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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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: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

[Haeleth]

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