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.'"

Comments

Queue the outraged moderates..

[QuantumG]

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.

Re:Queue the outraged moderates..

[Anonymous Coward]

Publicly stripped and cavity searched, after all they don't have anything to hide and therefore shouldn't mind. Better take samples of bodily fluids just to be safe. Anybody got a clean needle? Tell them sorry, no, can't have their clothes back, might strangle someone with them. Hey, check this out Bubba, this one got a double barreled slingshot. Let us check their garages too, never know they might have laundry detergent and gasoline stored in them, you can make a version of homemade napalm with those. Call them liars when they say it's just there for mowing the yard and doing laundry. /sarcasm off

Re:Queue the outraged moderates..

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

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.
Like many things in life, it isn't that simple. Saying crime prevention will never work is far too glib. I lock my car doors to prevent the crime of grand theft auto, and so far my car hasn't been stolen.

Re:Queue the outraged moderates..

[Retric]

Reduce is not the same as Prevent. By locking car doors you can help reduce the amount of grand theft auto but as people can and will steal cars with locked doors it's a reduction.

Lock all the doors you want there will still be theft.
Make any drug you want illegal there will still be some users.
Trade all the freedom you want there will still be terrorism.

Anyway, it's all smoke and mirrors cars kill far more people than terrorist's and most people don't seem to care that much. IMO the reason people care has more to due with movies than any real threat. IMO the fastest way to render them meaningless is to ignore them. (Aka remove them from political speeches, TV, video games, and movies.)

The goal should be to balance risks and the effort you expend reducing them. You should not assume any one solution is going to work all the time.

PS: The same thing happens in software. Most programmers assume RAM is going to work etc but sometimes that machine calculates 2+2 and gives you 18.

Re:Queue the outraged moderates..

[CmdrGravy]

I think we'd better get used to terrorism because I suspect we're going to see more and more of it.

Governments and police forces around the world are getting access to ever more effective methods for non violently controlling crowds and neutralising protests. These methods include simply more active policing - photography, stopping people before they reach the main area of protest and the more hi tech things in development - heat rays etc.

I think this will lead to a situation where one of the main pillars of the generally effective method of overthrowing regimes, mass public protest and rioting, will become less and less viable which will cause any sensible would be rioters to turn immediately to terrorism.

Re:Queue the outraged moderates..

[Chris Mattern]

Reduce is not the same as Prevent.

When you Reduce, you've Prevented some. Maybe that's not as good as Preventing all, but just becuase Preventing all isn't a reachable goal doesn't mean that Preventing some is worthless.

Chris Mattern

Re:Queue the outraged moderates..

[torkus]

See now, this is just playing with words. Lingual masturbation? anyhow...

I can definitely 100% guarantee this ship is unsinkable in most circumstances. GP is correct - REDUCE != PREVENT. You're using them in a different context and trying to equate the meanings.

You can reduce the incidence of *all* GTA but you can not prevent *all* GTA.

You can prevent a *portion* of GTA by locking your car doors.

And finally, do you think that locking your car doors really prevents you car from being stolen? Locks, keys, alarms, etc. serve to prevent CASUAL or PETTY crime (swiping the change from your ash tray or the leather jacket in your back seat). Any serious criminal that wants to steal your new mercedes is going to. The key, engine kill, alarm, remote starter, and on-star will prevent a joyride. But a professional simply pops the hood and cuts out the battery and then flat-beds the car to a chop shop.

Same thing with terrorism. You're going to spend trillions of dollars and hurt millions of people preventing negligable crimes (compared to say, homicide) while the "real" terrorists will still likely accomplish whatever they set out to.

Re:Queue the outraged moderates..

[stonertom]

I think we'd better get used to terrorism because I suspect we're going to see more and more of it. IMHO we are now seeing more terrorism than ever before, from Wiktionary:

1. The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response from the victim in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
3. A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the population of a state.

I draw your attention to (3). TBH, I can barely remember the time or place to hit Europe, but I can clearly see the response every day. Extra police at every turn, increasing armed (dunno what you guys in the States think of this, but it freaks me out). When I was a kid, there was a lot of talk about the IRA, and I remember town centers being closed because of bomb scares, but the IRA did not dominate national policy the way "Al Qaeda" does now. Shame really, I used to read /. thinking "those crazy yanks, glad I'm not stuck in your country", now I'm not so sure.

Re:Queue the outraged moderates..

[stonertom]

It's probably bad manners to reply to yourself, but I was in the mood for some stats (BTW, if anyone has a well researched article RE: number of people killed by terrorism vs. number killed by fighting it vs. number who's lives have radically changed, that'd be interesting)
Anyway, statistics fury:

• 10, 718 - total of deaths from the terrorist attacks bit of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_and_other_violent_events_by_death_toll (a run down of some of the better known terrorist attacks in the last century
• 300, 000 to "over 1 million" - estimates of death toll under 25 years of Saddam's rule in Iraq (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm)
• 3815 - American war dead in Iraq
• 1, 080, 923 - estimated Iraqi civilian deaths since 2003 (http://justforeignpolicy.org/

It's good this saving people's lives and freeing them thing isn't it? L8r

Re:Queue the outraged moderates..

[asuffield]

I think we'd better get used to terrorism because I suspect we're going to see more and more of it.

More than what?

Every time I see this (from either side), I immediately think: here's somebody who is not learning from history.

Terrorism is not on the rise. There is not more terrorism now than there was fifty or a hundred years ago. Terrorism is not something that other people do and we do not do. Your school history teacher may have focussed on more positive aspects of our history, but that doesn't mean the other bits did not exist.

Terrorism has always been prevalent. It has always been the tool of those who lack other means to accomplish their goals. "Terrorist" and "freedom fighter" have always been just two more names for "them" and "us". It is not on the rise because it has always existed at a "high" level (actually pretty low compared to, for example, deaths due to police/government corruption and abuses).

As long as any country has enemies and those enemies have no armies or nukes, that country will be the target of terrorist attacks.

Remind me again why we need to have less freedom today than we did ten years ago? It certainly isn't because the terrorists have changed.

