applies here just fine.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    4. Re:Bad mod, no donut! by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      A prayer for co-workers to die might be taken as a real threat if people knew me as the kind of person who expected (and worked) to have my prayers answered. On the other hand, this is the 'prayer' of someone who admits to questioning the existence (much less the power) of God, and who prays for things like for Dubya to be found by the press, dead on a pile of coke with a black male prostitute.

      I'll never understand why this is so hard for certain people to get. It's very simple, if you threaten the president, even in jest you are going to get a visit from the secret service. End of story. It's not 1984, it's protecting the president and the Secret Service takes that very seriously as they should.

    5. Re:Bad mod, no donut! by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      That's fine.. they can visit all they want. The first part of the investigation, however, should be to read the actual post, and realize that it is soooo tongue in cheek that it's not really a threat, so (unless they find something worrisome), it should be a very short and polite visit.
      If she really does get put on a no-fly list because of this, I will lobby for the funds to argue that the whole list should be tossed out as unconstitutional.

      The law says that it's only a threat if a reasonable person, under the circumstances, would be likely to take it seriously.

      If my friend throws a cup of ice water on me and I yell "aaah! I'll kill you you bastard", at him before grabbing my water gun, that's not a death threat.

      If, on the other hand, I reach for a KKK hood and loaded '45 kept mounted on the wall, it would be considered a real threat.

      Similarly, a Mafia don 'wishing' GW were dead while handing his best hit man a brand new sniper rifle would (or at least should) be taken far more seriously than some 19 year old who posts a prayer filled with a stack of wacked out wishes, and ending by telling God 'Smooches and Huggles'.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  10. Fixed Link to Original Post Mirror by nuxx · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sorry, I must have somehow screwed up the link to the PDF. That mirror of the Google cache (in case she asks for it to be removed) is at http://www.nuxx.net/files/dumbgirl.pdf.

  11. Re:Kill George W Bush, President of the United Sta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha! I hope your point/joke isn't lost on them.

    See you in jail!

  12. Re:Kill George W Bush, President of the United Sta by bretharder · · Score: 1

    Hah! Look forward to that knock on your door from the SS.

  13. Not all free speech is free, eh? by Slime-dogg · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wonder. If it's not legal to pray for someone's death, as it constitutes a threat against them, then would it be legal for me to make a voodoo doll of them? I mean, would you get busted by the secret service if you had a 'W voodoo doll that you stuck pins into? The quote from the chick is that he can 'feel it every time you pray for him.' Well, how about every time they twist the doll's head around in circles?

    I'd rather have a Kerry doll, though. Then I'd probably try to pin the skin around his eyes up, they're so damn droopy. He reminds me of a basset hound. Then again, his IQ is around the same.

    --
    You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    1. Re:Not all free speech is free, eh? by Rentar · · Score: 1

      Remember: Noone ever told her it was illegal. The Secret Service had to investigate it because someone in the FBI thought (after a tip off from a fellow LJer) that this might be a threat. They checked that, found that it's not a threat and left. No legal humble-jumble involved.

      Disclaimer: I'm not from the USA and strongly dislike the current way of politics there but can still understand that reaction by an agency that only exists to protect the president (and vice-president, and president-elected and what-not).

    2. Re:Not all free speech is free, eh? by cjpez · · Score: 1
      If it's not legal to pray for someone's death
      Er, if you actually read her response to all this, you'd find out that the Secret Service spent about 10 minutes at the house, and after coming to the decision that there indeed, was no threat at all, left. Entire repercussions from posting that on a blog: 10 minutes of your time. She wasn't charged with anything and isn't even under suspicion for anything. So where in there do you infer that it's not legal to pray for someone's death?
    3. Re:Not all free speech is free, eh? by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 2, Interesting
      agency that only exists to protect the president (and vice-president, and president-elected and what-not).

      Just so you know, the Secret Service does more than just protect the President. They are also responsible for investigating counterfeiting, forgery, and various other crimes.

      As for the issue at hand, one of my college profs was ex-Secret Service and he described stuff like this happening all the time. Write something like that about the Pres and get a visit. If you're not a threat, as apparantly was the case here, they move on. Seems to me, as you did, that they were just being diligent in their work.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    4. Re:Not all free speech is free, eh? by chris_mahan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then why did she removed the post?

      SHE GOT SCARED!!!

      That, my friend, is called a shakedown, and it's a form of intimidation.

      You don't have to be charged for a crime to be made to feel like you've committed one.

      That's what's wrong with this story.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    5. Re:Not all free speech is free, eh? by cjpez · · Score: 1
      Er, of course she got scared. Anyone should be a bit scared if the Secret Service shows up on your doorstep. But did you bother to read what she actually wrote about it though? Here, I'll quote some of it for you:
      After about ten minutes of talking to me and my family, they quickly came to the conclusion that I was not a threat to national security (mostly because we are the least threatening people in the entire world) and told me that they would not recommend that any further action be taken with my case.
      ... and ...
      I did not feel that my civil rights were violated by the visit, and I did not feel intimidated by the Secret Service agents.
      So what's wrong with that? The SS spends ten minutes investigating what could potentially be a threat, and then leave once they find out that there's nothing to be worried about. Whose rights are being trampled on here? How was that intimidating. She even used the word "intimidated" in the post, when talking about how she wasn't.
    6. Re:Not all free speech is free, eh? by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      she wrote in her blog:

      >Obviously, I cannot link to the original LJ post that I made, because I have removed it from my LJ to protect myself and those who commented in that thread from receiving any further visits from the FBI.

      She did remove it. She was intimidated to remove something she had written in a public forum. Without due process.

      What's wrong with that? Dude, pick up "The Decline and Fall of the Third Reich". You'll see.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    7. Re:Not all free speech is free, eh? by cjpez · · Score: 1
      She did remove it. She was intimidated to remove something she had written in a public forum. Without due process.
      No no no, you see, intimidation implies coersion. Intimidation implies threats. Intimidation implies nastiness and brutality. From every indication on her site, the visit she received was, if not cordial, very businesslike. If you disagree with the law that says that it's illegal to make death threats against the president, then that could be discussed in some other forum. The issue at hand right now is a simple, ten-minute investigation to determine if there's a real threat involved. There wasn't, so they left. She makes no mention of threats. She makes no mention of veiled hostilities. She makes no mention of even an official request by them to take down the site. She does, however, mention that the people came to investigate, who you claim have bullied some poor, defenseless person into taking content down, told her that no further action would happen as the result of this. Here, let me quote that one more time:
      ...and told me that they would not recommend that any further action be taken with my case.

      Now how exactly was she "intimidated" (after also stating that she was not intimidated) "without due process" (as you put it), into taking something down by people who told her that no further action was going to take place? Yes, she did take the post down. There are many good reasons she may have decided to do so other than direct intimidation by the government, as you seem to think.

      Regardless, you seem to have slipped into Godwin's Law territory here, so I guess I'll just leave it at that.

    8. Re:Not all free speech is free, eh? by superyooser · · Score: 1
      I wonder. If it's not legal to pray for someone's death, as it constitutes a threat against them

      The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should rule that her journal post containing the word "God" is illegal, as it constitutes a prayer. Poetic justice. ;-)

    9. Re:Not all free speech is free, eh? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      in this faith-based presidency, praying is prolly considered MORE of an action than, well, action.

      vote for change. please.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    10. Re:Not all free speech is free, eh? by chris_mahan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      read this again:

      > ... I have removed it from my LJ to protect myself and those who commented in that thread from receiving any further visits from the FBI.

      If nothing happened, then why did she remove it?

      She would not have removed it if the SS had not come over and "had a businesslike talk" with her.

      The question you need to ask yourself is this: Why did she remove it?

      When you know the answer to that question, you will realize she was intimidated. I don't think she now thinks she was intimidated. But she was.

      And the SS knew exactly what they were doing.
      They said:

      We have heard a report. We came. We chatted. You did nothing wrong. We go now.

      This should have been it.

      Yet she took it down, and she said "I have removed it from my LJ to protect myself and those who commented in that thread from receiving any further visits from the FBI."

      She obvioulsy did not want to get another visit. So she was intimidated.

      Look up intimidation in the dictionary sometime.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    11. Re:Not all free speech is free, eh? by cjpez · · Score: 1
      Look up intimidation in the dictionary sometime.
      I had actually hoped to avoid playing stupid little pedantic games with dictionaries, but since you've brought it up, mine makes frequent use of words such as coerce, threats, fear-inspiring force, browbeat, etc. There are, of course, some definitions which omit such language, but if you insist on using a watered-down, meaningless version of the word, then by all means, feel free to rail at the government for sending a couple of people to investigate. Do you also feel this kind of rancor when suspects to other crimes get questioned? Should we feel sorry for all of the people intimidated by the presence of a police car checking for speeders?

      Fact: it is illegal, in the United States of America, to make a death threat directed at the President or Vice President, however inept and loathsome they are. Fact: this person posted something to a public forum which, while not being a direct threat, certainly implied that the writer would be glad to see some violence done. Fact: it is the Secret Service's *job* to investigate possible threats to the presidency, and in general enforce the law mentioned two sentences ago.

      Her comments are just a few grammatical changes away from being in direct violation of that law. Sure, they're not in direct violation, but I can easily understand how they may warrant a quick investigation. If you think that there's some way the SS officers could have handled the situation differently, given that they were probably under a mandate to do the investigations, then I'd love to hear it. Or rather, I wouldn't really, because I doubt that either of us is going to be able to "win" this over the other.

      If you want to live in your delusional world that the FBI is deeply concerned with stifling the innovation and freedoms of LiveJournal users, feel free. Myself, I'll stick to the many real examples that can be found of rights abuses, and content myself with ignoring this little trifle.

