Slashdot Mirror
In the UK, Possession of the Anarchist's Cookbook Is Terrorism
Anonymous Terrorist writes "Back in the midsts of time, when I was a lad and gopher was the height of information retrieval I read The Anarchist's Cookbook in one huge text file. Now it appears the UK government considers possession of the book an offense under the Terrorism Act 2000 and is prosecuting a 17 year old boy, in part, for having a copy of the book. 'The teenager faces two charges under the Terrorism Act 2000. The first charge relates to the possession of material for terrorist purposes in October last year. The second relates to the collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism.'"
Watch as some people get upset about this but still go on to say why we need to "prevent" terrorism and other crimes.
Watch as they call me an extremist for suggesting that crime prevention is an absurd attempt to trade freedom for security and will *never* work.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Having read the Anarchist's Cookbook, I'd say anyone actually attempting to use the "recipes" to make explosives should be considered suicidal rather than terrorist.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
The second relates to the collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism
Doesn't this mean they can pretty much charge anyone for having any kind of information relating to Bus/train/airplane times? Software Vulnerabilities? Google Earth? The Location of the White House?
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
I have not read that thing in a good many years, but from what i remeber it was filled with alot of miss imformation, some of which could be harmful.
Don't you think that'll come in handy when fighting Terrorism?
What do you have to be afraid of, if you're not a Terrorist?
Now that i think about it... You'd better come in for questioning, seeing as you're in on a Terrorism charge, we can hold you indefinately while we investigate which books you have.
Aaarrgh.... too much paranoia.
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
Think of the Chil... Wait, Terrorism? OH MY GOD. Which way is everyone else picking?
I hope that accurately summed up the sheeple's confusion on this one. Of course, in reality, children (especially 17 year old ones) that break the law should be prosecuted (maybe not quite as harshly as an adult would be) and terrorism should be stamped out, but this is -neither-. The 'kid' was probably just interested in what all the hubbub was about, and thought the book was the cool thing to have.
As far as I can tell, the 'material' he had was only the book, and the 'information' he had was also the book. Unless he was actually BUILDING a bomb, he hasn't done anything wrong. In fact, from a career standpoint, he's just prepping for a good military career as a demolitions expert. (Or other demolitions expert, for that matter.) The entire world is far too quick to jump on someone for possible terrorism when they are simply going about their daily lives.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
It would be horrible to be prosecuted for owning something trivial like The Anarchist Cookbook. I'm of the opinion that information should be free, it's what people do with that information is what should make them eligible to be prosecuted. Just because someone has a degree in Nuclear Physics doesn't mean that they're going to construct nuclear bombs and cause anarchy. Information can be dangerous but we need to convey logical conviction. I'm hopeful that the courts will show some common sense and rationalize.
Yeah, because that's working out so well in the US these days ;)
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Hmm, didn't know the exact text. So, in short:
People should have rights, except for when they don't
Nice.
Never mind. We can't read the Anarchist's Cookbook over here any more but at least we can still wear a flashing LED on our clothing without having guns pointed at us.
Oxford Dictionaries Online
Knowledge has become illegal.
Could someone try to explain why knowing something is a crime? I know how to build bombs, I know how to create LSD, I have done neither. Why do I know it? Same reason man flew to the moon: It's there, and I wanted.
Did he build a bomb? Did he threaten to use it? Did he do anything resembling a crime besides wanting to know something?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, we're getting to where Pol Pot wanted to be: The dumber you are, the better citizen you are. We're really where it is becoming dangerous to know too much. Now you don't only get to be liable for something happening to you if you ought to know what you're doing, now knowledge itself is becoming illegal.
I, for one, don't welcome our new stupid overlords.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Then they should be pushing all of those items with their case, instead of trying to slip in the legal beginnings that they can use as an excuse to start carrying people away later for simply having downloaded an ebook or bought a paper copy from Amazon.
before the Columbine massacre and the rest of the bullshit that was going on in that era. I brought it, in printed form, to school and studied it whenever my obligations to school had been fulfilled.
Yes, the intent of the manual was malicious, but I think I gained some insight from it. The computer stuff was obsolete by the time I had it, and the chemical stuff was shaky, at best. However, it inspired me to study science and the potential for change it possessed.
This file contributed more to my love of science than any teacher or professor I've had. Prosecuting kids for being inquisitive is a surefire way to lose one's edge in the natural sciences. Goddammit, don't fuck this up as we have.
That's not even the point. The point is that knowledge itself is never dangerous. It's dangerous, though, to start labeling knowledge as dangerous.
Because the core question of the problem is, who gets to label? Who gets to dictate what knowlege is harmful and which is good? Who may know what and why? Do you want a system in place that limits what you may learn and to what extent?