Terrorism or Suicide?

[ozmanjusri]

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.

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[sqrt(2)]

What you really need is a copy of the US Army's improvised munitions handbook.

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[suv4x4]

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.

In the process we forget the mere possession of a book doesn't necessarily mean we're attempting to do what's written in it.

Wow, I just protested against a government policy, they better put me in jail before I kill someone.

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[Matt_R]

http://onlinebooks.110mb.com/tm%2031-210/31-210-contents.htm for anybody who was wondering...

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[Attila the Bun]

I'd say anyone actually attempting to use the "recipes" to make explosives should be considered suicidal rather than terrorist.

As we keep seeing, those two states of mind are far from being mutually excusive.

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[vtcodger]

***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.***

Amen. That's a book that we should encourage terrorists to own and experiment with. Be a lot fewer of them it they did.

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Wow, I just protested against a government policy, they better put me in jail before I kill someone.

They would, but the jails are all overcrowded, so there just isn't space...

This all just sounds barmy to me. There was probably more information useful for bomb-making in my A-level chemistry textbook (which I read at the age of 17) than in the Anarchist's Cookbook. Perhaps we should arrest everyone studying chemistry (and presumably physics, engineering...). And anyway, what self-respecting geek didn't read some book or other with a similarly provocative title at that age?

There are words that describe attempting to keep knowledge from the population, and criminalising people just for reading or watching something. There are words that describe governments that do it, too. But I guess they only apply to the bad guys, and our government are obviously the good guys.

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[arivanov]

Definite "must buy" according to the appropriate recommendations by this reviewer http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2IWRKMMIH1Y6R/ref=cm_cr_auth/104-0238679-1953525?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview.

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[Jamu]

Amazon UK don't seem to have that in stock. They do, however, have the Anarchist's Cookbook.

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[click2005]

Customers who bought this book also bought "The Catcher in the Rye"

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[arivanov]

Well we all know that sedition and terrorism go together. We should also apply the appropriate measures to counter it: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fahrenheit-451-Ray-Bradbury/dp/0007181701/ref=sr_1_1/203-0373786-0805564?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191844055&sr=1-1

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[rubycodez]

that's ok as long as it's homegrown bio-kerosene, I won't have any part of book burning with foreign and/or fossil fuels.

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[Lunarsight]

I agree. I used to run a BBS, and I had the file available for download. After I read a story about how some kids nearly blew themselves sky-high trying to construct one of the bombs, I took the file down. To me, it was more an issue of liability and conscience.

I found the text fascinating as a curiosity, but it's not the sort of thing you'd actually try, if you value all your body parts remaining arranged in the proper order.

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[Mark_in_Brazil]

It's really interesting that The Anarchist Cookbook is neither anarchist nor a good "cookbook" (as the parent post noted).
The book contains nothing about anarchist political beliefs or history. There is no mention of Lao Tzu, Kropotkin, Bakunin (yes, that's the name they used for the guy with the Russian accent on Lost, but I'm talking about the original), Proudhon, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Murray Bookchin, the Anarcho-Syndicalists of the Spanish Revolution (specifically, the anarcho-syndicalist organization and administration of Catalonia), or Food Not Bombs. There is no mention of the centuries of anarchist thought and political philosophy. There is no mention of the Haymarket Affair, which was used to give anarchists the image of bomb-throwers, nor of the fact that of the eight Haymarket anarchists (labor leaders), four were executed and one killed himself in his jail cell before Illinois Governor John Altgeld pardoned the three survivors when he investigated and found that there had never been any proof of the guilt of the "Haymarket Anarchists," and that the jury had been stacked to guarantee a conviction even in the absence of evidence. Altgeld's Reasons for Pardoning Fielden, Neebe, and Schwab is worth reading. Follow the link and you can read it free.
Also, the author of The Anarchist Cookbook apparently knows nothing about the subjects covered. He (or they, if it's not really one author) apparently just copied stuff from a bunch of different sources. If you read the explosive section, you'll see a given explosive mentioned on one page as being relatively stable and safe, and on another page the same explosive will be described as being very unstable. It appears that a lot of the information was just copied from other sources without any analysis of what was being copied. Further, it appears that the chunks of text copied are sometimes incomplete. It may be that The Anarchist Cookbook is somebody's idea of a practical joke, making gullible kids do things ranging from goofy (like trying to smoke banana peels to get high) to deadly (like blowing off limbs or burning their skin and eyes with chemicals when trying to follow the explosive and drug recipes). It has been suggested that the book may have been put in the market by the FBI as part of its COINTELPRO program. To me that seems a bit tinfoil hatty, but some of the things the FBI actually did in that program really were bizarre, and a person describing them without showing proof (and yes, the proof of some really scary stuff in COINTELPRO does exist) might sound like a tinfoil hat type.

So The Anarchist Cookbook may be nothing more than a sick joke, but even if the book actually contained any useful information, the idea of banning books about how to make arms is not new. Governments want that for the same reasons they want to ban firearms: to keep the people easier to control. The overblown "threat of terrorism," when you consider how few people are killed by terrorism each year, is just the tool governments an

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[darjen]

This all just sounds barmy to me. There was probably more information useful for bomb-making in my A-level chemistry textbook (which I read at the age of 17) than in the Anarchist's Cookbook. Perhaps we should arrest everyone studying chemistry (and presumably physics, engineering...). And anyway, what self-respecting geek didn't read some book or other with a similarly provocative title at that age?

I suspect it is not the information on explosives that they are after. Rather, the viewpoint from which the book is written. If there is ever an excuse for the state to go after someone that threatens their power, it is terrorism. And the anarchist cookbook, however misguided it might be, is an affront to state power. It is certainly in the best interest of the political class to contain the anarchist view as much as possible.

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[iapetus]

From a brief scan I find this book terrifying.

Mostly because it contains instructions for:

FERTILIZER AN-AL EXPLOSIVE

I do not want to know why anyone would want to make a fertilizer-based anal explosive that "can be detonated with a blasting cap".