    12. Re:Not all free speech is free, eh? by Babbster · · Score: 1
      Dictionary definitions aside, there is a difference between feeling intimidated and being intimidated. If a police officer stops a person for going six mph over the speed limit (maybe a slow night), that person might feel intimidated by the officer. However, the police officer is probably not trying to intimidate unless s/he unsnaps a holster or pulls a gun.

      In this case, from the description of the visit, it sounds like any feeling of intimidation was prompted from within, not from without.

    13. Re:Not all free speech is free, eh? by GQuon · · Score: 1

      You see his sig. right? He's not serious. But the mods misunderstood and moderated it Insightful instead of Funny. :-D

      --
      Irene KHAAAAAAN!
    14. Re:Not all free speech is free, eh? by Red+Pointy+Tail · · Score: 1


      And what if she was intimidated into saying she was not intimidated?

    15. Re:Not all free speech is free, eh? by norkakn · · Score: 1

      'under god' was added in order to specifically disenfranchise communists and atheists. THAT is why it is bad, not because of the G word. That's why 'in god we trust' is fine; it's intent wasn't discriminatory.

  14. This is Messed Up by I_Love_Pocky! · · Score: 1

    If you read his journal he never once said he was going to kill the president. He merely said he was hopeful that the president would die. These are completely different things. Is it a crime to wish death on someone? Or is it perhaps that he was contracting God to kill Bush that made it illegal?

    It was obvious to me that this was meant as a joke. I'm suprised it wasn't taken that way by the authorities. I mean really, shouldn't they be looking for real threats (like terrorists)?

    1. Re:This is Messed Up by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      I mean really, shouldn't they be looking for real threats (like terrorists)?

      The Secret Service primarily exists to keep the President and other public figures from getting killed/hurt. After Kenedy they really started taking this seriously. Someone I know was once pissed when he got pulled over by a cop and at one point said "I'm going to kill the president" Quote Unquote. The cop legally had to report him to the secret service even though he had no intention of killing the president at the time. And the Secret Service did show up to ask him some questions. We have had 4 presidents assinated in office and many more have had attempts on their life. They have to investigate every one that comes to their attention just to make sure. At this point Senator Kerry is on their protection list being a candidate this late in the game. If someone had said the same thing and it came to the attention of the Secret Service then they would also have to investigate.

      On a side not, anyone that says that it is OK to take out any president cause you don't agree with his views/policy/action? Well, that aint Democracy its assanation politics. You either have to accept those who are voted in under the Electoral College system or move to another country.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    2. Re:This is Messed Up by I_Love_Pocky! · · Score: 1

      She didn't threaten him! She hopes he dies. There is a difference.

      On a side not, anyone that says that it is OK to take out any president cause you don't agree with his views/policy/action? Well, that aint Democracy its assanation politics.

      Bush wasn't democratically elected. By the way, I don't think it is okay to kill Bush. That doesn't mean the entire world wouldn't be better off if he were gone. I for one strongly oppose the assassination of Bush.

    3. Re:This is Messed Up by cyber0ne · · Score: 1

      It was obvious to me that this was meant as a joke.

      True. However, "obvious" is not always the driving factor in government. I'm not just randomly bashing the system, but pointing out that it has regulations in place that bring certain responsibilities. Court records are full of cases where it was "obvious" that someone was guilty, but the physical evidence didn't satisfy the requirements of the system. It can seem like a waste at times, but it's all part of requiring that the powers that be "make sure" before they act. Just as it's better to let a guilty man go free than execute an innocent, it's also better to ask someone a couple questions than to assume they're not actually intending to kill the president (or anyone else).

      The Secret Service is a lot more than a handful of agents running alongside a car in a parade. Part of what they do is investigate every potential threat to the administration that they find. Even if they know in their gut that it's fake (99.99% of them are, so it's usually a good bet), they are still required to investigate. From what I understand, they wasted as little of their time on the matter as they could. But once the "incident" in question was officially documented, some kind of follow-up to close the "case" was required.

      As for "looking for real threats," they're doing that too. But the fact is that a presidential assassination messes things up bad, both domestically and internationally. It's a headache no government needs. So, to attempt to prevent it, these policies are in place. We know of the handful of presidents who were shot, but none of us know exactly how many attempts are thwarted before they ever get off the ground.

      --
      http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
    4. Re:This is Messed Up by I_Love_Pocky! · · Score: 1

      She didn't threaten him! What's to investigate? I didn't threaten him either, should they investigate me also? You know, just to make sure I don't decide to kill Bush.

    5. Re:This is Messed Up by Reducer2001 · · Score: 1

      I oppose it as well. I don't want Dick Cheney running the show.

      --
      When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
    6. Re:This is Messed Up by dubious9 · · Score: 1

      Bush wasn't democratically elected.

      No president has ever been democratically elected. If you meant "didn't have the majority of the popular vote" you'd be correct. I may not agree with it but we're stuck with that whole electorial college thing. However, I hate it when far-lefters claim that GWB was illegit. elected. There was due process. There were terrific miscues by the Dem's and some dubious actions by the Reb's. Along with debatable court decissions. However as the man that came out on top, he's entitled to the same respect you'd give any president. Get over it.

      Let me say it again. The US is NOT a democracy. GWB was elected. Now if I have anything to say about it, it won't happen twice, but quit spinning your leftist bull crap.

      --
      Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
    7. Re:This is Messed Up by cyber0ne · · Score: 1

      You're missing my point. Everyone knows she didn't threaten him. But once there's any kind of documentation that implies that she might have had intentions of hurting the president, the Secret Service was obligated to follow up. I doubt the agents wanted to waste their time any more than she wanted to waste hers. But their job description is clear.

      Think of it this way. You have the right to jog down your street any time you want. Now, suppose the president is on your street talking to people. He's surrounded by Secret Service agents. Now, his little area is on a public street and you have every right to jog past him. But if you are seen by the agents as running towards the president, you _will_ be stopped. You weren't threatening him, of course. But that's not the issue. They simply have a job to do.

      As for whether or not they investigate you, that's all a matter of whether or not you're on their radar. You can say whatever you want (of course, there are exceptions that fall into the shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater category) whenever you want, so get on your soapbox and shout to your heart's content. Just know that, if you get noticed by an agency whose job it is to investigate whatever it is you're talking about, they might ask you a couple questions.

      And, honestly, keep some perspective. Personally, I'm glad to live in a country where I can voice my opinion about the government and the worst thing to happen is that a couple agents will ring my doorbell and calmly ask me a few questions and then be on their way.

      --
      http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
    8. Re:This is Messed Up by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      I actually had a nightmare about this the night before the Arizona debate. In my dream, an explosion at ASU killed both the president and Kerry. Upon hearing the shocking news, Cheney keeled over, dead of a stroke.

      Next thing, Delay pushes Hastert aside, and declares himself President. His first act his to declare an emergency and martial law. His second was to have Ashcroft arrest congress.

      Thankfully, I woke up about then.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    9. Re:This is Messed Up by XO · · Score: 1

      I had a friend in High School who was on legal hunting ground, off in the middle of nowhere, about 5 miles away from where President Reagan was making an appearance, at an airport, which was surrounded by government owned land, and then after that was public land that could be legally hunted on, and it was legally hunting season.

      He chased his quarry, into the government owned land of the airport (where the brush had completely overgrown all possible fencing and signs, and that crap hadn't been taken care of in at least 40 years or more).. and you better believe your ass that the Secret Service was up this man's ass as soon as they found out about a guy with a shotgun chasing a deer on the government's land.

      He was questioned for about 20 minutes, and then taken back to his vehicle, and asked to vacate the area until after the President was gone.

      Not that big a deal, really.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    10. Re:This is Messed Up by NaDrew · · Score: 1
      Thankfully, I woke up about then.
      That'd make a decent alternate-history short story.
      --
      Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
  15. I had a similar experience by flonker · · Score: 4, Funny
    I had a similar experience on usenet. I had a .sig file that said
    filter bait: He will assassinate the president, but needs the password.
    -export-a-crypto-system-sig- RC4 in 3 lines of PERL
    #!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]ds j
    $/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
    lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..) *)$/)


    I got a call from the secret service asking me to come in and answer some questions. They found the post using Dejanews, and wanted to know what the secret code was. I told them it was a program. They said they would have their experts look at it. At the time, it was legally questionable to post that code to usenet due to ITAR, so I was polite when questioned, despite having to explain the difference between a web page and a usenet post, among other things.

    In retrospect, I'm shocked I actually said this, but when they called me, I actually asked them, "Where did you get this number?" (The number was unlisted.) Their response, "We are the secret service."
    1. Re:I had a similar experience by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      I actually asked them, "Where did you get this number?"

      ...thereby proving that were are, in fact, a member of some shadowy cabal bent on world domination/destruction. Exactly how many years of "volunteer" service did you have to give before the Secret Service let you go back home?

      Thanks for the funniest thing I've heard all day!

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    2. Re:I had a similar experience by XO · · Score: 1

      I can just see some guy in a black suit, kinda looking like Dan Akroyd from the Blues Brothers, all serious, and responding, in the tone of the "We are on a mission from God.", with:

      "We are the Secret Service."

      I've actually spoken with Secret Service a couple of times (over the phone), myself initiating contact for business purposes (counterfit money).. At least the people that answer the phones aren't very scary.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    3. Re:I had a similar experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In retrospect, I'm shocked I actually said this, but when they called me, I actually asked them, "Where did you get this number?" (The number was unlisted.) Their response, "We are the secret service.""

      They probably resolved the IP address attached to your USENET post back to your ISP and subpoenaed them to turn over your name etc. From the information gained your ISP they probably found out whom owned the phone lines in your area and subpoenaed them for your phone number.
      Despite the numbering being unlisted the phone company still keeps a record of who owns the account attached to that number for billing purposes etc. So it should come as no surprise they were able to obtain your number.

      That's my guess anyway. I am sure any law enforcment officer with enough tech savy (or access to someone with enough tech savy) and few subpoenas could have done the same.