Do you think it would stop at explosives? I'm fairly sure the next thing banned would be books on the creation of drugs and medication. Close behind is pretty much anything dealing with biochemistry. Not far behind there will be knowledge for exploiting security flaws in real life locks, as well as computer programs. "Hacking" guides and tools (Germany leapt there already). Manuals explaining how fireworks and firearms work.
And so on. Where do you think it will stop? I doubt it will. After all the "dangerous" things are forbidden, companies will muscle in and do their worst to get all the knowledge outlawed that's required to escape their stranglehold, to protect their IP and markets.
Bottom line, when you open the door for outlawing knowledge, you'll soon only be permitted to know what's necessary to do your job and nothing else.
And, personally, I could rather live with 17 year olds reading the AC and getting a virtual boner over the (partly phony) "cool things" they could cook up. Knowledge alone has never hurt anyone. What it comes down to is the question how the knowledge is applied. If anyone, blame the person using it if he uses knowledge to commit a crime.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The Anarchist's Cookbook is one of the few solid examples that comes to mind of a book that really should be kept away from children. The problem isn't that it might warp the mind (based on the results, there's little justification for leaving that job to parents, churches and TV). It's that the mind in question may be splattered all over the fridge if kids try cooking up some of those recipies in the kitchen.
At what point do the dangers of censorship overcome the dangers of content? I'd say 16 years of age, but I'll settle for 18 or 21.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Again, the threat is not that this book is such a must-read (actually, it's about as lame as it can be and only survives as a "shady underground" book because of its fancy title). The threat is that if one book is considered to be a "terrorist tool", others will quickly follow.
The danger is that accepting this means accepting that knowledge may be illegal.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Where does it end?
This doesn't directly effect me as I don't live in the UK, but sure enough these same undercurrents are affecting my country as well. Terrorism is pushing rationality to breaking point. When I was 12 or 13 I read the Anarchist's Cookbook as well - curiosity gets you at that age. I had no plans to actually use anything from it, and it's unlikely that this kid did either. It's the same interests that lead me to the summer camp that taught us how to make gun powder (shock horror you say in this post 9/11 world!) - science, chemistry and that little pyromaniac who lives inside of every one of us.
The real worry that is brought forth here is that in this case merely the possession of knowledge is a crime. I'm sorry, but a chemistry book I have lists gunpowder and some pretty volatile reactions too - will they charge me with possession of that? I have another Manifesto - am I now a political dissident too? As they whittle down the prerequisites to treated as criminals we shall soon discover more and more of us come under scrutiny...
"In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me."
PS. Sorry to Godwin this, but in this case it's actually relevant. =]
I don't know who they are, but they are winning. The world lives in fear of backpacks and books.
Thats true unfortunately.
After the 7/11 thing in the US, Blair tried to use terrorist Retoric to get more funding for his pet projects. (ID cards ect)
Having spend 50 years with Irish Terrorists, the UK population werent quite ready at that time to swallow it.
The only way people swallowed all this crap, is if its liberally spread with a layer of bullshit.
Unfortunately, it looks like they are.
1. (possession of material) for terrorist purposes
and
2. possession of (material for terrorist purposes)
where material = information
It's not clear from the post which of these is the intended meaning of the law. From the article, it seems the guy was doing a lot more than just reading. So, it sounds like #1 is the basis for the arrest, and #2 might not have been applied yet (at least not by this case). It does make you wonder if "reading in a web browser" would fit #2...
--
IANAL, but I play one occasionally just so I know what it would be like to hate myself.
The police, the military, and my parents are terrorist organizations too. Not saying that in a provocative way either (except in the case of my parents ;) )- terrorism is a tactic, not a moral position. You scare the shit out of your adversary, in order to get your way while minimizing or avoiding direct confrontation. Remember shock and awe? That the heck do you think that was? Operation 'Terrorize the Iraqi Army' wouldn't have been so politically correct, but we wanted to scare them so they gave up.
Police live by this tactic, they don't call it that but they know they can't catch everyone so they grab someone and throw the book at them once and a while to send a message.
And take nuclear terrorism, we (the US) INVENTED it. We didn't have enough bombs to level Japan, but we acted like we did and pretty much everyone turning blue in the face over 'the terrorists' these days would say it was a good thing (it probably did save millions of Japanese lives, you have to admit that- they weren't exactly ready to give up). Of course, that wasn't the only city we leveled. Some we leveled more or less to send a message. Some cities weren't great military or industrial centers and were relatively untouched in targeted bombing, so they just made that much more of a statement when the whole thing burned to the ground one night in a massive firestorm.