*shudder*

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[digitig]

In the process we forget the mere possession of a book doesn't necessarily mean we're attempting to do what's written in it. We don't forget it, but our legislators choose to ignore it. Under current UK law, possession of material likely to be useful to terrorists is an offence; there is no need for there to be any sort of intent. And the law is written in such a vague way that even possession of a local street map could be considered an offence. Effectively, the law makes everyone a criminal, so the police can arrest whomsoever they wish.

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[demachina]

Its largely forgotten but "Anarchists" were, in the early 20th century, what "Terrorists" are today. They were used by governments to terrorize their people to justify their power grabs. Anyone who was against abusive, power mad, greedy politicians and governments was a bomb throwing "Anarchist". The term anarchist was used in nearly every other sentence in political speeches to evoke fear, just like terrorist is used today.

Probably the single most effective methodology for countering Anarchism and Terrorism would be good governance. But it seems nearly impossible for people who acquire political power to govern wisely and effectively. The quickly become drunk on their power. They tax one group to line the pockets of another. They persecute one group to curry favor with another. They make Anarchists and Libertarians look good by comparison, more so everyday.

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, the author of The Anarchist Cookbook apparently knows nothing about the subjects covered. He (or they, if it's not really one author) apparently just copied stuff from a bunch of different sources.

You would be correct to assume so. Apparently the author admits it, and even wants to take the book out of print, but unfortunately he doesn't have the means or rights to do so. As an ex-adolescent I have to admit that I purchased this book when I was younger, and still have it. It was an intriguing read, but even then I wasn't crazy enough to try any of them. Some of the plans didn't even sound like they would work. All the same, it was an interesting read and good brain food. Curiousity is a good thing, you just need to be able to recognize bad ideas and misinformation, and read between the lines.

http://www.righto.com/anarchist-cookbook-faq.html

For the lazy, here's the author's comments in full:

Dear Mr. Shirriff,
I have recently been made aware of several websites that focus on The Anarchist Cookbook. As the author of the original publication some 30 plus years ago, it is appropriate for me to comment. I would appreciate it if you would post these comments as part of your website on the Anarchist Cookbook. Please do not include my e-mail address. However, should you wish to confirm the authenticity of this message, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address.

The Anarchist Cookbook was written during 1968 and part of 1969 soon after I graduated from high school. At the time, I was 19 years old and the Vietnam War and the so-called "counter culture movement" were at their height. I was involved in the anti-war movement and attended numerous peace rallies and demonstrations. The book, in many respects, was a misguided product of my adolescent anger at the prospect of being drafted and sent to Vietnam to fight in a war that I did not believe in.

I conducted the research for the manuscript on my own, primarily at the New York City Public Library. Most of the contents were gleaned from Military and Special Forces Manuals. I was not member of any radical group of either a left or right wing persuasion.

I submitted the manuscript directly to a number of publishers without the help or advice of an agent. Ultimately, it was accepted by Lyle Stuart Inc. and was published verbatim - without editing - in early 1970. Contrary to what is the normal custom, the copyright for the book was taken out in the name of the publisher rather than the author. I did not appreciate the significance of this at the time and would only come to understand it some years later when I requested that the book be taken out of print.

The central idea to the book was that violence is an acceptable means to bring about political change. I no longer agree with this.

Apparently in recent years, The Anarchist Cookbook has seen a number of 'copy cat' type publications, some with remarkably similar titles (Anarchist Cookbook II, III etc). I am not familiar with these publications and cannot comment upon them. I can say that the original Anarchist Cookbook has not been revised or updated in any way by me since it was first published.

During the years that followed its publication, I went to university, married, became a father and a teacher of adolescents. These developments had a profound moral and spiritual effect on me. I found that I no longer agreed with what I had written earlier and I was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the ideas that I had put my name to. In 1976 I became a confirmed Anglican Christian and shortly thereafter I wrote to Lyle Stuart Inc. explaining that I no longer held the views that were expressed in the book and requested that The Anarchist Cookbook be taken out of print. The response from the publisher was that the copyright was in his name and therefore such a decision was his to make - not the author's. In the early 1980's, the rights for

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[drseuk]

It wouldn't surprise me if copies are loanable in UK public libraries (along with other "munitions" such as the "Dummies Guide" to GCSE Chemistry). Certainly books detailing DES encryption algorithms and (heavy-duty) cracking techniques etc. are on the shelves. The reason the latter are made publicly available for loan for free provided by the UK government is presumably to allow security conscious businesses and individuals to improve their own security against cyber-terrorists (which they do - I used to think that Synack was a baddie in Star Wars). Well, I'm being generous - it's just as likely to be some clueless librarian who bought said books because they had a geeky-looking cover even though they hadn't the faintest idea what they were about or a plant by "they" to track who borrows them. TFA indicates that this is not the only evidence used to charge the individual(s) and I would sincerely hope that it's not.

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[Anonymous Coward]

Under current UK law, possession of material likely to be useful to terrorists is an offence; there is no need for there to be any sort of intent. And the law is written in such a vague way that even possession of a local street map could be considered an offence.

Terrorists eat bread, so bread is useful to them. Clearly, anybody who owns bread should be arrested immediately!
And, of course, more than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.

Re:Terrorism or Suicide?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I suspect it is not the information on explosives that they are after. Rather, the viewpoint from which the book is written. If there is ever an excuse for the state to go after someone that threatens their power, it is terrorism. And the anarchist cookbook, however misguided it might be, is an affront to state power. It is certainly in the best interest of the political class to contain the anarchist view as much as possible. You are judging the book by its cover aren't you? The Anarchist's Cookbook is not full of any "viewpoint" - no diatribes, no essays, just semi-bogus instructions for a bunch of james-bond stuff.

ugh....

[mstahl]

Don't people know most of the stuff in that book is a good way to get yourself blown up? Dangerous or not, though, censorship of any kind is just not acceptable in a free society. Everybody should read banned books.

Re:ugh....

[GrievousMistake]

Well, I'll bet an fair amount of UK children are going to read Anarchist's Cookbook now. Let's hope any media coverage is informed enough to mention that the stuff in the book is less than 100% factual, but I doubt it. They'll probably make it sound like a really cool read.