    4. Re:I had a similar experience by flonker · · Score: 1

      Actually, I posted through my university account, using my unobfuscated university email address. My university probably told them everything without asking twice. And they had no understanding of tech whatsoever. They wanted to know about my "web page", when they really meant a usenet post.

  16. It is their job by macrealist · · Score: 1

    How do they know if she is serious or not. If she was a threat and something happened, then the Secret Service would be blasted for not doing more. A visit is a non-issue. The Secret Service had better be doing everything they can to protect our president, including reading blogs. Just hope they have some software to scan it all for them.

    And why is this in politics? Obviously her post was politically motivated, but the Secret Service is not acting based on politics.

    --
    I am living proof of the Peter Principle
    1. Re:It is their job by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Does it matter if she was serious? I mean, there are two possibilities:
      1. She really would like God to terminate King George. Which means, precisely, nothing.
      2. She doesn't really want God to kill his glorious leaderness. Which, again, means precisely nothing.
      What's the difference? Wishful thinking?
      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:It is their job by macrealist · · Score: 1

      True, but what if she was a pshyco, and this was a clue. To us, we read it and it is obvious that she is not serious. But if it were our job to step in front of a bullet for the president, it is worth investigating any possible trigger pullers.

      The cost of investigating is much less than the cost of not, even given the context of her message.

      --
      I am living proof of the Peter Principle
    3. Re:It is their job by elmegil · · Score: 1
      And it's not like she was roughed up, spent any time in jail, or was otherwise intimidated. She made a threat that, if she were a psycho, could have been an indication of actions to come. They spent 10 minutes ascertaining that she's not a psycho, and that should be the end of it.

      If, as others have speculated, she ends up on a "no fly" list, then there's more to discuss. But that is PURE SPECULATION at this point.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    4. Re:It is their job by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      She made a threat
      No, she didn't. She wished a certain person was dead. By itself, especially within the context she used it (a prayer), that isn't a threat or threatening.
      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:It is their job by elmegil · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but what she wrote, coming from a psycho, could easily be indicative that there was a plan being created. The girl wasn't suspended from school, she wasn't put in jail or any of the other ridiculous things that have actually happened to people when the feds get overzealous. There was reason enough to have a 10 minute chat with her, which is what they did, and no more.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  17. Now you are a thoughtcriminal as well by Poppler · · Score: 1

    According to this post you just fucked yourself hard. :)

    --
    What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
  18. Another day, another death treath by GQuon · · Score: 1

    Another day, another death treath

    Oh, the stifling of dissent!

    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!
    1. Re:Another day, another death treath by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      And another day gone by when you could have used a spell checker.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  19. Not a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    What makes her not a threat? If she were a more devout Christian (she claims to not have a strong working relationship with ``the Christ"), would her prayers have been considered a bona-fide attempt on W's life?

    Makes me wonder if Pat Robertson (?) got a visit, when he asked the Almighty and his throng to pray for the removal of the pro-Roe/Wade justices from the SCOTUS: "Lord, two of them are very old; they could easily have a heart-attack." If a prayer is a threat, it's only reasonable to think that PR should have a long file.

    1. Re:Not a threat? by mpost4 · · Score: 1

      Is Pat Robertson a real christian?? if he was he would know that Christ commanded us to pray for our enimeies ( also to love them ). I would not say that pro abortionist jugeds are our enimens (well not yet, but) So a real Christians prayer would be more like this "Lord please help lead the justes to wisdom, and bring them to repentence and revours the rulling they made on the sinful act of abortion. Thought Jesus Christ that lives and rains with you and the Holy Ghost ever one God now and forever. Amen"

    2. Re:Not a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh.
      "Real" Christians. And my kids are "Real" Santa Clauseans.

    3. Re:Not a threat? by Guuge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, Robertson is a crackpot. Twain's "War Prayer" comes to mind. But I notice that you still ask God to make the justices see things your way. Yours is a request for domination and ideological ascendancy. What makes your personal ideas on abortion automatically correct? I think a little humility is called for. The world has enough arrogant Christians as it is.

  20. Charlie Brooker - The Guardian -- too by redelm · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This is a surprise to anyone? The US SS is _required_ to investigate possible threats to The President. Do you think they've become more lax after 9/11??? You can be sure they've tightened their procedures quite a bit.

    I suspect Charlie Brooker -Screen Burn- from the UK Guardian (original expired from the Google cache) is going to get a visit too. Plus be on the watch-lists for an indeterminate time. Fool -- does he expect policemen to have a sense of humor?

  21. Disturbing by Tyndmyr · · Score: 3, Funny
    "OMGWTFBBQ THE SEKKRIT SERVICE CAME TO MY HOUSE OMG ;)"

    Obviously, the profile of a possible assassin. If only they knew how common these people are... Half the aol chat rooms probably are out to kill someone.

    --
    Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
    1. Re:Disturbing by AmBoy00 · · Score: 1

      L33T... and LOL I think.

      --
      --chris
    2. Re:Disturbing by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1

      "OMGWTFBBQ THE SEKKRIT SERVICE CAME TO MY HOUSE OMG ;)"

      I was hoping someone in the discussion would help me out, as I am over 35 and therefore AOLspeak-impaired. WTF is OMGWTFBBQ?

      I've tried to break it down:

      OMG = Oh my God!
      WTF = What the F***?
      BBQ = Barbeque ?!

      Is BBQ a reference to Bush's Texas roots? Or was she just hungry?

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  22. Lese Majeste by cmaxx · · Score: 2, Funny

    ..back on the statutes in the US eh.

    --
    ...an Englishman in London.
  23. Replace He with She by I_Love_Pocky! · · Score: 1

    I apologize. The journal was written by a woman not a man.

  24. Who moded this Flaimbate is an total idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no real text here the subject says it all.

  25. Her LJ Post by bretharder · · Score: 3, Informative

    10/14/04 09:25 am
    a prayer for dubya

    Dear God:

    Wassup? How's it hanging? Yeah, I know it's been a long time since we talked. This probably stems from my belief that you do not exist. Anyway, the reason why I'm calling you is because last night, President Bush said that he could feel it every time we prayed for him, and since he apparently doesn't listen to anyone but you, Lord, I thought you might pass this along to him.

    Please kill George Bush. I hate him so much. I think he is a giant dick and I want terrible things to happen to him. I'm not really big on the specifics of how he dies, but if you could at least arrange it so that the authorities find his dead body on top of an underage black male prostitute surrounded by a mountain of cocaine and child pornography, that would really be super-awesome. And maybe you could have some media people there when the police find the body, so they can take pictures and stuff. That'd be fucking GREAT. Am I allowed to say "fuck" in a prayer? Shit, I just said it again. Ah, well.

    Anyway, that's my prayer, Lord. Please, please, please kill Dubya. And Dick Cheney. And everyone else in the Bush Administration. Maybe they can all commit mass suicide together or something. I don't know. You're the one with all the ideas. You come up with something. I need more coffee.

    Smooches and Huggles,
    anniesj

    1. Re:Her LJ Post by flyingsquid · · Score: 1

      You go, girl.

    2. Re:Her LJ Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... to Guantanamo Bay with the rest of the slime.

  26. Heh heh.. Alright by Schezar · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I hereby and formally state that the above comment was made as satire, and was entirely in jest.

    My point is that there is an enormous noise-to-signal ratio on the internet as more and more information becomes available at a higher rate. Continuing the policy of automatic investigation of "any" written threat regardless of context will become an increasingly expensive, resource-consuming enterprise, and will furthermore become less and less effective due to the massive increase of false-positives.

    Basically, if the SS actually knocks on my door, we're in a sad state here in these United States.

    --
    GeekNights!
    Late Night Radio for Geeks!
  27. Fuck the secret service! by Thomas+A.+Anderson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No bigger groups of idiots exists today. Lets looks at the facts:

    President Bush is allowed to stay in a classroom for 7 minutes after hearing of the 2nd plane hitting the WTC. His trip to the school is pre-publicized (hence his location is not secret by any means). The secret service should have politly asked to speak to the president and then run his ass out of there the minute he was out of sight of the children. On the trip in the limo to Air Force One, a group of fighters should have been called up from one of the air force bases in florida and been above the plane before it took off. But this did not happen as fighters didn't meet up with the plane until it's next stop (can't remember the base he landed at briefly).

    The secret service blew it big time and failed to protect the president and no one has said a word.

    But then some kid says "I pray the president dies" and the secret service considers this a threat. What a bunch of fucking morons. Half the world wants this guy dead. Hell, I want the guy dead (He's put this country in more danger than it's been since the cold war by invading a sovereign nation that held *zero* threat to us and he is responsible for the needless death of over a thousand service american man and woman and well over a fifty thousand iraqi civilians). Is the secret service going to investigate *all* of us? Fucking morons!

    --
    Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
    1. Re:Fuck the secret service! by nusratt · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Hell, I want the guy dead"

      Pardon me, but will you be at home tomorrow evening, and prepared to receive guests wearing black shoes, white socks, and crew-cuts?

    2. Re:Fuck the secret service! by Thomas+A.+Anderson · · Score: 1

      You mean the Blues Brothers are coming over? Cool!

      You make a good point, and to avoid the Secret Service a wasted trip - I in no way intend to hurt the president of the united states. Except verbally (I do reserve the right to call him a fucktard any time I want).

      The joke is that we all know the dude's going to lose this election. We just have to wait 5 more days and then he becomes just another "1 termer" who couldn't hack it as president (just like his papa). The worst thing that could happen now is someone attacks him because then people would vote for him (beware the sympathy vote).

      So anyhow, hope you guys (the secret service) feel better. But feel free to send the blue brothers over if you like, but not Belushi - I'm sure he stinks pretty bad by now.

      --
      Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
    3. Re:Fuck the secret service! by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      "The joke is that we all know the dude's going to lose this election."

      Um, NO. There's been a collosal amount of vote fraud ALREADY. Democrats and suspected democrats (blacks, essentially) are being stricken off roles at a good clip.