At any rate, someone in the government needs to look up 'moral superiority' in a dictionary fast. All this emphasis on 'Terrorism (tm)' just makes us look like hypocrites, when we, in strict numerical terms have killed far more old men, women and children than Al Queda ever has (not that they're not working on it...). That's just a fact. Americans have killed lots of innocent people and when you look at the justifications, you cannot deny that many of these people were killed simply to scare, demoralize and disorient our enemies. Sure we were fighting Nazis, but we forget sometimes 'the good war' was pretty much the most unholy fucking disaster to ever befall mankind. Taking the lesser evil, even the far lesser one, requires one to do evil, and we only came out 'clean' by comparison. Al Queda are horrible people and they need to die, but just saying they're terrorists and we're not isn't going to convince anyone other than ourselves.
Al Queda chops people's fucking heads off if they shave or sneak a sip of whiskey. It should NOT have been hard to convince the Arab world these people are a dead end. You see, it's a simple (but not easy) war to win- the moderates who make up the majorities of these countries turn against the extremists. We just had to help them- and yet we couldn't even do that. It was a PR war all along and we lost it so fast no one noticed. We've been so determined to hunt grasshoppers with our howitzers, we missed a pretty obvious point: the average modern war, even one conducted with restraint, is a absolute PR nightmare. So much so, I often wonder if Al Queda WANTED us to invade Afghanistan.
Soft power used to be our greatest asset, you know, the Statue of Liberty, Elvis records, cheeseburgers. That's what really brought down the Iron Curtain, enough people finally saw us and said, 'screw this, we're doing it their way'. Our enemies were dying to hang themselves and when they had enough rope the alternative for their oppressed people was obvious.
Nowadays in the Muslim word, seeing your broken Government and thinking it would be great to do things the American way is a good way to get your head chopped off. So if they fall, it sure won't be the democratic types taking over.... We've conducted the worst advertising campaign for democracy in the history of democracy and are clearly our own worst enemy.
>their traditional food is, in fact, quite bland
Any specific meals you can suggest? Personally I'm more than happy to eat: Steak & Kidney Pie, roast potatoes & mashed swede
Roast Beef 7 Yorkshire Pudding
Fry up with Black Pudding, bacon, eggs etc
Shepherds Pie
Steak & Ale pie
Cheese 7 onion Pie
Welsh/Buck Rarebit
Liver & Bacon
etc.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
It doesn't say in the article, but I'm guessing the guy is a Muslim.
See what I mean? You just made my point! :-D
My blog
When the Iraqi interim government was writing their constitution, Robin Williams comment to the affect of "take ours, we're not using it anymore"...
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
No, the traditional food isn't bland. But because of the limitations on the food available during World War II, the food was bland then. A whole generation grew up expecting food to be like that, and they set the current stereotype of British food. That generation is passing, though, and British food has been getting better, fast, since the early 1980s. Sure, you can still get crap if you want it (although I think that some American fast-food chains are the worst for that -- I won't name names because at least one of them is litigious, but I bet you can guess). The important thing, though, is that there's a choice again.
What would traditional American food be, by the way? I don't know anything about Native American cuisine.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
You do realize that this means he had a pound of fertilizer, half a pound of ice-melter, and some gross but widely-distributed web videos? Oh, and he visited a country that is supposedly our closest ally in the "War On Terror."
Nice sensationalism there.
I would rather be killed by a terrorist than enslaved by my government.
The Article:
>>> "The first charge relates to the possession of material for terrorist purposes in October last year.
The second relates to the collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism. "
So basically the Police are charging him with "possession of materials" that are modified for, or clearly indicate, terrorist activity (they'd just observe him otherwise to wait for some real evidence and look for co-conspirators, etc.). The fact he had the anarchist cookbook just means that they can also accuse him of "possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism".
Now whether that second charge requires the information to be being used to prepare for an apparent act of terrorism or not I don't know. But the BBC article seems quite clear that the possession of information is secondary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_June_2006_London_terror_raid
I believe in the Inquest it came out that the police were wearing chemical suits during the raid, including thick padded gloves. The officer who fired the shot doesn't remember pulling the trigger - he said he couldn't feel anything due to his heavy anti-terrorism outfit.
...don't need their government's permission to own a book.
I'm guessing that you're either ignorant of the number of Islamic extremists that have been further indoctrinated and received terrorism training in Pakistan recently. Or is it that you just don't care?
Three of the four 7th July suicide bombers that killed 52 people had done so. This kid may well have done so as well. Should the security services wait until people have blown themselves up before lifting a finger? Or should they, hmmm, try to stop things before they get that far?
It's not as if police in Britain randomly pick muslim families to harass. This kid's name came up somewhere as a result of some security operation and it raised red flags. Upon investigation he was found to have had bomb-making gear under his bed, etc, etc, and a case was built from there.
He now has his day in court and the Crown Prosecution Service can make their case for his guilt and he can make his case for his innocence, and he'll be given ample opportunity to tell the court his story. It's not like he's been summarily found guilty of anything or indefinitely thrown in a hellhole without any legal recourse.
This is justice working as it should be working. What part of that do you really object to?
Oh, by the way, I know that you were joking with your "Pakistan = Axis of Evil" line but it's closer to the truth than you realise. It was the only country in the world to recognise and support the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, it's chief nuclear weapons scientists gave nuclear secrets to North Korea to help them develop their own nukes, and muslim extremist and other groups backed by Pakistan have committed several terrorist attacks in India (killing plenty in the process). And, of course, Pakistan been a dictatorship for some time now.
If Pakistan didn't already have nukes then it would have been on the US's shit list a long time ago. But, as it does, the US supports the illegitimate military dictatorship of General Pervez Musharraf rather than risk the alternative, which would potentially be a radical muslim state armed with nukes.
In many ways Musharraf and Pakistan today are analogous to Saddam Hussein and Iraq pre-1990: Western-backed military dictatorships in heavily armed muslim countries where abuses of power are ignored because of a "hey, he's a mad dog but at least he's our mad dog" attitude.
Finally, I'll point out that we don't execute people in Britain, not even convicted terrorists. And we certainly don't execute convicted children. Ironically, abolishing the death penalty for children is one good thing that Pakistan has done recently.
Now, if only Musharraf would get on the phone and convince his good buddy Dubya that it's time for the US to stop executing children as well...
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Unfortunately not intelligent to tell the french to get their grubby little hands off of Vietnam however. If he had, the Vietnam war probably would never have come to pass because they would have had no reason to go communist.
"..So much so, I often wonder if Al Queda WANTED us to invade Afghanistan...."
Not exactly. No one in the world cared much about Afghanistan. But Iraq, that was a different matter.
Iraq and Iran had been fighting each otherfor the last ten years. America supported Iraq in an attempt to knock the stuffing out of Iran. So Iran wanted Iraq overthrown.
Do you remember all those stories about Iraq looking for Uranium, and planning 'weapons of mass destruction'? Where do you think they came from? Yup, planted by SAVAK and MOIS. We knew so little about the area, we walked into a classic patsy feed.
Iran knew that, once the Ba'ath party had been ousted, Shiites were the most numerous group in Iraq and, properly led, would take the country over. That's what's happening. And soon Iraq will merge with Iran, and Iran will be the biggest power in the region.
The Kurds in the north are due to be slaughtered by the Turks. That's beginning right now.
Our problem is that we can't elect anyone intelligent. You heard it here first!
Britain is a police state. No doubt about that. The next election has been deferred until Gordon Brown can work out how to make it a criminal offence not to vote for him.
..... just under most people's radar. It's mostly stupid people who get caught, and frankly they're no great loss.
..... though this one was about paedophilia, not terrorism ..... it's saying something when the two are virtually interchangeable). The deep underground movement ..... well, if you haven't heard of it, you're not meant to hear of it.
However, there is a healthy population of outlaws. Dope smoking, movie downloading, blowing things up and dancing all night are alive and well
Britain is basically two countries in one. The mainstream media, with its split personality (turning ordinary people into mindless, celebrity-obsessed chavs and simultaneously castigating them for being that way) created the whole mess (and look at this from 2001 for an example of mainstream-media hypocrisy
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
The second relates to the collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism.
That could be anything. A road map, rail pass, bus ticket, blueprints...just about anything on paper could be useful in preparing an act of terrorism.
This whole war on terror is getting loony. The real terrorists are probably laughing their ass off watching us twist ourselves in knots.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
> OP's paranoia about Brown not holding elections this year aside, the UK is still a democracy. However, it's still a police state -- a democratic police state in which the will/fears of the majority run roughshod over civil rights of those on the outskirts of society.
While it is true that they do occasionally have elections in the UK, calling the country a democracy is stretching the point:
The upper house is completely unelected, and composed of a mixture of aristocrats (albeit very few now), bishops, and political appointees. But since i t has an oversight function, let's ignore that and focus on the main issue.
The House of Commons is elected by a first past the post system which inherently ignores 50% of votes. Thanks to - deliberate or not - gerrymandering, it actually ignores a majority of voters, leading to the absurd, not to mention profoundly anti-democratic situation that the country is ruled by a party that had only 35.2% of the popular vote !
> The UK is in many ways what I fear the US becoming -- a country governed by fear of insecurity and a more orderly form of mob rule.
Sadly I don't see the US as less paranoia driven than the UK. By the time you add the extra dash of ignorance that dominates US public life, your odds don't look much better than ours IMHO.
no taxation without representation!