Re:ugh....

[vtcodger]

***Don't people know most of the stuff in that book is a good way to get yourself blown up? Dangerous or not, though, censorship of any kind is just not acceptable in a free society. Everybody should read banned books.***

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.

Amazon.co.uk

[rvw]

This means Amazon is a terrorist organization! See Amazon.co.uk: The Anarchist Cookbook (Paperback).

Re:Remind me...

[Twisted64]

Whoever they are, you may sleep safely in your beds. Terrorists are not in charge of Gundam.

That's a bit vague...

[neokushan]

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?

Re:That's a bit vague...

[alexhs]

The second relates to the collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism. Also every student in chemistry, materials science... can be charged. Hey, they are dangerous people, they know stuff...

Re:That's a bit vague...

[Alioth]

Yes it does. It's a bit like that question on the US visa waiver form that asks if you're coming to the US to commit crimes. This means if you do commit a crime, they can give you extra punishments by adding the crime of making a false declaration on the visa waiver form.

This is the same thing. It gives the authorities extra charges they can add to increase the severity of the punishment and make it more likely that they can secure a conviction. If the state starts sliding towards a real police state, it also allows them to arrest anyone for practically anything - for instance, for a government to have political opponents arrested, by using nebulous laws that can practically make any object "useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism". A police state would go through, say, the government opponent's garden shed and find some sodium chlorate weedkiller, and arrest the opponent on the grounds that this is an ingredient for explosives and useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism.

Re:That's a bit vague...

[TheRaven64]

When I applied for security clearance here in the UK (it's lapsed now), one of the questions was 'have you ever attempted to overthrow the government through violent, political, or other means?' This was particularly badly worded, since the government in the UK is the party with a majority in the House of Commons. I have tried to overthrow them via political means every few years since I've been eligible to vote, simply by voting for a candidate from a different party. I suspect this isn't quite what they meant, however.

Re:That's a bit vague...

[fatphil]

It's not hypothetical - there really was a case in the UK a few years ago where an A-Z brand street map was treated as such information.

Honk! Honk!

[tripwirecc]

The last time I've perused the section of textbooks for education, I've come across books for aspiring pyrotechnicians and chemists that create pyro-stuff. They've also contained instructions, recipes, handling instructions and whatever else. Because of that, I almost die laughing seeing all the attempts to ban said material on the web.

Am I the first person who gets to say...

[Glowing Fish]

Maybe it is finally time for a constitution? In writing, with guarantees of free speech?

Just a wild, crazy idea.

Re:Am I the first person who gets to say...

[Zelos]

I would have said that the Human Rights Act provided that, but reading the actual text it doesn't: Article 10
Freedom of expression

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.

Re:Am I the first person who gets to say...

[Spad]

Yeah, because that's working out so well in the US these days ;)

Re:Am I the first person who gets to say...

[suv4x4]

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.

Re:Am I the first person who gets to say...

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:Am I the first person who gets to say...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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,

Actually, that's fair enough. For example, allowing blanket freedom of speech without any responsibility for the consequences is naive.

However, since the sort of thing described here is hardly in the interests of national security nor necessary in a democratic society, I fail to see how that exception applies.

Of course, with this government the Human Rights Act upholds a very important principle, except when it gets in the way of being heavy-handed and authoritarian, in which case it's just a criminal's charter and we should all ignore it.

Yes

[Xiph]

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.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Aaarrgh.... too much paranoia.

It's only paranoia if they're not out to get you.

As the current administration has so capably demonstrated, it has no qualms about going after anyone. There was a story just last week about armed police taking two disabled guys down to the station and questioning them because they had the audacity to sit outside their local pub having a drink, open an item of mail, and look at the (heavily armed) police officers nearby. They were just outside the Labour Party conference — the same event, IIRC, where an 82-year-old, long-time member of the party and Holocaust survivor was forcibly ejected a couple of years ago for daring to heckle the man who took us into a highly dubious war, and then preventing from re-entering under the same Terrorism Act referred to in this story, and the following day an elected MP's camera was wiped because he had taken pictures of the queues to get in. Apparently that individual has enough backing that the people are willing to elect him their representative and let him make law on their behalf, yet he can't be trusted with a couple of photos of his own. Was that security, or just trying to prevent politically damaging material leaking out?

Re:Yes

[Deliveranc3]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZF_3ZGmmn5E

Free Speech...

Horrible

[mvanes]

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.

He was making explosives

[Bogtha]

One thing the headline, summary and article itself don't make clear is that this guy had half a kilo of potassium nitrate, 250g of calcium chloride, videos of beheadings and he had recently visited Pakistan. More information article. There's a lot more to this story than "kid reads forbidden book and gets arrested". It sounds more like "this guy looks like he was planning on blowing people up".

Re:He was making explosives

[ritesonline]

Thanks for the link. For anyone too busy to go there here's a quote:- "A Yorkshire schoolboy was found with chemicals used for making bombs under his bed, a court heard yesterday. The 17-year-old, from Dewsbury, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is accused of plotting to make bombs following a trip to Pakistan. He is also alleged to have had a copy of the Anarchists Cookbook on his computer. Piers Arnold, prosecuting, told City of Westminster Magistrates' Court the book had instructions for "viable" bombs" Look's like most Slashdotter's took the bait with the original post...

Re:He was making explosives

[Fred_A]

One thing the headline, summary and article itself don't make clear is that this guy had half a kilo of potassium nitrate, 250g of calcium chloride, videos of beheadings and he had recently visited Pakistan. More information article. While this is certainly potentially more incriminating, it's still quite puzzling that his documentation was this lame book (that most network old timers must have read or browsed) and not one of the many proper military manuals on the same topic that float about.
If he indeed went to Pakistan and had contacts with some sort of indoctrination organisation there, one would expect that they would have pointed him to some proper documentation with recipes that actually worked or didn't blow up in your face.
Based on the little information leaked, it seems to me that he's some kind of wannabe that just wanted to get noticed.

Re:He was making explosives

[Soldrinero]

this guy had half a kilo of potassium nitrate, 250g of calcium chloride, videos of beheadings and he had recently visited Pakistan,

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.