      Yes, there are armies of lawyers ready to litigate once the election is over, in case George steals it, but with the supreme court set the way it is, once stolen, it will REMAIN STOLEN.

      Don't be so complacent, my friend. This could go either way, and you should be damn sure to nag all your non-bush-supporting friends to be sure to vote, as their votes will be counting for some unspecified number of republican votes, where such number is tangibly (but let's hope only slightly) less than ONE.

    4. Re:Fuck the secret service! by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      The secret service blew it big time and failed to protect the president

      The Secret Service failed to protect the President in the same way that it is failing to protect the President now by not keeping him in a top-secret bunker buried three miles below the Earth's surface.

      They could protect the President by killing every other person on the face of the planet, too. That'd keep the President safe, almost guaranteed. But just because it would work doesn't mean it would be *necessary*. Given the method of attack - it's suspected that the reason the Pentagon was hit instead of the White House is because the White House is small and the Pentagon is fucking enormous - it's unlikely that terrorists would have been able to find a nondescript elementary school from the air or to find and ram AF1, and agents on the ground were likely more than enough protection against bombers or gunmen.

      In this case, however, you never know when a person's wish of death upon the President is just idle chatter or the megalomaniacal ramblings of someone who's a few cards short of a full deck, unless you investigate. The Secret Service did that, and decided fairly quickly that the person was not a threat. The result? The person ends up with an FBI file that will probably prevent them from getting a national security job.

    5. Re:Fuck the secret service! by Thomas+A.+Anderson · · Score: 1

      Given the method of attack - it's suspected that the reason the Pentagon was hit instead of the White House is because the White House is small and the Pentagon is fucking enormous - it's unlikely that terrorists would have been able to find a nondescript elementary school from the air or to find and ram AF1,

      In hindsight, maybe this is true. But if you have just heard that the country is under attack via suicidal jetliners, you act to protect the POTUS, and wonder if the school if visable from the air *after* every reasonable action has been taken.

      and agents on the ground were likely more than enough protection against bombers or gunmen.

      Agreed.

      --
      Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
    6. Re:Fuck the secret service! by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      "In order to save the village, they had to destroy it."

      I wish there was a way to apply that logic to the job of protecting the president.*

      .
      .

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    7. Re:Fuck the secret service! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you have just heard that the country is under attack via suicidal jetliners...

      Nobody, but Monday morning quarterbacks, heard that. The reality is that nobody really thought it was terrorism until the SECOND plane hit.

      Planes crash into things all the time. Do you go running into a hole in the ground, thinking each airplane crash is a terrorist attack?

    8. Re:Fuck the secret service! by Thomas+A.+Anderson · · Score: 1

      You are absolutly correct *except* we are talking about events that occured once bush was notified about the 2nd plane hitting the WTC.

      Bush received a telephone call while in his limo on the way to the school telling him of the first plane. The message he received in the classroom was about the second plane crash. At this point, the whole world knew it was terrorism and the secret service failed in it's sole mission to protect the president.

      --
      Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
    9. Re:Fuck the secret service! by zenyu · · Score: 1

      the secret service failed in it's sole mission to protect the president.

      Wasn't the SS founded to protect the dollar? I though serving as VIP bodyguards was only a sideline for the SS?

  28. I propose reversing this "security" thing by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lets change the law. Instead of having the secret service to protect politicians, lets instead ban politicians from being protected by any government employee. Also, ban them from hiring private bodyguards, and when they travel require them to walk, bicycle, take the public subway/bus/train, or fly "coach".

    It's a lot easier to have casual contempt for Joe Public if you can flip the bird at him from behind tinted bulletproof glass.

  29. Re:Heh heh.. Alright by bretharder · · Score: 1

    You're still fucked.

  30. Re:Heh heh.. Alright by I_Love_Pocky! · · Score: 3, Funny

    Basically, if the SS actually knocks on my door, we're in a sad state here in these United States.

    My guess is they already knocked on your door, and compelled you to post this follow up message to dissuade the millions waiting to pounce on GWB next week at 2:45pm.

  31. well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya know I don't feel bad for the kid at all. Lesson learned. Now she'll know there are things you say and things you don't say. Period.

  32. RIP some civil liberties by waterbear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    According to the livejournalist concerned here, her statement of opposition to the current president, including, as it did, a juvenile or immature death-wish upon him, has earned her among other things an FBI file, and a "strong possibility" according to her attorney that she may be placed on the US no-fly list.

    That would be a significant penalty imposed without due process, and no matter what other posters here have said, this is also an obvious free speech issue.

    I'm not sure what kind of a comfort it is to say that it likely would have turned out even worse in China.

    Whatever one might want to pray happen to the president, it's arguably time also for a prayer in memory of some traditional US civil liberties and protections.

    -wb-

    1. Re:RIP some civil liberties by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1

      Being investigated for threats against another person's life does not violate due process. The FBI keeping a record of the people that have made threats against another person's life doesn't violate due process, either. Having an FBI file doesn't restrict any liberties.

      The no-fly list is an entirely different beast. There are some serious problems with a secret no-fly list. But, I don't have any desire to the argument against the no-fly list as some sort of support for an ass-bag who threatens the President's life, so this is emphatically not the forum for discussing those problems.

    2. Re:RIP some civil liberties by Sancho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There was no threat. It was not only clearly satire, but it was a prayer to God that He kill Bush. Unless the FBI thinks that God exists and that this person was conspiring with Him to kill the President, there was no threat, period.

    3. Re:RIP some civil liberties by twistedcubic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Every year a new young person learns that making any statement about the president and death gets him/her a visit from the secret service. Actually, from the couple instances I know, the penalty was more severe (they restricted the person's travel, and required them to notify the SS of any interstate travel) but I guess now it looks like they aren't coming down so hard, which is surprising given the current state of things. Yet still, the comment had the wrong idea-- the last thing you'd want to do is martyr a bad leader, because you'd have to suffer his glorificaion in the media for years (ever heard a Republican say anything bad about JFK?). Let this clown live to see that he is regarded as the most incompeent president ever.

    4. Re:RIP some civil liberties by Mortlath · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Unless the FBI thinks that God exists and that this person was conspiring with Him to kill the President, there was no threat, period.
      It doesn't matter what the FBI thinks about God, it matters what the person in question believes about God.

      Crimes have been known to be committed in the name of God.

      I can see why the FBI might take this seriously. I think they just want to cover their rear-ends. If something did happen, they would be in deep trouble if it was known that they knew of a threat previously (kind of like what happened with Sep. 11 incident).

      -Morty

    5. Re:RIP some civil liberties by drudd · · Score: 1

      While I think it's clear in this case that the author was being satirical, it's difficult to say where the line should be drawn.

      What if I posted the name and address of an abortion doctor on a website with the statement "oh I wish this person would just die"?

      Expressing a desire for someone to die could be construed as inciting someone else to actually perform the act. It's a fine line to be sure, since the person doesn't actually say they want someone else to perform the act, or even that they want the person to be killed by another human.

      Doug

      --
      Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
    6. Re:RIP some civil liberties by cicho · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Reality check: Exactly _what_ trouble were the FBI after what happened with Sept. 11? Any dismissals, reprimands, indictments? Did any honcho at the FBI do any jail time for negligence?

      --
      "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
    7. Re:RIP some civil liberties by KillScriptKiddies · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think they just want to cover their rear-ends. If something did happen, they would be in deep trouble if it was known that they knew of a threat previously (kind of like what happened with Sep. 11 incident).

      Maybe the intelligence agencies did not prevent the 9/11 attacks cause the attackers did not post anything on some weblog.

    8. Re:RIP some civil liberties by Mortlath · · Score: 1
      No, but the general public (or the media maybe) put the blame on the government for not "heeding" the warning they had.

      Now, I'm not exactly sure what they were supposed to do with the warning they had received. Amongst most people, the government is to blame for not doing something.

      -Morty

    9. Re:RIP some civil liberties by peacefinder · · Score: 1

      Every year a new young person learns that making any statement about the president and death gets him/her a visit from the secret service.

      Exactly! And that's why I have been careful not to refer to the name Tecumseh in an online forum for several year...

      Oh, crap.

      --
      With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    10. Re:RIP some civil liberties by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      This person clearly states that they do not belive in god. In the first Few lines none the less, its not hidden, its flat out obvious.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    11. Re:RIP some civil liberties by ElForesto · · Score: 1

      You can bet I'll sue for lack of due process if I get slapped onto a no-fly list without a trial.

      --
      There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
    12. Re:RIP some civil liberties by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      I personaly know of one instance of a person being interogateed by the SS. A kid I went to school with ( very small school) wrote an essay on what they wanted to be when they grew up. He decided to become a political assasin. He was in the 8th grade at the time, and the teacher took it seriously. Since the report mentioned killing former President Clinton, the OSBI ( oklahoma state bueruea of investigation) took it very seriously after being infromed by the local police department(Pauls Valley, Oklahoma). They informed the OSBI, the OSBI informed two agents in Oklahoma City. They came down, questioned EVERYONE in the class, myself included, and all of the students teachers and family. This took a full day, kinda cool as it made for an interesting, wasted school day. They finally decided it was total bullshit, and pure fiction. They warned the kid, and he was repremanded for his violent views by the principal.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    13. Re:RIP some civil liberties by orangesquid · · Score: 1

      Eh, no matter. I've already updated my LJ with the appropriate disclaimer...

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    14. Re:RIP some civil liberties by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Insane people who kill someone because someone else has posted their address and a wish that they die can construe the voices in their head from the TV rays to be the voice of God. We should stop transmitting TV.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    15. Re:RIP some civil liberties by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There was no threat.

      There were no charges, either. Last time I checked, anyone who wants to do so is perfectly free to knock on your door and ask you any damned questions they want to ask. And, the last time I checked, you have the legal right to someone at the door to go fuck themselves if you don't want to answer their questions.

    16. Re:RIP some civil liberties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or because, as several units of military were, they were told to stand down their guards on September 9th, as everything was quite safe and secure.

    17. Re:RIP some civil liberties by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      What if I posted the name and address of an abortion doctor on a website with the statement "oh I wish this person would just die"?

      Completely different.. In that case, there's a very good argument for that you're expecting someone to carry out your 'wish'.

      In this case, most (if not all) of the deaths she suggested in her prayer seemed to be self-inflicted. Kinda like me telling you 'drop dead' and getting investigated for death threats. It's completely bogus.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    18. Re:RIP some civil liberties by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      and a "strong possibility" according to her attorney that she may be placed on the US no-fly list.

      If I were a dot-com millionaire, I'd hand her a first class ticket to any destination of her choice in the US and see what happened... If she's on the no-fly list for this, I'd say that's a pretty good argument for the list being unconstitutional (both in terms of first-amendment rights and the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty).

      As someone else pointed out, there's no law that says that the SS can't drop by and ask questions, but when they start limiting my right to speak and travel, I'm quite willing to start fighting back.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    19. Re:RIP some civil liberties by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 1

      No, but the general public (or the media maybe) put the blame on the government for not "heeding" the warning they had.

      Government to public: "Meh."

      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    20. Re:RIP some civil liberties by NaDrew · · Score: 1
      You can bet I'll sue for lack of due process if I get slapped onto a no-fly list without a trial.
      Since DOJ refuses to acknowledge the existence of the DNF list, you won't get too far.
      --
      Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
    21. Re:RIP some civil liberties by JabberWokky · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Whle I would seriously take this with a grain of salt considering the source, a bit of research on this would be fairly easy. Pending the verification of the source, the government takes prayer seriously:

      IRS Prohibits Churches from Praying for the Re-Election of President George Bush

      WASHINGTON, October 28, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Internal Revenue Service says churches praying for God to grant President Bush four more years as President, during their church services, is a violation of the federal tax code. The IRS issued their ruling in response to a formal request from the Christian Defense Coalition seeking clarification on this issue.

      The Christian Defense Coalition is being represented on this issue by the American Center for Law and Justice.

      Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, commented on the ruling saying, "This decision by the IRS is a tragic crushing of the First Amendment and religious freedom. The federal government is now telling churches how they must pray and conduct their services. This is clearly censorship. Churches should be allowed to pray according to the teachings of Scripture and the dictates of their conscience without government intimidation or harassment. Regardless if that prayer is offered for President Bush, Senator Kerry or any other candidate."

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    22. Re:RIP some civil liberties by msuzio · · Score: 1

      I would wait until she actually gets placed on a "no fly" list before I panic too much. No, I don't think her posting was worth this much fuss, but I can see where if you squint at it right, it's not beyond the domain of the Secret Service. Truthfully, these are guys with poor senses of humor anyway, as witnessed by the whole Steve Jackson thing.

      As far as FBI file, I dunno. Might affect her if she wanted a job with the CIA or military clearance, but otherwise? In any case, she's in good company, most of the people who did anything (or nothing) in the 60s got a file too...

    23. Re:RIP some civil liberties by macromegas · · Score: 1

      I liked SS for secret service ... and I swear Ill neverever complain about akronyms that are misleading.

      (add sarcasm tags as you please)

      --
      Life has become the ideology of its absence - T.W. Adorno
    24. Re:RIP some civil liberties by mi · · Score: 1
      a prayer in memory of some traditional US civil liberties and protections.

      Which of her civil liberties and/or protections were violated, exactly? Please, cite the verse... Thank you.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    25. Re:RIP some civil liberties by DLR · · Score: 1

      Funny, I don't hear anyone screaming about the 1st Amendment being violated here, yet it was. In fact it was violated far more clearly here than in the LiveJournal debacle.

      --
      "Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
    26. Re:RIP some civil liberties by allism · · Score: 1

      That would be an interesting suit...Is it that the government has forbidden you to fly, or is it that the airlines, as private entities, have chosen not to allow you to fly based on a governmental recommendation? Private entities have the right to refuse service, IIRC.

      I would think, if the no-fly list is a hard and fast rule, that Ted Kennedy would not have been able to board a plane at all, rather than being able to fly after the airlines realized who he was.

      I'm not that impressed with the no-fly list anyway - see my earlier comment regarding my mother's experience with airport security.

    27. Re:RIP some civil liberties by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the no-fly list? Forgetting that part, are we?

    28. Re:RIP some civil liberties by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      No, it's not a violation of the first amendment. Remember, the first amendment entails MORE than just "Freedom of Speech" including the whole Church/State thing.

      Churches get themselves nice tax exemptions with a few provisos, including STAYING THE FUCK OUT OF POLITICS. When they cross that line, they damn sure better expect to pony up their rightful share.

    29. Re:RIP some civil liberties by DLR · · Score: 1
      Yes, it is. The law you refer to is clearly unConstitutional. The 1st Amendment to the US Constition very clearly states:

      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.

      Please note that Congress has made a law that both abridges the freedom of speech (to wit, tax exempt orgs may not endorse political candidates) and "prohibits the free excercise thereof" (speaking of religion) by saying that (tax exempt) religious leaders or institutions may not endorse a candidate they feel matches the moral beliefs of their religion. While IANAL this is pretty clearly in plain English. After all the ludicrous separation of church and state nonsense (e.g. school officials harrassing some kid for praying over his lunch, or the girl who wore her (Muslim) headscarf to school and they expelled her for it) this is just one more example of a double standard.

      Nevertheless, you might be surprised to know that I disagree with the tax exempt status given to all groups. (But then again I don't think that corporations should be taxed either, because that cost just gets passed along to the customer.)

      --
      "Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
    30. Re:RIP some civil liberties by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that the tax exempt status is BS, but that's why it's the tax code they're breaking. If they become a political organisation, then they need to be taxed as one, and not as a tax-exempt religious organisation.

      Your two examples of Church/State "nonsense" are extreme and just as ludicrous as you say, but they don't really relate to the REAL meaning of separating church and state, they're just some asshats harassing schoolkids.

  33. SS does not read LJ by cbr2702 · · Score: 1

    And as this shows us that the Secret Service does not read Live Journal, it becomes clear that even the Headline-writer didn't RTFA.

    --


    This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
  34. Re:Heh heh.. Alright by Apreche · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, a friend of Schezar, hereby threaten to take the life of the president of the united states. I make this threat for the sole purpose of getting the secret service to come to my door. I think it would be great fun to talk to them, possibly go to court and learn some secrets. I think it would be especially awesome if they use any provisions of the Patriot act in their visit. That way when I go to court I can be the guy who challenges their constitutionality. Also, it would be great fun and bring an element of excitement into my life. Not only that, but it will give me a great story to tell everyone on the net and everyone I know/meet about how the secret service investigated me because they are so incredibly stupid they cannot differentiate a serious threat from a joking one.

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
  35. YHL. FOAD. by Safety+Cap · · Score: 0, Troll

    If this were a country that celebrated freedom of speech, you'd be okay.

    Unfortunately for you, Americans are a small, scared, nasty bunch who like nothing more than beat their chests and show how they're much Holier than Thou, and they know how you should act. In fact, they'll pass some laws to force you to act their way.

    So, freedom of speech may have worked back in 1776, but in the technological vastness of today's future, it is an idea that is as obsolete as "freedom from unreasonable searches," "separation of church and state," and "innocent until proven guilty."

    With that in mind, when the SS comes to your door, do not make any sudden movements; do not look them in the eye; and follow their directions quickly and without protest.

    --
    Yeah, right.
    1. Re:YHL. FOAD. by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      With that in mind, when the SS comes to your door, do not make any sudden movements; do not look them in the eye; and follow their directions quickly and without protest.

      And confess quickly, so as not to ruin your credit rating.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    2. Re:YHL. FOAD. by kaitou · · Score: 0

      how is that offtopic??

  36. Nobody so busy or dutiful by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...as a guard who just earlier got caught sleeping through a burglary.

  37. No, no by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1

    On a side not, anyone that says that it is OK to take out any president cause you don't agree with his views/policy/action? Well, that aint Democracy its assanation politics.

    You have that one wrong: it is Chimpy's foreign policy.

    America: Spreading freedom--whether you want it or not!--at the point of a bayonet for over 100 years.

    --
    Yeah, right.
    1. Re:No, no by RevAaron · · Score: 1
      or, as they sing in "Team America: World Police" :
      America- FUCK YEAH!
      Freedom is the only way, yeah
      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
  38. Yea by Schezar · · Score: 1

    Yea, go to his door. Not mine. I'm a wuss, and I really don't want to be arrested. ;^)

    Funny. Apreche always said he WANTED to be sued by the RIAA back at Uni. Wanted to fight them in court and all that. Now he wants the same thing from the SS.

    I don't know if he's brilliant, insane, or just has a death wish... ;^)

    --
    GeekNights!
    Late Night Radio for Geeks!
  39. This is what he said: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in a prayer to God:

    "Please kill George Bush. I hate him so much. I think he is a giant dick and I want terrible things to happen to him. I'm not really big on the specifics of how he dies, but if you could at least arrange it so that the authorities find his dead body on top of an underage black male prostitute surrounded by a mountain of cocaine and child pornography, that would really be super-awesome. And maybe you could have some media people there when the police find the body, so they can take pictures and stuff. That'd be fucking GREAT. Am I allowed to say "fuck" in a prayer? Shit, I just said it again. Ah, well.

    Anyway, that's my prayer, Lord. Please, please, please kill Dubya. And Dick Cheney. And everyone else in the Bush Administration. Maybe they can all commit mass suicide together or something. I don't know. You're the one with all the ideas. You come up with something. I need more coffee."