Re:He was making explosives

[mikeb]

Potassium nitrate is the oxidising ingredient in gunpowder and is not used as a fertilizer, the parent post is probably confusing it with ammonium nitrate, both a widely-used fertilizer and a major ingredient in ANFO (ammonium nitrate fuel oil) explosives used in the mining industry and much admired by the IRA in Northern Ireland. ANFO is simple to mix, extremely stable and very effective. Its downside is that it takes a stick of dynamite to set it off.

Calcium chloride is not blackboard chalk, though calcium sulphate is. Calcium chloride has a range of uses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_chloride) that don't seem to make it an obvious choice for storing under ones bed.

Possession of potassium nitrate isn't an offence in the UK but when I as a boy, making home-made-gunpowder, asking for it at the local pharmacy meant fibbing and saying it would be used in tanning squirrel skins, since they were wise to its possible uses. Posession of bomb-making equipment is an offence in the UK and I'm not surprised that without a good excuse, the rozzers took a dim view of this lad's home chemistry set.

Re:He was making explosives

[WIAKywbfatw]

If he's guilty of all that, then they might as well drop the part of the charge relating to possession of the book, yeah? Nail him on all the other stuff--like having been to Pakistan. Pakistan! The missing link in the Axis of Evil. Visiting Pakistan should be a capital offense.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

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...

never mind...

[carndearg]

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.

It wasn't the anarchist part he was in trouble for

[physicsphairy]

... it was the "cookbook" part.

Those of us who have eaten British cuisine will realize fully its hazardous potential.

Yeah, it seems innocent enough, until the kid opens a delicatessen and starts whipping up some kippers & marmite. I'm sorry, but free speech has its limits, and kippers & marmite lie squarely on the other side of it. Blech!

Ok, we arrived at thoughtcrimes

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:Ok, we arrived at thoughtcrimes

[Reziac]

But if you're arrested for PLANNING something... that is thoughtcrime, and remains thoughtcrime until you actually ACT on your thoughts.

How many people here have fantacized some personal enemy's spectacular demise? How many of you, as teenagers, wrote about how you would do away with your enemies at school? How many went so far as to load a gun, cool down a bit, and unload it again?? This isn't rare behaviour; it's not-unusual expression of typical teenage angst.

But now every distressed teen is a criminal, merely for having evil thoughts. Best start brainwashing 'em in the cradle, it's the only way to prevent 'em from growing up to be teenage anarchists.

No it isn't, thank you very much.

[SmallFurryCreature]

This may confuse many an american who live in a country that isn't free but they think it is. In europe we know we ain't got many of the supposed freedoms of the US of A and more or less, we like it that way. In for instance Holland the rules about banned books is VERY clear, it is the goverment that has banned them and those books are banned and ONLY those books. NO OTHER BOOKS CAN BE BANNED BY ANYONE ELSE!

No withholding funding from libraries that stock books somebody doesn't like. No pressure on printers, no self-censorship. IF the goverment wants to ban something, they got to come out and do it openly.

The US is very different, in theory every book is free, just that libraries that stock the wrong ones get no funding. An even greater evil exists in self-censorship. It allows the politicians to wash their hands off any anti-freedom policy while still having censorship.

Freespeech does not exist (shout fire in a crowded room to see just how free you are) so why even pretend it does exist? Far better to have extremely clear rules about what can and what cannot be said and make it very clear WHO wants it to be that way.

IF the british goverment wants to get rid of the page 3 girl, they would have to do it themselves, directly and show it to the public. In the US, the goverment would just hint at regulation, then the industry would self-regulate and nobody would be any the wiser.

Do I agree with the cookbook being under the terrorism law? No, but at least it is clear who is responsible for it (Labour party/Blair), it is clearly banned, not just not in stock at the local library. You go and live in lala land screaming to yourselve that you got freespeech. I prefer to live in the real world and KNOW what is forbidden and who forbids it. At least that gives me a target.

Re:No it isn't, thank you very much.

[vidarh]

Do I agree with the cookbook being under the terrorism law? No, but at least it is clear who is responsible for it (Labour party/Blair), it is clearly banned, not just not in stock at the local library.

No, it is not clearly banned. The law on purpose was made so vague that it allows the government to claim almost anything as being in violation of the law, and leave it to the court to sort out whether or not they think it's ridiculous. Lets really hope the courts actually have the sense to reign this in (one of the redeeming factors of the UK legal system is that in the face of power hungry politicians there is a history of judges that are willing to blatantly look for loopholes to reinterpret the laws more narrowly than they were intended).

To show just how confusing this situation in, notice that this boy was charged, but as someone else has pointed out the book is for sale at Amazon.

Re:Cue the knee-jerk reaction

[jackharrer]

Have you heard about Darwin Awards?

Re:Quit sensationalizing everything

[debilo]

"The first charge relates to the possession of material for terrorist purposes"

Quit fucking sensationalizing everything.

Have you ever tried British food? I wouldn't trust any cookbook originating from or used in the UK, that's 100% pure terrorism right there.

Re:Quit sensationalizing everything

[AmiMoJo]

>> "The first charge relates to the possession of material for terrorist purposes"

> Quit fucking sensationalizing everything.

This is the UK government, what do you expect? They are slowly inventing thier own kind of newspeak, where highly emotive language can be used to justify anything.

The best one was last year when some poor guys house was accidentally raided by mistake. The police burst in, accidentally shot him and labeled him a "terrorist suspect" (rather than just a normal "suspect"). When it started to become clear that they had the wrong address, they decided he was also a paedophile and investigated him for that as well. A TERRORIST PAEDOPHILE!!!

In the end, they dropped all charges.

Re:Please .....

[Rik Sweeney]

Does this mean that anyone how has studied:

Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Computer Science

Also be charged under the Terrorism Act

If it does then Slashdot's going to be a very empty place shortly...

I had obtained a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook

[el_munkie]

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.

Re:Cue the knee-jerk reaction

[bytesex]

Well, what good has ever come out of your grandfather ? It isn't the purpose of a book to be good; it's the purpose of a book to convey ideas, no matter how repulsive you find them. In the same vein; it wasn't the purpose of your grandfather to be good, it was his purpose to procreate. Questions of purpose in a universal context are always in vain.

Re:Cue the knee-jerk reaction

[Opportunist]

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.

Anarchist's Cookbook saved my life

[graymocker]

One day when I was but a lad of 16, my girlfriend dumped me for a pickup-driving football player who beat me up in gym class. In the subsequent evening alone with my thoughts I wore out my The Cure vinyl by overplaying it, so that the hissing, scratching hiss of the record player formed perfect accompaniment for the wailing and lamentation of my punctured and bleeding heart. As the record starting to skip and I heard Robert Smith wail "-enever I'm al-" over and over, I realized two things:

1. I really #%^%$! hated The Cure.

2. I was going to slit my wrists that very night. It was going to be just like that scene in The Royal Tenenbaums, with Elliot Smith and everything. Elliot Smith is way better than the cure, like, he stuck a freaking knife in his chest, man. Oh wait, maybe I should do that instead...

But then, as I was surfing online for inventive ways to kill myself, I found the Anarchist's Cookbook. That book changed my life forever. Here was someone who was clearly more pathetic than me, and who had obviously failed chemistry to boot. I got a C in chem! If in my life I could say to myself "at least I wasn't that idiot who wrote the Anarchist's Cookbook," that was a life worth living. From that moment on, I renounced all satanic rock music, discovered Christ and placed my life with the Lord, and now I run a successful business as a reseller of fine artist Thomas Kinkade's work. All thanks to the Anarchist's Cookbook. Thank you Lord, for sending me the Anarchist's Cookbook in my time of need.

Where does it end?

[Smerity]

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. =]

Poor Man's James Bond

[gambolt]

http://www.lastgasp.com/d/21573/

Uncle Festor's Silent Death looks fun:

http://www.unclefesterbooks.com/book_sd.html

Any book on pyrotechnics manufacture likely has multiple uses as well.

rec.pyrotechnics FAQ:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/pyrotechnics-faq/

All kinds of fun:

http://www.textfiles.com/anarchy/

Re:I might be a rappist then?

[Opportunist]

Well... you do know how to do it, and (assuming you're male) you are in possession of the necessary equipment.

Re:Remind me...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know who they are, but they are winning. The world lives in fear of backpacks and books.

So basically..

[Moisteri]

..the kid committed a 'thought crime'?

Shouldn't we have people to make that decision?

[Chmcginn]

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.

It's almost like children should have some kind of guardian who is responsible for making decisions for them until they're of a certain age.

Re:Shouldn't we have people to make that decision?

[Aladrin]

Yeah, it's a shame that nature didn't provide them with a couple of those by default. Intelligent Design my ass.

Re:who wrote it ..

[TapeCutter]

"You see you can't oppose the US/Israeli policy in the mid-east without being a terr'ist .."

...or modded as flamebait it would seem. The US has trained more international terrorists in the "art of constructive chaos" than anyone else for most of my 50yrs (closeley followed by the UK and France), it has often been under the guise of the war on drugs. It would seem to me that the "dogs of war" turned on the hand that stopped feeding them after the cold war.

Order of evaluation problem...

[duh_lime]

The English language is too imprecise. As geeks and CS types, we're accustomed to precision in specification. There's a big difference between

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.

terror is a tactic, and we use it too

[some damn guy]

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.

Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too

[TheRaven64]

it probably did save millions of Japanese lives, you have to admit that- they weren't exactly ready to give up I keep hearing this repeated, but it doesn't become true as a result. The Japanese had already offered to surrender (though not unconditionally) to the Russians. The atomic bombs were dropped to make them surrender to the USA instead, and to make their surrender unconditional.

Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too

[bentcd]

If you study history, you'd know that in fact they were ready to give up. But not unconditionally, which is what the US needed. Even /with/ the bombs, they wouldn't surrender /entirely/ unconditionally (they insisted on keeping the Emperor) but it was apparantly good enough for the US.

Some of the generals didn't want to give up, but the emperor did and was ready to surrender. And the hardliner generals were ready to have him replaced should he decide to do so.

The nuclear bombs were entirely unnecessary and just caused a large and needless loss of civilian life. That assessment is made in ignorance of how Japan may have developed had they been allowed a conditional surrender with more leeway on their part. Their complete disarmament, for instance, would have been unlikely to take place. If their expansionist hawks had been allowed to help form its future policies, this might very well have cost more SE Asian lives in the following decades than the nukes did.

Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too

[michaelmuffin]

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). If you study history, you'd know that in fact they were ready to give up. Some of the generals didn't want to give up, but the emperor did and was ready to surrender. The nuclear bombs were entirely unnecessary and just caused a large and needless loss of civilian life. I'll second that and point out that the reason we used the nukes on Japan was to send a message to Russia not to challenge the US militarily anytime soon.

Re:Quit sensationalizing everything

[Anonymous Coward]

"The first charge relates to the possession of material for terrorist purposes"

Quit fucking sensationalizing everything.

Although I disagree with your tone, I agree with your sentiments.

Zonk, honestly, I'm not on the flame bandwagon of most around here, but I find myself frequently just skipping every article with your name attached to it. Enough with the bait and hook already - a common theme throughout at least 80% of your submissions.

Slashdot is reading more like the Enquirer these days.