    And:

    "1) I hate George W. Bush. A lot. I hate him. I wish bad things would happen to him. If he died, I really would laugh. And dance. And scream. And there might be nudity. You all should know this about me by now, unless you're new, and in that case -- hi. I hate Dubya. A lot. Now you know. :) And now that THAT is taken care of ..."

    is that so bad? I mean seriously? It's not much worse than the character assassination in Amercan (Fuck yeah) movies we see. Don't we all at some point wish someone to be dead even if in reality we don't really want anyone to harm him? I mean I sometimes would love to have the convenience of seeing some people disapear in some violent or embarassing ways. Some are political figures too. That doesn't mean I really want it to happen if I were the one who could roll the dice of chance on that person.

  40. I can see why by Krieger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As much as I hate to say it, I can see why.

    She specifically asks for something bad to happen to George Bush. Not just a "I wish he was dead, so I wouldn't have to deal with his shit anymore." But in fact a full blown, "God please kill George Bush." Followed by other self-described snarky comments advocating his death.

    I think it looks like more of a consistency thing. She was consistently asking for someone to kill George Bush, which could technically incite someone to violence, which might be construed as a threat. (IANAL)

    And while I think most people have made jokes about some president or other important official, friend, neighbor, etc dying, being assasinated, etc for the greater good. I think most people rarely couch it in terms of doing or asking someone to do it.

    Perhaps the best speculative difference.

    "I wish they were dead."

    "God, please kill George Bush."

    It's tough to say if I think it is a good/bad thing that the Secret Service checked up on this. Hopefully they also read the rest of her livejournal first. Hell that may have been why they *did* check up on her. If the rest of her livejournal had been a total peacenik LJ, they may have just gone on their way. Yet some of the other posts supported at least asking questions of whether or not she is truly a violent individual.

    Wake up call. Violent ranting on the internet can be completely misconstured (much like email). Please confine all future rants to actual conversations with known audiences, so that when you make outrageous statements you audience knows you well enough to not turn you into the Secret Service.

    So are we supposed to worry about the Secret Service checking up on all of us now?

    1. Re:I can see why by ErwinBlonk2003 · · Score: 1

      This I would like to compare with the Bernie S. case. In that case they were acting entirly irresponsible, not to say childish and vindictive. They are, in effect, children with guns going unchecked. And we know what that results in.

      --

      Erwin
      Deconstruct! (Jacques Derrida 1930-2004)
      if absolute power corrupts absolutely, depending on y
    2. Re:I can see why by ErwinBlonk2003 · · Score: 1

      Let me add to that they should take their time doing a bit more research (they have the means). Responding to a threat without paying a visit or getting people locked up 'just in case' requires an intelligent, objective and highly developed assesment skills. None of these seem to be applicable to secret services around the world. There is a cause, I think: they have power and power corrupts.

      --

      Erwin
      Deconstruct! (Jacques Derrida 1930-2004)
      if absolute power corrupts absolutely, depending on y
  41. that's minilove by xutopia · · Score: 1

    in the latest version. It comes right before "nucular".

  42. OLD LADIES!! TOP TIP #1121-656 by SimianOverlord · · Score: 1, Funny
    Feeling a bit lonely and bored now the kids have moved out and don't return your calls?

    Get a livejournal account

    Post an appeal for someone to kill the President

    Report yourself to the FBI

    Within a week, two nice, polite young men will stop by for a quiet chat about who you are and what you get up to. They will be very interested in you. They will listen to your anecdotes while they sip tea and munch homemade biscuits. And agree your son Albert is a good for nothing scoundrel who never calls his mother.

    A week later, repeat process.

    --
    Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
  43. How many SS are there? by khasim · · Score: 1
    As for the issue at hand, one of my college profs was ex-Secret Service and he described stuff like this happening all the time. Write something like that about the Pres and get a visit.
    That doesn't sound statistically possible.

    There are a limited number of Secret Service agents.

    It takes time to visit each person and nothing actually bad happens to that person except some fame for being oppressed by the government.

    Wouldn't the kids posting crap soon overwhelm the SS's ability to visit each and every one? Particularly if they started posting more crap after the visit?
    1. Re:How many SS are there? by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Except, most kids know not to post shit on the internet about killing the president. Every few years, you'll year about some kid emailing the president or posting on some forum about how he is going to do that act- and then you heaer about the SS showing up very quickly to question him. Most people have the sense to not have "kill" and "president" in the same sentence- I am a bit scared that I'm doing it myself right now...

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    2. Re:How many SS are there? by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1
      That doesn't sound statistically possible./ There are a limited number of Secret Service agents.

      It depends on how you look at it. What I was trying to say is that Secret Service Agents knock on doors quite often talking to folks about threats against the Pres. I wan't trying to say that every threat gets a visit;-)

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    3. Re:How many SS are there? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      That doesn't sound statistically possible.

      There are a limited number of Secret Service agents.

      It takes time to visit each person and nothing actually bad happens to that person except some fame for being oppressed by the government.


      As I read your words, the Imp of the Perverse whispered something in my ear about a DoS attack on the SS.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    4. Re:How many SS are there? by XO · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Denial of Service, real-world style, on the Secret Service?

      Talk about burying people in red tape.. hmm..

      *mindboggled*

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    5. Re:How many SS are there? by ezeri · · Score: 1

      The limited resources is the reason they show up at all there doors for a visit. Its a lot easier to just stop by for an hour an have a nice chat than it is to actualy investigate them, and since there job is to prevent the crime rather than piece it together after the fact, its usualy just as effective, if the subject actualy was trying something, they will usualy have second thoughts after a visit from the Secret Service.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
    6. Re:How many SS are there? by NaDrew · · Score: 1
      Most people have the sense to not have "kill" and "president" in the same sentence- I am a bit scared that I'm doing it myself right now...
      If it's possible to /. the SS, this thread is surely doing it.
      --
      Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
  44. dead men working by nusratt · · Score: 1

    "The worst thing that could happen now is someone attacks him because then people would vote for him (beware the sympathy vote)."

    Well, now, wouldn't THAT be an interesting symmetry:
    John Ashcroft (a man who lost an election to a dead man), working for a President who can't be re-elected except as a dead man.

  45. "Kill the president" By The Offspring by kingj02 · · Score: 1

    So... 'Kill the president' is bad, but "Kill the President" By The Offspring, is okay?

    That's a song they did in 89/90 that's very much about the U.S. president. As far as I know, nothing ever happened to them regarding it. Unfortunatly, after 9/11, they removed the name from the discography section of the webpage--which was disappointing to me--but it's still on the album.

    --
    Ardente veritate incendite tenebras mundi
    1. Re:"Kill the president" By The Offspring by twistedcubic · · Score: 1


      So... 'Kill the president' is bad, but "Kill the President" By The Offspring, is okay?

      Yes. I've never heard of "The Offspring" but either they're high-profile or rich, and so the rules are different. I remember a Republican congressmen making a comment like "Clinton better watch his back" (or something like that) and you know nothing came of that either. Please don't act surprised.

  46. Free Speech does not include the right to threaten by jgardn · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ... the president!

    Yes, I have free speech. But I can't go around yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. I can't call up the cops and report non-existant crimes, or call the FBI and say, "I have the man you are looking for." Just as well, I can't go around telling people, "I am going to kill you!"

    If I use my "free" speech to testify in court, and tell lies, and get found out, guess what? I go to jail. If I'm a lawyer and I use my free speech to tell my clients that what they're doing is A-OK! when it's really not, I go to jail! If I'm a doctor and I use free speech to tell a patient, "Here, take three of these cyanide pills a day and you'll get better in no time!", what should happen to me?

    Let's just clarify: Sure, you have free speech. The government can't throw you in jail because you disagree with them. But they can throw you in jail for threatening people, harming people, or doing all kinds of bad stuff with your free speech!

    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
  47. Title by CGP314 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Secret Service Reads Livejournal

    Well, I guess somebody has to.


    -Colin

  48. All I have to say is... by Dahan · · Score: 0, Troll
    PWNED!!!!!!11!

    She certainly deserved what she got... If she doesn't want Bush to be president, she shouldn't vote for him (if she's even old enough to vote; if she's just some angsty teen, she'll just have to wait until she grows up). Wishing for his death is just childish and stupid.

  49. I am going to kill the president.... by Jtheletter · · Score: 1
    at poker. Y'know, cuz he's not so smart and stuff.

    Plus all the deficit betting? Ouch!

    ps - for all our sarcasm-impaired readers out there [cough!]secretservice[cough!] I'm joking.

    --
    -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    1. Re:I am going to kill the president.... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm joking.

      That's the exact sort of thing that a psychotic assassin would say, to try and divert suspicion.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  50. So what you're saying... by PatHMV · · Score: 1

    So you're saying that anybody who wants to threaten somebody's life can simply say: "please, God, kill my enemy" instead of "I will kill my enemy", and it's suddenly not a threat? If somebody posted such a "prayer" about you on the internet, would you feel completely safe? What if it was by a person who always happened to "bump into" you everywhere you went?

    This person was simply investigated. She wasn't arrested, thrown in jail, beaten, etc. Putting her on a no-fly list isn't going to happen, that's just a scary story put out by her attorney. The worst that will happen to her is she won't be able to ever go on the White House tour now.

    The substance of the message is threatening, therefore it is a threat. The superficial grammar of it is immaterial.

    Plus, it's just a disgusting, vicious, nasty message. Liberals are always ranting about conservatives being intolerant, but it is the liberals who seem to be very ready to wish other human beings dead.

    1. Re:So what you're saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you assume she was a liberal? She might just be a conservative who thinks Bush needs aborted by his mom, even if it's a bit late in term. Seriously, though, I would think most actual conservatives, not necessarily Republicans, would be very much opposed to a variety of Bush's actions. Whether they facetiously or otherwise wish Bush dead is a side issue.

    2. Re:So what you're saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus fucking Christ! Did you people even read the fucking article? There is no fucking way that any reasonable person could think that this is a threat in any way, shape or form. What is the matter with you people???

    3. Re:So what you're saying... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      o you're saying that anybody who wants to threaten somebody's life can simply say: "please, God, kill my enemy" instead of "I will kill my enemy", and it's suddenly not a threat?
      Yes. In the same way as they can similarly threaten someone's life by saying "I'll have two bags of sugar please", or "Does anyone have the time?"

      Can you come up with a justification for arguing that "Please God, kill my enemy" is a threat? I'm assuming you're not a beyond-help Christian who believes that a prayer to God to kill someone is going to result in that person's death. Like I said, if you are, then there's not much we can do about it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  51. yeah wahtever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck bush. llama cock sucker.

  52. Not necessarily... by the_skywise · · Score: 1

    I can't cite any sources on the 'net (obviously not using the right keywords) but I had a history class which talked about religious armies having "special forces" troops that would go by names of something like "the Hand of God". Essentially striking for God by sneaking into enemy cities and doing damage to put the fear of God in people.

    Muslim society probably has a similar concept. So a call for "God" to kill Bush could be construed as a call to action for those forces. (Remember, the CIA swears up and down that Bin Laden gives marching orders embedded in his speeches and uses email for similar purposes... why not embed an order just before an election in a "prayer for dubyah" with a request for his assassination in a public blog?)

    1. Re:Not necessarily... by flyingsquid · · Score: 2, Funny
      Assuming "God" is a code-name for some Islamic fundamentalist ninja super-assassin sleeper agent who is supposed to whack Dubya, it defeats the entire point of using a code name to then spend the rest of the message saying "PLEASE KILL THE FUCKING PRESIDENT!!!!".

      Ooops, gotta go. I was gonna write more, but I hear somebody knocking at the door.

    2. Re:Not necessarily... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm crazy enough to kill someone because someone else said they wish they were dead. I'm a homicidal misconstruer, and it's your fault for suggesting it.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  53. Re:Free Speech does not include the right to threa by stinerman · · Score: 1, Informative

    I have no clue who modded this up ...

    Anyway, you do have a right to free speech so long as there is no "clear and present danger" attributed to your actions. To wit:

    You cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre or threaten people's lives. That constitutes a clear and present danger.

    You CAN say "I wish CowboyNeal was dead". That does not constitute a clear an present danger. No where in that statement can any resonable person infer that you want to actually do such a thing.

  54. About prayer being considered a threat by Jtheletter · · Score: 1
    I think part of the reason why wishing god would kill someone could be considered a threat has a lot to do with our current war on terror. Many of the terrorists are extremist Muslims, believe they are fighting in a Jihad dicated by god, and expect to be rewarded for their self-sacrifice by ascending to heaven. I read somewhere (don't know where, too lazy to go check) that before these terrorists die they scream something to the effect of "God is great!" Please /. community correct me if I'm wrong or spreading bad information with that statement.

    In any case, when the US is facing enemies driven by religious fanaticism, I think a call (wish, prayer, etc) for god to kill someone could easily be considered a direct threat by the secret service. Especially when so many terrorists have killed in the name of their god or acting as "the hand of god."

    --
    -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    1. Re:About prayer being considered a threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please explain the difference between these extremist Muslims and the extremist fundamentalist Christians currently running your country? Apart from the Muslims not having killed as many people, of course.

    2. Re:About prayer being considered a threat by Jtheletter · · Score: 1
      Please explain the difference between these extremist Muslims and the extremist fundamentalist Christians currently running your country? Apart from the Muslims not having killed as many people, of course.

      First off, I don't run this country, am not old enough to have set up the players in government currently and did not vote for the current president. Also, I'm neither Christian nor Muslim, and personally view the concept of a supreme diety of any sort as a rather backwoods outmoded concept.

      That said, I think the most fundamental difference between the two groups is the motivation behind any killing they have done. The extremist christians running our country are killing for economic and political reasons - oil, power, wealth, etc. While the extremist muslims are killing in response to the above, and also as a mandate from god (some of them anyway). Whether anyone in our government personally believes they are doing the lord's work with their wars I can't say, but if they do think that is the case they are keeping it to themselves.

      Personally I'm outraged and disgusted by the whole thing. At the heart of the matter it amounts to nothing more than a rediculous blood fued fueled by generations of killing, deception, and intolerance. It continues to spiral out of control as neither side will back down and only seeks greater retribution with each passing decade. I don't think either side is right, I have no idea what the solution is (arguably even if America pulled out of the Middle East tomorrow there would still be terrorist attacks and kidnappings and the like, and even if the terrorists and such stopped their activities America would continue to try to seize oil and political power in those countries).

      So don't sit behind your AC post and lob thinly veiled acusations at myself or anyone else with sense enough to analyse the situation. You assume too quickly that all Americans are warmongering jerks who follow blindly the leaders who represent them. If you are a regular reader of slashdot you would know from reading posts here that many of us are at a total loss at how our current politicians are in power since on so many fronts they are almost completely out of touch with those they supposedly represent. In an republic (which the US is) there will always be a divide between the people and the government since policy is determined by a select few representatives of the people rather than by popular vote on all issues. However, over the years those in power seem to have done an excellent job at furthering that divide while maintaining their power, and a sleeping public has let that happen piece by piece. I also reject your smug implication that one side has killed more than the other. My reasons for that being twofold. One, I don't have facts and figures on the body counts for both sides, and I'm willing to bet cash that at the time of your writing, neither did you. And two, if you want to take a look at the christians vs muslims conflict it arguably spans centuries and while in any given era one side may be ahead of the other in atrocities, it's impossible to point to any short time span and say 'this proves side X is clearly the worst.' Neither side is forgivable, and just because one side at any time is less efficient at killing than the other does not make them any better, since it is quite obvious both sides are keen as hell at killing as many as possible.

      To get back to the topic of my original post here, I did not and do not necessarily condone the secret service in considering prayer as a literal threat. However, given the state of affairs currently it is not very difficult to construct the scenario in which a prayer to god to kill a leader could in fact be a threat. Sometimes playing devil's advocate to an idea is the best way to determine if it is at all justifiable, or if it's in fact totally unfounded. Whether or not you agree with any justification you find is another matter. But that's the beauty of being an intelligent entity, isn't it? Being able to simultaneously entertain the notion of, but not believe in, any given concept.

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
  55. I am spartacus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am totally going to shoot bush in that fat fucking head of his.

  56. No more crack for you or the mods either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She didn't do any of that. What was written was no more a threat than mailing a the president a gift certificate for Rolled Gold Pretzels is attempted murder. The fact that you think, "I will kill you" is equivalent to "I hope you die" and that we should err on the side of unnecessarily depriving people of their civil liberties is exactly what's wrong with america. Equal means cannot be infered from equal ends.

  57. Bush & Kerry Voodoo Dolls by Richard+M.+Nixon · · Score: 1

    would it be legal for me to make a voodoo doll of them? I mean, would you get busted by the secret service if you had a 'W voodoo doll that you stuck pins into?

    I'd rather have a Kerry doll, though.


    Looks like they have both Bush and Kerry voodoo dolls.

    Should we report them to Homeland Security?

    --
    Nobody died when Nixon lied.
    I'm meeting you half way you stupid hippies!
  58. Moderation Primer: Lesson Eleven by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Here we have an example of a post that needs to be moderated, -1 Overrated.

    This is a proper use of that particular mod, as contrasted with using it to mod an unmodded post with which you do not agree.

    Go ahead and mod it down now, then turn to page 47 of your texts.

    What was that? You in the back. Good catch! Yes, this post you're reading now is a great example of an off topic post. Go ahead and mod it down, and open your texts.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  59. Re:Free Speech does not include the right to threa by Purificator · · Score: 1

    you're half right

    http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/2001dig/II IA 3.htm

    while the threat does have to have what you refer to as "clear and present danger," you have to consider the context and audience reaction. if the audience is likely to take that as a queue to act (which the secret service isn't likely to know), then that has the weight of a threat.

    in this case, the secret service probably felt they had to check it out to evaluate how real the threat was. sure, it looks like satire, but the satire also includes some very specific circumstances that are concrete and possible for a human to do (not like "struck by lightning" or "struck by the blade of the angel of death").

    i can just picture how the decision to investigate went. the agent in charge probably said something like "yeah, it looks like a joke but go check it out to see whether or not you find something to show otherwise."

    --
    "Mister Potato-head --MISTER POTATO-HEAD! Backdoors are not secrets!" (War Games, 1983)
  60. Re:Kill George W Bush, President of the United Sta by flyingsquid · · Score: 1
    Hah! Look forward to that knock on your door from the SS.

    Hah yourself! Now you get a visit- because YOU just included a threat in your subject line. What a doofus, including a threat in the subject li-

    Aw, shit...

  61. How about .... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

    Linking a bomb strapped to the president the whole 4 years and linking that to a voter approval/disapproval box.

    Once they get 1 million over 50% of the vote in disapprove, the president is then blown up, and the VP is ready to stand in. That would sure eliminate the retards and clean up politics a lot.

    After all, why shoutnt they put something on the line for all 300 Million of us? Great power comes great responsibility ;-)

    --
  62. Oh yes by Rie+Beam · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wonder if they read Slashdot...

    I have a plan! I will kill the president tommorow! Long Live Kerry!

    Now we wait...

  63. Re:Free Speech does not include the right to threa by XO · · Score: 1

    What moron has given this a Flamebait rating? This is absolute truth.

    Or, has truth become Flamebait amongst the geeks?

    --
    "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
  64. Re:Free Speech does not include the right to threa by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 1

    i can just picture how the decision to investigate went. the agent in charge probably said something like "yeah, it looks like a joke but go check it out to see whether or not you find something to show otherwise."

    Exactly. It is their job to check out anything that looks like a threat.
    If someone famous got assassinated and it turns out that the authorities knew that some crazy had raved about it on a website prior to the assassination, they would be criticised for not checking it out, even though 99.9% of such rantings are harmless.