Re:Quit sensationalizing everything

[M-RES]

Yes, it's part of the UK government's 'War On Islam' - rampantly persued by the British masintream press who salivate over every opportunity to report in the latest 'terror suspect' to be arrested. Of course, this salivation only occurs if the 'suspect' is a British Asian (in Britain 'Asian' denotes people of Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi etc decent, not East Asian such as Chinese). A recent conviction of members of the BNP (right wing British National Party - which evolved from the National Front) for offences including having a huge stash of home-made explosives (the largest ever seized in mainland Britain), plus other materials including a rocket launcher of all things, went almost unreported by the MSM. One factor is that they weren't prosecuted under 'anti-terror' laws, they were arrested and charged under the previous existing laws for firearms and explosive materials offences and the whole affair seems to have been quietly ignored by the big news bulletins, because it doesn't fit the racial profile required for sensationalism. In the case mentioned previously of the Asian lad shot in the shoulder by the police during a raid - yes, he was released without charge, then investigated for 'paedophillia' which the media lapped up and reported ad nauseum, but then quietly 'un-arrested' (released without charge) which the press failed to report when the police found he'd done absolutely nothing wrong. The interesting thing is that in the BNP case where the police had genuine reason to suspect, and evidence to back it up, and indeed must have planned the raid in advance, there was a 'press blackout' - no media allowed at the scene. Yet in the London incident, there was a huge press presence as the raid took place involving something like 50 officers based on information which apparently came from an anonymous tip-off. How did the press know to be there as it unfolded unless the police and/or Home Office issued a press-release about the raid? It was planned and staged to hype it up through the roof and a blatant example of the propagandist methodology used by our government. As for the Anarchist Cookbook - I can't see how it could be construed as a piece of 'terrorist' literature. Surely it's a piece of anarchist literature - the clue's in the title!? I think it may be time to think about a print-campaign. Print 50 or 60 million copies and post them through every letterbox in Britain, so that EVERYBODY'S got a copy and then see how the police can possibly enforce this stupid gag of our peaceful freedom's of speech and expression. Otherwise it could be suggested that owning something as benign as a metal tube is a terrorist offence - it COULD be used as a mortar! tsk tsk.

Re:Quit sensationalizing everything

[morgan_greywolf]

Have you ever tried British food? I wouldn't trust any cookbook originating from or used in the UK, that's 100% pure terrorism right there. For those who have no idea what the parent is talking about, I'll explain. I'm an American, but my family is of British origin, so naturally there are hand-me-down recipes that have survived through the years. British food is the blandist sh** you have ever tasted. Think of some food you've had that's really, really bland. Now multiply the blandness factor by a 100 or so. Now you know what he's talking about. (And Brits are the first to admit that their traditional food is, in fact, quite bland.)

Only because it exists in digital form

[Datamonstar]

If the book were sitting on his nightstand, bound and in physical form, there would be no problem here, perhaps. At least I hope there wouldn't. The debacle is probably due to that ever-so-bewildering element of digital devices to over-complicate the legal process into such distorted and out of shape lines of thought as criminalizing the digital theft of a piece of media far more than the physical theft of the same media. Maybe it's due to ignorance and and the puffed-up and over emphasized importance placed upon computers in this so-called "digital age" as they directly aid so few of us yet completely mystify the great majority of us that we're seeing these trends such as the translation of the ASCI words of a .txt file into something perceived as far more dangerous and threatening than the printed words of a book. One could also suppose that it is the same phenomenon that transforms the digitized violence of a video game into being more harmful than that which is featured on film. Such is the result of extreme ignorance by a great majority of the populace and the nature of the powers that be to placate this populace with ineffective, unnecessary and and unfair judgments such as this one that make no sense to the rest of us, those few that are left to marvel at the situation and hope that somehow, someday everybody else will get a clue. And maybe one day the use of a computers won't immediately baffle authorities into letting fear and ignorance direct their actions instead of common sense.

Re:Quit sensationalizing everything

[clickclickdrone]

>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.

Re:Quit sensationalizing everything

[morgan_greywolf]

See what I mean? You just made my point! :-D

I'm reminded of Robin Williams...

[Chmcginn]

When the Iraqi interim government was writing their constitution, Robin Williams comment to the affect of "take ours, we're not using it anymore"...

Re:Quit sensationalizing everything

[digitig]

(And Brits are the first to admit that their traditional food is, in fact, quite bland.)

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.

Re:Amen!!!

[Dr_Barnowl]

Who the hell thought it would be a good idea .. to make a pie out of meat The British did. We invented the pie in it's modern form ; our innovation was to add fat to the crust, which was previously used as a kind of disposable container to keep the gravy moist in a baked meat stew.

Re:Quit sensationalizing everything

[digitig]

Yes, we finished paying it off almost a year ago http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/article1264220.ece. But it's a long time since that debt has been so bad that we couldn't afford good food.

he's being tried for possession of materials ...

[pbhj]

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.

Re:Quit sensationalizing everything

[antiseptic_poetry]

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.

Free men...

[rwyoder]

...don't need their government's permission to own a book.

Re:Quit sensationalizing everything

[morgan_greywolf]

Did you guess the shit ones ? They were Hamburgers and Hot Dog "Sausages", cusine which is in fact Americas outstanding contribution to the world. Sure, pick the crappiest contributions. ;-) Although I must say that I enjoy an excellent gourmet cheeseburger now and again, some of America's better contributions to the world:

- chili
- pizza - New York or Chicago Style (Pizza was never good in Italy until it came to America!)
- Philly Cheesesteak
- the Coney Island hot dog (hot dog "sausages" with chili, mustard and onion -- mmmmmm!)
- 'french' fries (which are really an American invention)
- Coney Fries -- french fries covered in chili and cheese sauce
- the Ice Cream cone (invented at the 1904 World's Fair in St. Louis, Mo.)

You cannot be serious!

[slashmojo]

British food is the blandist sh** you have ever tasted.

Clearly you have no clue.. traditional British food such as chicken tikka masala or a fine vindaloo is not bland in any way shape or form!

Re:You cannot be serious!

[kkiller]

I'm sorry, but a Tikka Masala is like asking for a something spicy, and then chickening out by chucking in a dollop of cream. It's curry for cowards.

Re:Trying to figure out your reading algorithm

[ravenshrike]

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.

We were taken to the cleaners.....

[Anonymous Coward]

"..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!

UK = police state

[ajs318]

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.

However, there is a healthy population of outlaws. Dope smoking, movie downloading, blowing things up and dancing all night are alive and well ..... just under most people's radar. It's mostly stupid people who get caught, and frankly they're no great loss.

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 ..... 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.

Re:UK = police state

[ajs318]

Nobody is so enslaved as those who falsely believe themselves to be free.

Re:Quit sensationalizing everything

[mikael]

Man shot in anti-terrorism raid

Altogether, an estimated 250 police officers took part in the raid, in which Abdul Kahar Kalam was shot in the shoulder. The family had 25,000 pounds in cash in their flat.

Terror raid man is held over "child porn on computer".

In its report on the incident, the Independent Police Complaints Commission said that the policeman who shot Mr Kahar had not acted recklessly or maliciously and should not be prosecuted or disciplined. The report said that forensic analysis had shown that he had accidentally shot Mr Kahar at a range of less than two inches during a confrontation on a dark, narrow half-landing.
Related Links

The officer, who is a member of an elite firearms unit, was the first of 15 officers into the home. He was wearing a protective suit and gloves, a helmet, ear protectors and a respirator. At the time of the shooting the safety catch on his gun was off. When the gun fired it was in an almost upright position, fastened by a sling and not a normal firing position.

The officer, code-named B6, said that as he went up the stairs in the house he shouted "armed police", but the respirator could have muffled his voice. He reached the half-landing and, the report said, "was aware of two figures approaching at speed. B6 states that he and the two figures came into contact and this caused him to lose his balance and come into contact with the wall."

Good British Food vs Bad British food

[billstewart]

I've had both. Bad British food is bad bad bad, as bad as the worst of American bus station food. Think of bangers and mash when the mash is lumpy reconstituted powder and the bangers are boiled to death, accompanied by vegetables boiled into limpness, and fish&chips where the fish didn't totally thaw out while the batter was getting burned. That's not something that post-war rationing influenced, it's just bad cooking on dishes that need to be cooked well.

I was a carnivore the last time I was in Britain, and the meat dishes ranged from the above to really good. Now that I'm vegetarian, there's less of traditional English cooking that's interesting, but some of it's still good, especially the cheeses, and of course the best place in the world to get Indian food is London (though I tend to prefer the southern Indian cuisines which were less common there.)

Another poster put out a list of foods and asked which the bad ones were, with the desired conclusion of the two American dishes - hamburgers and hot dogs. Sorry, wrong answer, even though you're picking out German-American dishes as opposed to English-American. Hot dogs are pretty dreadful imitations of their German predecessors, but cooking them over fire helps, and I've had Chicken Tikka Masala that's almost as bad and bangers that are worse. And hamburgers can be cooked badly, but good hamburgers are hard to beat - with good meat cooked over fire (or even fried at the right temperature) on a good toasted bun with onions and optionally some decent ketchup.

Re:Quit sensationalizing everything

[digitig]

That's true enough. Food rationing in the UK didn't end until July 1954.

Guy Fawkes

[psykocrime]

Sounds like the UK needs a modern day Guy Fawkes. Only the modern one needs to succeed in blowing up Parliament.

Speaking of that, if anybody in the RTP (NC) area is interested in having some sort of Guy Fawkes Night event this year, gimme a shout. I'm thinking we should co-opt the British holiday and celebrate the Guy Fawkes of the world, maybe burn an effigy of a cop or George Bush, instead of an effigy of Fawkes. Make it a celebration of the spirit of those who would oppose The State. After all, historically us lot here in the U.S. have taken ideas like Freedom and Liberty a little more seriously than our British kin.

Re: I generally don't lock my car door

[datadigger]

Please leave a box of tissues in the back seat!

Re:Quit sensationalizing everything

[Haeleth]

On the bright side, it appears you are winning your War On Paragraphs.

THIS BOOK IS AVAILABLE ON AMAZON'S UK SITE!!!

[M-RES]

Can you believe it? This book is available to uy in the UK through Amazons UK site (amazon.co.uk)! Does this mean Amazon are sponsoring terrorism? heh ;)

the collection or possession of information...

[Black Copter Control]

The second [charge] relates to the collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism. Oh my God ... Nuke the universities!!!

• Physics books...
• Chemistry books....
• English books (for preparing effective demands letters).
• Photography and arts (for preparing terrorist training materials
• Computing Science (for calculating the best mixtures)
• Human Kinetics (to learn how to carry the bomb).

(you might as well burn the libraries, too).

Re:Quit sensationalizing everything

[_Spirit]

You know your country's cuisine is in trouble when even Americans complain about it...

Could be anything

[HangingChad]

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.

Re:Obligatory link

[KDR_11k]

I think he also managed to characterize the fear of the unknown (whether desired or not). After all the censorship in F451 was created because the people WANTED it. I also think that's a very crucial piece there, people WANT some things to be banned because they are afraid of it. Only in that case it was something they were too dumb to use anymore rather than something they were too old-fashined to understand. Perhaps Bradbury criticised himself a bit with that, where the people in his book fear the old unknown he fears the new unknown... Though bashing MTV is always a worthy cause.

Re:Quit sensationalizing everything

[jagdish]

Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam ... or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam.

Re:UK = democratic police state

[kraut]

> 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.

Re:Quit sensationalizing everything

[TrentTheThief]

Umm... The book is available in UK bookstores. It's also available from amazon.co.uk.

So. If you own an upper level chemistry text book you're probably in trouble as well. Or heaven forbid, if frequent hobbyist rocketry websites or worse, participate!

The Anarchist's Cookbook is no more dangerous than any of the dozens of military manuals that turn up in used booksellers.

You understand that the intent here is not to punish that stupid git but to set the stage for moving on Iran. You can't very well invade or attack a new country without some fresh outrage.

It's really sad that the US has let bush wave the bloody shirt for seven years now, and that blair facilitated it.

I'm not one to run from trouble. I supported the efforts in Afghanistan. Also those in Iraq. For awhile, at least. I'm now of the opinion that bush is dangerously deranged. He has no military experience whatsoever that could provide him with any useful knowledge to prosecute a war, yet congress and the citizenry have let him do just that. This is tantamount to allowing a building maintenance person at a medical school perform open-heart surgery on your child.

You really have to be aware of how and why certain things are published in news sources. Do your own research. Most of all, think for yourself. Don't accept the world of a politician for anything. If you trust a politician to guide your thoughts you're probably the same sort person who would let a pedophile babysit your children and then wonder why they always come home with a sore ass.