    --
    You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
  65. Fake possibility? WHBT? by wan-fu · · Score: 1

    Anyone consider that this whole thing is fake and that everyone has been trolled? There are no corroborating news sources mentioned in the summary, Google turns up nothing significant other than a bunch of other blogs linking to it.

    Isn't it very possible, and, in my opinion, likely, that this LJ user just wants attention like all the other LJ lusers? She probably just made up the whole incident about the Secret Service paying her a visit and now she's getting the publicity she wanted. I can't imagine the Secret Service actually construing her post as a threat.

    Anyone else thinking this?

    1. Re:Fake possibility? WHBT? by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      I looked too, and am inclined to agree with you.

      Of course the Secret Service has people who tip them on things like this. Someone reads the letters to the editor in every paper in this country, and reports when something like this shows up. If someone overhears a threat to the President, they are supposed to report it. It is always taken seriously, until proven otherwise.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    2. Re:Fake possibility? WHBT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.channel4.com/news/2004/10/week_5/29_blo g.html

  66. Has anyone checked this? by Shihar · · Score: 1

    The story has two sources, the google catch and the live journal. Has anyone bothered to check to make sure this isn't a hoax? For fucks sake people, if you are going to post something like this, try to have a link to something other then a live journal.

  67. Oh, the pain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    queue to act

    That's cue. Thank you.

    ~~~

  68. Re:Another day, another death threat by GQuon · · Score: 1

    True that...
    but I'm posting with Internet Explorer. I don't have ISpell here.

    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!
  69. And by the way... by GQuon · · Score: 1

    And by the way, I corrected my only spelling mistake in the journal before you posted. I can't go back and edit posts.

    I do appreciate that somebody are still looking out for the English language. There are just too many people who don't know their "there" from their "their" and "they're", or their "of" from their "'ve".

    I'll reward you with an offer to look in my journal. Did you see the "419" post?

    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!
  70. She wished for Murder-Death-Kill by GQuon · · Score: 1

    She wasn't just wishing for him to die. It was more like she was saying "I don't like X and wish somebody would kill him. For sex."
    OK, not the "For sex." part. But you get the idea.

    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!
  71. Good one, spanky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Oops - /. logs your IP address, doesn't it? Now the SS will simply contact your ISP to find out who had that lease at the time of your post.

    You'd better let mom know they're coming, and also clean out the basement/your room so they don't have to step on your Pokemon collection when they come get your narrow ass.

    1. Re:Good one, spanky by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Slashdot could self-destruct their servers and blame it on a power fluctuation, so that they lose their logs...

      Also, go through, oh, Freeshell (they're probably not going to give you up), Anonymizer (or something even better), and a few zombie Windows boxes... Then, you'll be less traceable.

  72. Re:Free Speech does not include the right to threa by tsm_sf · · Score: 2, Funny

    You use the words 'absolute' and 'truth' like a lot of people use the word 'genius' nowadays. I'm going to pray that you get a charlie horse.

    --
    Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
  73. If this were a prayer to Allah... by Stevyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People reading this story would think differently. The secret service was just doing their job. They felt they had a possible situation, checked it out, and stopped pursuing it when they realized there was no threat.

    Now if this guy had been a radical Muslim leader saying that he wished Allah would kill Bush, then it'd be a different story. People would want to hang that guy. This radical leader could use the same type of website to get his message across.

    So the Secret Service doesn't know which case this is. I feel they acted accordingly. I think this guy was just a bit shaken up since he seems to be a non-confrontational guy and was confronted by the Secret Service.

    I feel bad for the guy since his intentions weren't violent, but there are ways of getting your point across. Saying god should kill Bush isn't one of them.

  74. I expected the Secret Service at my door... by rthille · · Score: 1

    after the FedEx guy said, "so, you going to fly to washington and shoot the president?"

    Of course, he was delivering 1000 rounds of 9MM Luger ammo.

    My response was, "nooooo, wouldn't do that...". Never know who's listening. Not that I would do that, but I'm not exactly a bush supporter, and of all the presidents, I think the country would be best off losing him.

    --
    Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  75. Some of you turn this into more than it really is by Seventh+Magpie · · Score: 1

    So the USSS go and INTERVIEW the person who wrote this. Not arrest. Not indict. Big deal? Although the agents probably know the context of the blog, they cannot take things for granted. They would be failing in doing their jobs. Now, let's consider other countries where if someone would be jailed and even killed for making these kind of statements about their leader. Is it really so bad to be interviewed??

  76. It IS a Free Speech Issue by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
    she made threatening statements about the President.
    Your post is so full of such a humongously massive quantity of shit that light has difficulty escaping from its immediate vicinity.
    Any halfway-intelligent chimp should realize that the article was tongue-in-cheek.
    Even if it wasn't, she was praying that God kill Bush et al.
    She did not make any statements that she herself was going to kill anyone, nor did she request that other humans kill anyone.
    She did say that she hated Bush with a passion, but that's pretty common these days.
    Wishing someone dead is not a threat.
    She was expressing her opinion, and should not have been harassed by the jack-boots or anyone else.

    By the way, the word "its" should not have an apostrophe unless it's a contraction of "it is", and the name of the act is the "USAPATRIOT" Act, not the "Patriot" Act.
    The "USAPATRIOT" Act has nothing to do with patriotism, so calling it the "Patriot Act" is misleading.
    (Considering how the Act is being misused these days, even using its full name is somewhat misleading (How is copyright infringement "terrorism"?).)
    Personally, I pronounce it "the you sap at riot act" to avoid confusion.
    Other pronunciations are "the US ap uh TRY ot act" and (as Jar-Jar) "the YOUsa pah TR-R-RE-E-E at act".
    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  77. Re:Heh heh.. Alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see you have a weblog too.............

  78. Online Journals are Public by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1
    She goes on to say that they didn't just stumble upon the page and pay her that visit. One of the people that regularly reads her blog "turned her in".
    A friend of mine went through a truancy / improper parenting trial recently. Evidence included her Xanga site where she talked about smoking marijuana with her parents. The person who turned her in was the parent of one of her friends who read the site. The key thing to remember is that whatever you put on these sites is public. Never write anything which you would not be willing to have show up in the paper, or as evidence. At that, I reccomend never writing anything which you wouldn't want your mother to read, as often they'll do just that...

    As for this girl's "crime," it's happened for years. I have a book on the Secret Service at home written in the 50's which has a section devoted to crank letters to the president including a sampling from elementary schoolers who then received a visit from the authourities. They have to investigate all claims just in case, and just having authourities visit can often scare the kids straight, impressing upon them that people out there do read their mail. Admittedly, here it was less direct, but still a valid threat. They didn't charge her with anything, jsut impressed upon her that threats are taken seriously when it comes to presidents.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  79. Re:Heh heh.. Alright by wikdwarlock · · Score: 1

    Excellent point. As a follow-up thought experiment, what if a virus/worm writer made a program that caused infected machines to write death threats directed toward people on the Secret Services "do not threaten" list? Are the owners of those machines now deserving of questioning? Or what if someone's livejournal username/password is compromised and someone else posts threatening messages? Seems like a mighty easy way to tie up the Secret Service in frivolous activities.

    --

    "I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
  80. Totally over the line by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1

    "Please k*** George Bush"? Why are we upset at the Secret Service and not the boob who wrote that paragraph? No sympathy here for someone so stupid to write a sentence like that. I mean, all the idiot got was a visit. That should have been expected. Hmm. Perhaps God heard her prayer and this is His way of saying "prayer not granted."

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  81. It is a sick prayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find the "prayer" sick, not funny, and says a lot about the person that issued it. Generally, when one really prays for some one you don't think is doing the right thing, you pray that they will do the right thing and be redeemed, not that they would be killed. That has been my experience as a Christian, and hearing what other Christian's pray for in similiar circumstances, including those politically they disagree with.

    I continue to find it ironic that so many liberal/democratic folks who preach and make such a big deal about tolerance and understanding for other people have treated George Bush with such personal hatred. These comparisons to Hitler and such are silly and ridiculous. They don't help your cause and make you look like whiny.

  82. Re:Free Speech does not include the right to threa by palutke · · Score: 1

    >> You CAN say "I wish CowboyNeal was dead"

    > you're half right

    I wish CowboyNeal was half dead!

    --
    'I ain't a liar, baby, and I ain't proud I just want what I'm not allowed.' -- Violent Femmes, 36-24-36
  83. "They hate us for our freedom!" by Cryofan · · Score: 1

    Everytime we use real life events to point out that the greatness of America (at for the average person) is actually a fantasy, you rightwing bots counter with some example from a fascist country or from a 3rd world country. Why not instead compare America to Western Europe?

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  84. "They hate us for our freedom!" by Cryofan · · Score: 1

    Everytime we use real life events to point out that the greatness of America (at for the average person) is actually a fantasy, you rightwing bots counter with some example from a fascist country or from a 3rd world country. Why not instead compare America to Western Europe?

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  85. Good luck getting a job with that FBI file! by Cryofan · · Score: 1

    Any good background check will turn up that file that the FBI now has on her. So which candidate gets the job, the one without the FBI file, or the one with the FBI file?

    Uh, yeah, al qaeda attacked us because they hate us for our freedom....my ass!

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  86. zerg by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

    Did anyone actually read the comments of the story? I'm not a big fan of the administration, but it does seem as if someone got taken for a ride.

    If this was the only thing convincing you not to vote for Bush, what the hell have you guys been doing?

    --
    [o]_O
  87. Re:Separation of Church & State by DLR · · Score: 1
    Actually, if you read the writings of the Founding Fathers you will quickly see that their intent was not to keep people of faith out of the government, it was to keep the government out of the Church. Many of the early immigrants to America fled religious persecution from a State run church.

    And while the two examples I cited were extreme, their like are hardly uncommon. Many teachers feel threatened by the practice of religion in the school for some reason.

    Regardless of whether it's "just" the tax code or a Bill that was passed into Law, the intent of the Founders was pretty clear. The gov't has no business messing with a church.

    --
    "Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH