Arrested CERN Physicist Gets 5 Years For Terror Plot

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Arrested CERN Physicist Gets 5 Years For Terror Plot

Posted by Soulskill on Friday May 4, 2012 @08:38AM from the don't-want-them-getting-black-hole-technology dept.

An anonymous reader sends this followup to news we discussed in 2009 of a CERN physicist who was arrested for allegedly being in contact with al-Qaeda. The physicist, Adlene Hicheur, has now been sentenced to five years in prison. "He came under suspicion when threatening messages were sent to President Sarkozy in early 2008. The security services uncovered a series of email exchanges between Hicheur and an alleged al-Qaeda member called Mustapha Debchi. After his arrest in 2009 police found a large quantity of Islamist literature at his parents' home. At the start of his trial the 35-year-old scientist admitted that he had been going through a psychologically 'turbulent' time in his life when he wrote the emails. He had suffered a serious back injury, for which he had been taking morphine. But he always denied he intended to carry out any attacks."

155 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

didn't actually intend? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 08:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, that's OK then, let him go.
1. Re:didn't actually intend? by Chrisq · 2012-05-04 21:35 · Score: 0
  
  These fucking muzzies never intend anything. Their story is "look what you made me do". "You made a nasty film that made me feel bad, that MADE me kill you". "You drew a cartoon, that made us riot". "You said Muslims are violent, we'll have to kill you". In muslim countries its even worse "you shown a cross in public, that made us beat you up". It is self admission that islam takes away their human decency. When someone becomes a muslim they truly revert. Revert to barbarous savagery that is.
2. Re:didn't actually intend? by dave420 · 2012-05-05 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Nice generalisations. That's usually a great indicator the poster is full of shit.
3. Re:didn't actually intend? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-05 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  420 in user name. Usually a great indicator the poster is semi-detached from reality, preferring instead to dwell in lalaland where everyone is believed to be inherently peaceful and rational even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
4. Re:didn't actually intend? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-05 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  Not when the muslims are ever eager to generate the supporting evidence.
  
  Whereas if someone said "Buddhists are violent" it nobody takes that someone seriously (unless they're in Sri Lanka ;) ).
5. Re:didn't actually intend? by rtb61 · 2012-05-05 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting concept, let's stretch that into another analogy. You annoy the crap out of me and I ease that frustration by coming out with all sorts of 'ON PAPER' crazy crap, plots and schemes that I will in reality never do.
  The crazy crap, ploting and scheming 'ON PAPER' is all it ever is, even when it is shared amongst other frustrated idiots.
  This pointless strategising is no different to millions of people taking over the world on computer games. When then isn't a crime, the actual act there isn't a crime. When there isn't any material for carrying (real material no the crap, can of petrol for the lawn mover and a half a dozen empty soft drink bottles) the crime, then they aren't really serious.
  When a single warning would suffice and end the problem, you professionally paranoid wankers, stop being dicks trying to get promoted, drop around and issue the bloody warning. Even when the plotters and schemers get all huffy and start complaining to anyone that'll listen, I bet that it stops their mad schemes in it's tracks.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
6. Re:didn't actually intend? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-05 17:42 · Score: 0
  
  Personally I would have been interested to see what someone could do to turn CERN into a weapon. I suppose I should lay off the sci-fi movies a little.
What a dick. by masternerdguy · 2012-05-04 08:45 · Score: 0

He was probably going to blow up CERN the fracking wanker.

--
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
1. Re:What a dick. by MagikSlinger · 2012-05-04 08:47 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah! Just leave that to the birds! :-)
  
  --
  The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
2. Re:What a dick. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 08:49 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  What's a fracking wanker? Is that like, someone who jerks off to the extraction of shale oil?
3. Re:What a dick. by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-05-04 08:50 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Or *use* CERN to destroy the false vacuum.
4. Re:What a dick. by Samantha+Wright · 2012-05-04 08:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Nice guess: "General director of the National Police Frederic Pechenard stated in November 2009 that Hicheur planned to attack a base of the National Defence in Annecy, which harbours the 27eme bataillon de chasseurs alpins, involved in Afghanistan." (Wikipedia.)
  In short, it looks like he was a scientist who hated the government, not someone bent on destroying the accomplishments of western civilization.
  Interestingly, the BBC article calls CERN "Cern" as though it were a person. To whom do we address our complaints?
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
5. Re:What a dick. by JonySuede · 2012-05-04 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Almost, it is someone who extract shale gas while wanking.
  
  --
  Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
6. Re:What a dick. by Chris+Burke · 2012-05-04 09:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I think I read before that BBC policy is to only capitalize the first letter of acronyms, as distinct in this context from initialisms, which are when you abbreviate something with the first letter of every word but don't pronounce the result as if a word e.g. Cern vs EPA.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
7. Re:What a dick. by Wootery · 2012-05-04 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  Interestingly, the BBC article calls CERN "Cern" as though it were a person. To whom do we address our complaints?
  You're not the first person to notice this. They've been up to this stupidity for a while now.
  Google also turned up this official-looking BBC capitalisation guide, but it doesn't mention acronyms - all the ones actually in that page are capitalised correctly, though.
  This seems to be the place to complain.
8. Re:What a dick. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  that would be "27ieme"
9. Re:What a dick. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Interestingly, the BBC article calls CERN "Cern" as though it were a person. To whom do we address our complaints?
  To Bbc?
10. Re:What a dick. by TheRaven64 · 2012-05-04 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  Interestingly, the BBC article calls CERN "Cern" as though it were a person. To whom do we address our complaints?
  I've made this complaint in the past. They also write PC as Pc (which is an initialism, not an acronym - the other poster claiming that they only did this idiocy for acronyms is wrong). Their reply was that it is their house style to only capitalise the first letter of initialisms. This is not in any way standard English, but they decided to do it just to be special.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
11. Re:What a dick. by Mike+Buddha · 2012-05-04 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  He was probably getting anti-matter to blow up the Vatican.
  
  --
  by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
12. Re:What a dick. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:39 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Much more likely he was going to point the proton stream at Sarkozy.
13. Re:What a dick. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, he must've been thinking of a wanking fracker.
14. Re:What a dick. by SomePgmr · 2012-05-04 09:54 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Maybe a battlestar pilot with a habit of rubbing-one-out on the hangar deck after a successful run against the toasters.
15. Re:What a dick. by RabidReindeer · 2012-05-04 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  He was probably going to blow up CERN the fracking wanker.
  No. He was planning on developing a process whereby 100% of the mass in a 3oz. bottle of distilled water could be converted to energy. Should be roughly enough to blow up a plane, all the surrounding planes, the airport and a good size chunk of surrounding city.
  The activating mechanism, of course, fits in his underwear.
16. Re:What a dick. by ppanon · 2012-05-04 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  Who knows? Maybe some people thought that black hole creation theory was probable and decided they wanted to secure that weapon of mass destruction for use against the decadent West.
  
  --
  Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
17. Re:What a dick. by mug+funky · 2012-05-04 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  that's dumb.
  Britons call it "the beeb" anyway, should we not call them the Bbc?
18. Re:What a dick. by TapeCutter · 2012-05-04 11:44 · Score: 2
  
  This is not in any way standard English
  Of course not, there's no such thing.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
19. Re:What a dick. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-05-04 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  To Bbc?
  Yes, but only on Bcc.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
20. Re:What a dick. by jo_ham · 2012-05-04 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it stands for British Broadcasting Corporation, so by their own rules, that would be BBC.
  We also call it many things - the beeb, the BBC, auntie, channel one/two etc.
21. Re:What a dick. by Lexx+Greatrex · 2012-05-04 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  No. He was planning on developing a process whereby 100% of the mass in a 3oz. bottle of distilled water could be converted to energy. Should be roughly enough to blow up a plane, all the surrounding planes, the airport and a good size chunk of surrounding city.
  Indeed. About 1.8 megatons of TNT according to e=mc^2... I never get tired of doing that calculation.
  
  The activating mechanism, of course, fits in his underwear.
  If by his underwear you mean a colossal Penning trap capable of storing 3oz of antimatter, yes indeed! The brilliance of this evil scientist plot is it will only cost trillions of dollars and take at the very least several decades to fulfill -- so it will easily slip right under the radar.
22. Re:What a dick. by Chris+Burke · 2012-05-04 15:52 · Score: 2
  
  Eh it makes a certain kind of sense, but someone below said they do PC as Pc which is even dumber.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
23. Re:What a dick. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 16:28 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe he was planning to cross the streams. I hear you're not supposed to do that.
24. Re:What a dick. by Samantha+Wright · 2012-05-04 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  Sure there is. The best part is that there are so many different standards to choose from—and in practice they're all ignored. Just like any other standard.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
25. Re:What a dick. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 20:45 · Score: 0
  
  Interestingly, the BBC article calls CERN "Cern" as though it were a person. To whom do we address our complaints?
  You mean, to whom do we address our conCERNs?
26. Re:What a dick. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 20:51 · Score: 0
  
  My thoughts exactly. Of course, he must have forgotten to set up elaborate hidden symbology in his plot, or he would have gotten much closer, and Tom Hanks would have showed up.
27. Re:What a dick. by Chrisq · 2012-05-04 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  that's dumb.
  Britons call it "the beeb" anyway, should we not call them the Bbc?
  Well. you could always LASER anyone who comes onto your RADAR for using that practice.
28. Re:What a dick. by tinkerton · 2012-05-04 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  Actually he was a secret agent of the pentecostal church trying to trigger the apocalypse by creating a mini black hole that would end up engulfing the planet.
29. Re:What a dick. by WillHirsch · 2012-05-05 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but where, exactly? Sounds like you just made that up.
30. Re:What a dick. by TheRaven64 · 2012-05-05 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  To hit on the news.bbc.co.uk search for PC returns this article, containing:
  
  Mr Southey said Mrs Roberts had told one officer, Pc Jacqui Reid, that she did not mind being searched but would prefer it to be conducted at a police station as young people with whom she worked might see her being searched in the street.
  It seems they're now inconsistent about it, because the next few articles all use PC, but going back a bit further you'll find a lot.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
31. Re:What a dick. by Mufasa_ooh_sayitagai · 2012-05-05 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Well, played...
32. Re:What a dick. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-05 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  Well hating French government is more like a sign of sanity. I don't see why I would be indicted for that !
33. Re:What a dick. by cffrost · 2012-05-05 21:51 · Score: 1
  
  Much more likely he was going to point the proton stream at Sarkozy.
  Interesting account of a human intercepting a proton-accelerator beam with his head.
  
  --
  Thank you, Edward Snowden.
  
  "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
34. Re:What a dick. by toruonu · 2012-05-05 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  We cross the streams all the time. That's how we get collisions :P If you look closely at the LHC status pages you can even see what the crossing angle is :P
35. Re:What a dick. by RabidReindeer · 2012-05-05 23:40 · Score: 1
  
  If by his underwear you mean a colossal Penning trap capable of storing 3oz of antimatter, yes indeed! The brilliance of this evil scientist plot is it will only cost trillions of dollars and take at the very least several decades to fulfill -- so it will easily slip right under the radar.
  No I didn't. For one thing, that doubles the amount of mass involved, multiplying the explosive effect. Show some restraint!
  He's a physicist. That means he should have developed a process whereby he can flip over 50% of the water molecules into an anti-matter state under the influence of a catalytic reaction induced by 2 AA batteries and a single grain of table salt. I think Isaac Asimov wrote a story to that effect once.
  Snarfiness aside, that's how terrorists got to be more scary than the Evil Empire. The more we learn about the Universe, the more powerful the levers we learn how to pull are. A single person these days can wreak more havoc than an entire barbarian horde used to.
Aside from this strange story. by wcrowe · 2012-05-04 08:49 · Score: 1

I'm intrigued by the nearly-impressionistic courtroom sketch artist's work displayed in the article.

--
Proverbs 21:19
1. Re:Aside from this strange story. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:04 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That's a typical courtroom sketch in France, pencil and watercolor on paper. There are a handful of journalists specialized in courtroom sketch in France, so you've got to recognize their artwork. This one is signed Benoit Peyrucq from Agence France Presse. Just google his name to find more drawings from his hand.
  More examples of French courtrooom sketches
  http://www.iconovox.com/blog/2009/09/29/le-dessin-au-tribunal/
  http://traitsdejustice.bpi.fr/home.php?lg=fr&id=78
Thought Crime by flyingfsck · 2012-05-04 08:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

As far as I can tell this guy did not actually do anything. He got 5 years for a thought crime.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
1. Re:Thought Crime by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-05-04 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Ah; but since the authorities made fairly significant fools of themselves in the prior guy-tooling-around-on-a-motor-scooter-and-shooting-people case, somebody has to go to jail for being a scary rag-head...
2. Re:Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 08:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  He did confess to writing the threatening emails. that is considered a crime.
3. Re:Thought Crime by masternerdguy · 2012-05-04 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Oh nice. So we need to allow terrorists to hit their target before pressing charges otherwise they're "innocent". This isn't EVE Online.
  
  --
  To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
4. Re:Thought Crime by BasilBrush · 2012-05-04 08:58 · Score: 2
  
  You know, with shoplifters, you can't arrest them until they leave the shop with the goods. And that's a good thing. There's always the outside chance that the frozen chicken they've stuffed up their jumper will be presented at the checkout before they leave.
  With terrorists, it's not such a good idea to wait until they've actually committed the physical crime. That tends to cost a lot of lives.
5. Re:Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  +1 for the Orwell reference
6. Re:Thought Crime by slew · 2012-05-04 09:00 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  As far as I can tell this guy did not actually do anything. He got 5 years for a thought crime.
  Given this person is a theoretical physicist, perhaps thinking about, but not doing, is sufficient evidence of something? Just a thought ;^)
7. Re:Thought Crime by tomhath · 2012-05-04 09:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  He sent threats to the president of France. That a crime most countries would take pretty seriously.
8. Re:Thought Crime by tomhath · 2012-05-04 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Please explain how they made fools of themselves. They caught up with the guy pretty quickly; unfortunately after he committed some pretty heinous crimes.
9. Re:Thought Crime by wisnoskij · 2012-05-04 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  That is not fair, there is no proof that he ever thought about attacking anyone.
  The only evidence I see is that he knew a few Islamic extremists and had some of their literature. So he is guilty by association.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
10. Re:Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I can tell this guy did not actually do anything.
  Yeah, in the US, at least one overt act is required in addition to talking/email/whatever for crimes of conspiracy to commit foo. Dunno how things are in France, but it sucks.
  
  He got 5 years for a thought crime.
  Well, no. A thought crime would be based on holding certain opinions. AIUI (I haven't read the emails -- are they available somewhere?) he actually discussed plans for a terrorist attack. It's certainly not something that IMO could be considered criminal in a free country, but it is a small step short of thought crime as such.
11. Re:Thought Crime by Baloroth · 2012-05-04 09:02 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Hardly. Conspiracy and planning to commit a crime is a crime, for good reason. Do we wait for a murderer to shoot someone before we can arrest and charge him? No, and for good reason.
  Thought-crime is quite different from actively communicating willingness to be part of an "active terror unit" (as TFA says).
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
12. Re:Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  So give him jail time based on what he did instead of what he might do. There are sane Laws against uttering threats in most countries. I assume france is the same. Considering this is terror-law, he should be happy he was at least charged with something and given a sentance. If this was in the US he might not ever be chrged or released.
13. Re:Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  the pre-crime task force stopped him.
14. Re:Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  Send him to Guantanamo ?
15. Re:Thought Crime by geekoid · 2012-05-04 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  He didn't go to jail for the thought of 'overthrowing the government
  but for the means he threatened to do it with"
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
16. Re:Thought Crime by tomhath · 2012-05-04 09:13 · Score: 2
  
  They did exactly that. Threat is 5 years, acting on that threat is life without parole. People are arrested and convicted of that crime in the US on a fairly regular basis.
17. Re:Thought Crime by WillDraven · 2012-05-04 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Not around here (Raleigh, NC). They call it "concealing merchandise" and it's prosecuted like a misdemeanor larceny charge.
  
  --
  This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
18. Re:Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  Accidentally dropping a fun-sized candy bar in your pocket as you rummage around for your wallet is different than placing multiple products in intentionally hidden pockets while craning your neck around looking to see if anyone is watching.
  As with all things in life - there are grey areas but if you take them far enough they're obviously black or white.
19. Re:Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  It stops being thought crime once you email it. Thats when it becomes conspiracy to commit a crime.
20. Re:Thought Crime by BootysnapChristAlive · 2012-05-04 09:18 · Score: 2
  
  Someone is generally innocent until they do/try to do something. Otherwise it's just a thought crime (unless they were threatening to do something and those threats were very likely to be carried out).
  I understand the desire to protect people, but not at the cost of individual rights. Everything else is just "for the children"/TSA mentality.
21. Re:Thought Crime by TheRaven64 · 2012-05-04 09:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  With terrorists, it's not such a good idea to wait until they've actually committed the physical crime. That tends to cost a lot of lives.
  There are steps in between thinking about something and doing it. For example, I could write a description of the orbital corrections required how to fly an asteroid into London during the Olympics. I could hate the Olympics enough to want to do it. Unfortunately, since I lack a space program, I can't actually do it. Arresting me for doing it would make no sense. On the other hand, if I'm threatening to set off a car bomb and I'm sitting at home with a van full of fertiliser and home-made detonators, the security services would be negligent if I were allowed to go for a drive.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
22. Re:Thought Crime by Mike+Buddha · 2012-05-04 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Planning a crime is a thought crime?
  
  --
  by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
23. Re:Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:36 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Yes,
  And we have Christian terrorists in this country who actually carry out acts of terror-- bombing family planning clinics, murdering doctors, kidnapping family members of doctors, blowing up federal buildings killing hundreds. etc., but when it is a Christian, it is a lone actor, not Christian terrorists. I bet every one of the Christian terrorists had "Christian literature" in their homes as well.
  If we are going to go after Muslims, we need to go after Christians and Jews, etc. using he same standard, or we cannot call ourselves a nation of laws.
24. Re:Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  In canada here, whacko's make threats occasionally to our CSR's at the cable company i work at over issues with billing and what-not. i doubt they ever do jail time, but they do get a visit from the local police. They must have figured that this guy was capable and willing to make good on his threat to give him 5 years. Not sure how it falls under a terror law tho. youd think the pre-existing threat uttering laws would do.
25. Re:Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  He was a theoretical physicist, but an actual towelhead.
26. Re:Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  With terrorists, it's not such a good idea to wait until they've actually committed the physical crime. That tends to cost a lot of lives.
  Not to mention the terrorist in question often isn't around anymore to have charges pressed against him.
27. Re:Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  Uhh.. that's exactly what the FBI does, they just give them fake explosives. How else are you going to convict someone of terrorism unless they commit an overt act?
28. Re:Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 10:21 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  At what point is it acceptable for them to step in?
  When you get in the van? When you buy the fertilizer? When you put them together into something that could explode?
  How long are we allowed to monitor you? When you bought the van in the first place?
29. Re:Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 10:22 · Score: 0
  
  I've never heard of an abortion clinic being bombed by Christian extremists (or by anyone else for that matter) in France.
30. Re:Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 10:25 · Score: 0
  
  Don't upset the anonymous muslim
31. Re:Thought Crime by 0111+1110 · 2012-05-04 10:25 · Score: 2
  
  Perhaps the fact that it is considered a crime is the point. We have so few actual terrorists that we need to start arresting people who merely fantasize about it. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
32. Re:Thought Crime by 0111+1110 · 2012-05-04 10:30 · Score: 2
  
  So you want to convict people of just thinking about terrorism? You do realize that the definition of "terrorism" is going to continue to expand? Eventually it will include some activity that you think about.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
33. Re:Thought Crime by tftp · 2012-05-04 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  he actually discussed plans for a terrorist attack
  You can see such discussions even in some very public threads on Slashdot. One can discuss plans of a terrorist attack to commit it or to defend against it. The distinction can be undetectable until you actually start acting toward one goal or another.
34. Re:Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 11:41 · Score: 0
  
  "Not around here (Raleigh, NC). They call it "concealing merchandise" and it's prosecuted like a misdemeanor larceny charge."
  One more in a long list of reason why North Carolina is a shithole.
  Yes, I've lived there. But I won't live there again, the place is a backward
  cesspool of ignorance and southern redneck morons. Oh, and the climate
  sucks too. And the traffic is bad. And the service industries in the area are
  staffed by retards. I cannot imagine why anyone who is truly intelligent
  would want to live there.
35. Re:Thought Crime by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-05-04 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I can tell this guy did not actually do anything. He got 5 years for a thought crime.
  He's a CERN phycicist. That's some serious thinking going on in his head. It's like driving a tank instead of a bike. You must be more careful with a brain like that, everybody knows that.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
36. Re:Thought Crime by Jonner · 2012-05-04 12:23 · Score: 2
  
  Contemplating violence is quite different from taking concrete, provable steps toward that goal. The article is extremely light on what this guy planned to do or what steps he took.
37. Re:Thought Crime by Jonner · 2012-05-04 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  You can't talk about "actually committed the phyical crime" without defining the crime. There could be a law that makes it a crime to stuff a frozen chicken up one's jumper, something much more observable than what goes on inside someone's head. AFAICT from TFA, all this guy did was communicate with "an alleged contact in al-Qaeda" and express willingness to become part of an "active terrorist unit." If that's enough to make him a terrorist, a woman saying "I'm going to kill my husband" could be convicted of attempted murder.
38. Re:Thought Crime by theArtificial · 2012-05-04 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  Whatever happened to "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
  Words like yelling Fire in a crowded place or threatening the POTUS (1917)? Or Hate Speech laws... there are lots of words which are actionable.
  
  --
  Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
39. Re:Thought Crime by BasilBrush · 2012-05-04 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  You can't talk about "actually committed the phyical crime" without defining the crime. There could be a law that makes it a crime to stuff a frozen chicken up one's jumper, something much more observable than what goes on inside someone's head.
  And there could be a law that makes it a crime to engage in email correspondence with people you know to be in terrorist organisations, saying you are wanting to do a terrorist act. Which is equally observable.
  
  a woman saying "I'm going to kill my husband" could be convicted of attempted murder.
  Women who've tried to make arrangements with others to carry out the murder of their husbands have indeed been prosecuted.
  In all these cases it's a step beyond thought crime, to early action. One can't wait for later action when people would die.
40. Re:Thought Crime by TapeCutter · 2012-05-04 13:25 · Score: 0
  
  Picked your post at random, I'm surpised that this needs spelling out for so many adults in this thread, but here's a simple guideline to tell the difference between thoughts and death threats...
  - If it's all in your head it's a thought, if it's in someone elses face it's a death threat.
  
  ...or if that's not enough, maybe Goodwin can kill off this myopic meme.....let's give it a try, eh???
  So following your definition of 'thinking', Hitler was just thinking about attacking Poland when he declared war.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
41. Re:Thought Crime by BasilBrush · 2012-05-04 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  He did do something. He entered into email correspondence with a terrorist organisation offering to carry out a terrorist act.
  If he got in touch with a hit man asking for you to be killed do you think that should be illegal? Or would you want to wait until the hit-man has a gun to your head?
  After all, by your concept of thought crime, having such a discussion with a hit-man would be thought crime, not real crime.
  You probably want to re-read 1984. Thought crime is the crime of THINKING things contrary to the wishes of the state. It only takes one.
  By the time you've involved someone else, then it's conspiracy. Winston Smith was caught due to his conspiracy, but the crime itself was the actual thought.
42. Re:Thought Crime by BasilBrush · 2012-05-04 13:52 · Score: 2
  
  There are steps in between thinking about something and doing it.
  
  Yes, and he took some of them. Thus making it more than a "thought crime".
43. Re:Thought Crime by BootysnapChristAlive · 2012-05-04 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  He did do something.
  Okay.
  
  After all, by your concept of thought crime
  Did you read my comment? "(unless they were threatening to do something and those threats were very likely to be carried out)."
  But I do have a problem with imprisoning them if it's not damn likely that they were going to carry out the supposed plan.
44. Re:Thought Crime by BootysnapChristAlive · 2012-05-04 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  At what point is it acceptable for them to step in?
  When the threat not only looks credible, but it's likely that you'll be able to carry it out.
  The government has misinterpreted obvious jokes before. Threats that were not credible at all. All parties involved knew they were jokes, but since the government doesn't know the people and is an emotionless overlord, it took them seriously.
  If a threat is not likely to be carried out, it's just a waste of taxpayer money (and an individual's freedom) to imprison them. They could be joking/emotional. Very possible with human beings.
  Might as well defend the TSA if you want to defend against unlikely threats.
45. Re:Thought Crime by NemoinSpace · 2012-05-04 14:11 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know but if I'm following this thread right, people that live there don't get robbed as much?
  How long's it been since you "got out", i mean, lived there?
46. Re:Thought Crime by NemoinSpace · 2012-05-04 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  No it's not. Stealing is stealing. Because you put on a big act making believe you didn't mean to steal just makes you a nut job to boot. You still do jail time after you get out of the physco ward.
47. Re:Thought Crime by jo_ham · 2012-05-04 15:33 · Score: 2
  
  I agree with your post, but just a technical point - a person is not a murderer until they have actually murdered someone. If you arrest the person before they kill someone then attempted murderer is probably more accurate, assuming the planned crime was obvious.
48. Re:Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 16:52 · Score: 0
  
  how about doctors murdering the unborn? think the doctors are way out front on that ratio
49. Re:Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 18:17 · Score: 0
  
  Accidentally. The key word was accidentally.
50. Re:Thought Crime by catmistake · 2012-05-04 19:36 · Score: 1
  
  the security services would be negligent if I were allowed to go for a drive.
  Well, I don't know where you're from, buddy, but here in teh Good 'ol U. S. of A® we have a little thing known as the Second Amendment to the Constitution. You can have my van full of fertilizer wired for detonation when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
  Note to NSA/DHS/FBI, et al.: This is what's known as a protest comment. The comment should not be taken literally. I do not own a van, flush my fertilizer nearly as soon as it is constituted, and the only thing I am aware of in my life that detonates is my true love, usually about this time every year.
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
51. Re:Thought Crime by TheLink · 2012-05-05 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Whatever happened to "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
  What happened? That remark has never been true soon after words were invented.
  And just wait till voice controlled stuff becomes even more popular and prevalent.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
52. Re:Thought Crime by LienRag · 2012-05-05 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  Where did you get that he was the one issuing threatening emails? Certainly not in TFA... The only thing I found that he confessed was discussing with internet trolls while under morphine for his discal hernia.
Higgs Boson is great! by MRe_nl · 2012-05-04 08:54 · Score: 4, Funny

And Standard Model is His prophet!

--
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
1. Re:Higgs Boson is great! by Chris+Burke · 2012-05-04 09:16 · Score: 2
  
  Have you heard the good news of our Super-Symmetric Savior?
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
2. Re:Higgs Boson is great! by MRe_nl · 2012-05-04 09:32 · Score: 2
  
  Begone, Fermion apostate!
  
  --
  "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Seriously? by schitso · 2012-05-04 08:59 · Score: 1

After his arrest in 2009 police found a large quantity of Islamist literature at his parents' home.
He obviously must be a terrorist, then.
1. Re:Seriously? by geekoid · 2012-05-04 09:13 · Score: 2
  
  one data pooint without context. Well done. Now you can forgo thinking all together.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:Seriously? by schitso · 2012-05-04 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  woosh
Re:Communication Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:00 · Score: 1

FTFY
a large quantity of Islamist literature by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-05-04 09:01 · Score: 1

i bet it turned out to be an oversized print of a single copy of the quran. jihad on me for not capitalizing it. so if i find a large quantity of christian literature, should i assume an impending crusade? actually, i probably should.

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
1. Re:a large quantity of Islamist literature by geekoid · 2012-05-04 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  If they also had made threats,had the means to carry them out, and was in contact with terrorist christian cells to aid in carrying out your threats? then yes, you should expect that person to carry out a Christian Jihad i.e. crusade
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:a large quantity of Islamist literature by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-05-04 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  sooooo, dubya bush then...
  
  --
  insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
"intent" is the concept in question here by circletimessquare · 2012-05-04 09:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

if you threaten mayhem, it is a not a "thought crime" to catch you and punish you on that basis
if you threaten mayhem it is a statement of intent, for which you can, and should, be punished
for example, if i were to threaten the life of the president, i would get a visit from the secret service, and i should get such a visit, and i should be punished
if i call my girlfriend and tell her i am going to kill her, she should call the police, and the police should visit me, and they should visit me, and i should be punished
this is not rocket science here folks. if you make a statement of intent to do bodily harm, it is going to be taken seriously, and it should be taken seriously
now mod me troll and go back to being flabbergasted at a simple commonplace and normal legal convention

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:"intent" is the concept in question here by BootysnapChristAlive · 2012-05-04 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  if you threaten mayhem, it is a not a "thought crime" to catch you and punish you on that basis
  The likelihood of them carrying out the threat must also be taken into account. For instance, we can't punish people who were simply emotional and/or joking and had no intent to carry out the threat anyway.
2. Re:"intent" is the concept in question here by circletimessquare · 2012-05-04 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  go ahead and threaten to kill someone. then later say you were just being emotional or joking. tell us how that works out for you
  you don't joke about making threats of bodily harm. it isn't funny, because the "likelihood" of carrying out a threat is not something that anyone except the threat maker can know
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
3. Re:"intent" is the concept in question here by BootysnapChristAlive · 2012-05-04 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  go ahead and threaten to kill someone. then later say you were just being emotional or joking. tell us how that works out for you
  Citing how the law is right now not isn't going to convince me of anything. If anything, it's just an appeal to law.
  
  it isn't funny
  Your opinion. There have been cases where people have been misinterpreted by the government. Everyone involved knew it was a joke, but since the government doesn't know people, they took it seriously (although the fact it was a joke should have been obvious).
  Having robotic, unsympathetic overlords as rulers can truly be harmful.
  
  because the "likelihood" of carrying out a threat is not something that anyone except the threat maker can know
  What are you talking about? After investigating (assuming it wasn't a completely obvious joke), if it is determined that they did not have the means to carry out the threat to begin with, a prison sentence likely won't be necessary.
  For instance, if someone said that they were going to build a billion nuclear bombs in a single day and shoot them at the US, that would qualify as an obvious joke. At the very least, nothing to take seriously.
  Lighten up.
4. Re:"intent" is the concept in question here by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  for example, if i were to threaten the life of the president, i would get a visit from the secret service, and i should get such a visit, and i should be punished
  This does not apply to some people
  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/publisher-regrets-suggesting-that-israel-assassinate-obama/
5. Re:"intent" is the concept in question here by rthille · 2012-05-04 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Not the same. I can say I wish someone would kill Rand Paul, but that's not the same as threatening to do it myself.
  Hell, didn't the CIA have an assassination market under the guise of payment for predictions on the date of death of people?
  
  --
  Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
6. Re:"intent" is the concept in question here by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 13:19 · Score: 0
  
  You know the 'Shift' key, the one you used to make the quotation marks around "thought crime", well you can also use that button to make big letters...
7. Re:"intent" is the concept in question here by Hognoxious · 2012-05-04 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  go ahead and threaten to kill someone. then later say you were just being emotional or joking. tell us how that works out for you
  Been there, done that. Drunken fight, telling off from police. NFA.
  And fix your shift key, you spacker. All lowercase is just so 1990s.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
8. Re:"intent" is the concept in question here by X.25 · 2012-05-04 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  if you threaten mayhem, it is a not a "thought crime" to catch you and punish you on that basis
  if you threaten mayhem it is a statement of intent, for which you can, and should, be punished
  for example, if i were to threaten the life of the president, i would get a visit from the secret service, and i should get such a visit, and i should be punished
  You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
  Yes, you would be arrested, but you would not be charged with "terror plot".
  
  if i call my girlfriend and tell her i am going to kill her, she should call the police, and the police should visit me, and they should visit me, and i should be punished
  You will find that in many countries, police can't do much, except bring the person who threatens in, talk to him/her, then release him/her. Court could try to prohibit that person from approaching/contacting you, but that is all pointless if person is planning to kill you.
  Once that person kills you, then the police can actually do something. Paradoxal, but that's how it is.
  
  this is not rocket science here folks. if you make a statement of intent to do bodily harm, it is going to be taken seriously, and it should be taken seriously
  if you threaten to 1% (or the 'president'), then yes - you will suffer some consequences.
  If you threaten to me or my neighbour, pretty much nothing will happen.
  Are you 12 years old or something?
  This person could have been charged according to laws that handle 'threats to president', but charging him with terror plot is beyond ridiculous.
  Thought crime. It is here, finally.
9. Re:"intent" is the concept in question here by circletimessquare · 2012-05-04 23:40 · Score: 1
  
  "Once that person kills you, then the police can actually do something. Paradoxal, but that's how it is."
  This is acceptable to you?
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Sideshow Bob says it best by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:06 · Score: 0

I'm presently incarcerated. Convicted of a crime I didn't even commit. Hah! Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?
Disagree on simplistic view... by SuperKendall · 2012-05-04 09:11 · Score: 2

for example, if i were to threaten the life of the president, i would get a visit from the secret service, and i should get such a visit, and i should be punished
You'd probably get a visit but you should NOT be punished.
In this instance the jail time comes because he went beyond stupid threats into contacting someone else about details that might bring threats to fruition. A much grayer area than mere threats...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Disagree on simplistic view... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:30 · Score: 0
  
  Earth to idiot - if they feel there is INTENT behind the threats, absolutely he should be punished. Otherwise, its a massive waste of dollars and time for the Secret Service.
Tutturu~ by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:14 · Score: 0

El. Psy. Congroo.
Leeeeeeet me guess... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:14 · Score: 0

He was trying to blow up the vatican with stolen antimatter...?
Imagine his power by Lucas123 · 2012-05-04 09:19 · Score: 1

The ability tear this universe another black hole. I just shudder to think.
Canada agrees by H0p313ss · 2012-05-04 09:23 · Score: 1

Uttering threats is a criminal act in Canada.

--
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
1. Re:Canada agrees by Hognoxious · 2012-05-04 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  That looks suspiciously short and way too readable to be a full statement of the actual law.
  If it applied every time someone shouts at someone for driving like an asshole or when people get riled up in a pub the entire population would be locked up.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
2. Re:Canada agrees by H0p313ss · 2012-05-05 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  That looks suspiciously short and way too readable to be a full statement of the actual law.
  If it applied every time someone shouts at someone for driving like an asshole or when people get riled up in a pub the entire population would be locked up.
  Fortunately Canadian judges are not elected. So you have to have a pretty good case.
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
I wonder about the sentence disparity by Quila · 2012-05-04 09:29 · Score: 1

Murder: Get X years, life in prison, or death penalty
Attempted murder: Get X/2 years
Why are we rewarding people for failure?
1. Re:I wonder about the sentence disparity by chadenright · 2012-05-04 09:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  We're selectively breeding for an inability to commit murder. Social engineering at its finest!
2. Re:I wonder about the sentence disparity by owlstead · 2012-05-05 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Why is this modded interesting? I have a strong feeling it does not work that way, and "we" are certainly not doing that on purpose. Funny maybe, interesting? Nah.
3. Re:I wonder about the sentence disparity by Lieu21 · 2012-05-05 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Where is +1 pedantic?
5 years is nothing by benjfowler · 2012-05-04 10:04 · Score: 1

The penalty for this very serious crime is unbelievably lenient. The muslims of France who would wish her ill, must be pissing themselves laughing now.
Healing Time by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2012-05-04 10:07 · Score: 1

Well now he has 5 years to let his back heal without too much else to worry about.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Missed opportunity for DCRI/DGSE by FatLittleMonkey · 2012-05-04 10:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

What ever happened to old fashioned spycraft? You know who he is, put him under surveillance, monitor his emails/phone/travel/visitors, he's in contact with al Qaeda, let him run with it. If he is directed to meet any local AQ contacts, bam, new surveillance targets. If he organises an actual attack, you intercept and now you have him and possibly a whole local cell, and not just for writing a few stupid emails. Hell, if nothing happens, then arrest him, wave terrorism charges at him, but only to turn him and send him out to work for you; give him a better story to lure out AQ, say he has access to radioactive material for a dirty bomb, but needs explosives and a bomb maker...

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 10:45 · Score: 1, Insightful

What constitutes a "large quantity" of Islamist literature? When Christians get arrested do the articles talk about large quantities of Christian literature being found in their homes? What a horrible article.
1. Re:Hmm by Roachie · 2012-05-04 12:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes.
  Next question.
  
  --
  This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
2. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-05 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  Yes.
  Next question.
  Two questions for consideration:
  1. What percentage of Christians worldwide supported support Breivik's actions?
  2. What percentage of Mulsims worldwide supported Bin Ladens's actions?
  Case closed.
3. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-05 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  Your analogy is too imprecise to serve as a valid criticism.
  (1) Islamist != Islamic. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist . It's not implied that he had the Qur'an or the spiritual sayings of Sufi mystics, but literature which explicitly makes a strict connection between politics and religion with often violent aims. "Christian literature" is too broad a category to be compared with Islamist literature, and most often it brings up images of non-political religious literature, rather than political Christian literature.
  (2) There is a significant material difference between Christian religious literature and Islamic religious literature, and Christian political literature and Islamist literature. Have you ever read the Bible or the Qur'an? If we give them the benefit of the doubt, then it's not the political nature of the writings that is problematic but the particular character of its politics, which is allied with terrorism. Not all Muslim political literature will be this way, and some Christian political literature will be this way, but the two categories are not the same.
  (3) I have seen plenty of documentaries on crazy people who use Christian symbolism to justify murder. In such cases, their 'Christian' literature has a violent character that is disturbing, and yes, in such cases the possession of such literature is looked upon with suspicion. Yet most Christian literature, political or not, is not of such a character.
4. Re:Hmm by Psyborgue · 2012-05-05 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Breivik called religion a crutch. Not many who believe in what the Bible said and who call themselves Christian would agree with that statement. He saw religion as a useful placebo -- one that he used during his attacks to avoid the fear of death. When he referred to himself as Christian he was doing so in the cultural sense (in the same sense as many neo nazis do), not in the Religious sense. He saw Christianity itself, as a religion, as far too pacifist for his goals and would be in need of reform. Nowhere in the New Testament (what Christians follow) will you find any incitement to violence. The Qur'an is an entirely different matter. It has entire chapters dedicated to warfare (8, 9, among others). Note that I am not a Christian. I'm just trying to be fair. All religions are bad, but some religions are far more dangerous than others.
Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 11:07 · Score: 0

You could look it up.
Or a more modern version, said in an exaggerated New Jersey accent:
"I wish somebody would take care of that pain in the ass."
ironic captcha: extort
What a fucking farce. by euxneks · 2012-05-04 11:10 · Score: 2

The security services uncovered a series of email exchanges between Hicheur and an alleged al-Qaeda member called Mustapha Debchi.
OK, Alleged. Someone alleged to be part of the Al-Qaeda. Why would that be a crime?

After his arrest in 2009 police found a large quantity of Islamist literature at his parents' home.
This is utterly ridiculous! What the fuck? Where is his religious freedom? I'm atheist as fuck, but if this dude had Christian literature it wouldn't have even garnered attention. Fuck everything about this.

--
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
1. Re:What a fucking farce. by MICHICAUST · 2012-05-04 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, there's a difference between "islamic" and "islamist". The former is the common person's islam while the latter describes an extremist and at times violent ideology.
2. Re:What a fucking farce. by Psyborgue · 2012-05-05 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  The former is the common person's islam. The latter is somebody who has actually read the Qur'an and follows it's commands. Islam is anything but a religion of peace.
Thought != Stated intentions. by TapeCutter · 2012-05-04 12:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

Issuing death threats in writing or over the phone is a crime in most places, when done in a manner that can be recorded a direct threat of violence ceases to be a thought crime and becomes a stated intention, (metaphorically, it's a declaration of war). OTHOH, 5yrs is way over the top for such a trivial offence against the peace the rest of us actively maintain, especially since he had time to act on his threats but chose not to. A weekend in the slammer would be more than enough to convince him he's not as 'smart' as he thinks he is.

I think more fair chunk of the violence in the world could be averted if someone steps in early and cools things down with a glimpse of the consequences (or a distractingly funny one liner), but 5yrs is stepping in with jackboots since it's longer than most people get for carrying out their verbal threats of violence.

In other words, there are no GoodGuys(TM) in TFA, it's not a matter of choosing who's right because neither side has a moral or ethical leg to stand on.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
1. Re:Thought != Stated intentions. by TapeCutter · 2012-05-04 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  /s "I think more fair chunk" , "I think a fair chunk"
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
2. Re:Thought != Stated intentions. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 20:03 · Score: 0
  
  Three strike laws are over the top. Helping terrorists (as in what he actually sought to do) is a crime. Don't you worry your bleeding heart thought, he'll barely serve 2years for good behaviour (which he has already served anyway).
  I'm not sure why people are so compassionate, the guy is a traitor and an Islamist, nothing really likeable about him. He had a fair trial and should take responsibility for what he did.
3. Re:Thought != Stated intentions. by LienRag · 2012-05-05 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  He had a fair trial and should take responsibility for what he did.
  Like you're obviously doing by posting AC...
4. Re:Thought != Stated intentions. by TapeCutter · 2012-05-07 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure why people are so compassionate
  Which makes me wonder why you think 'we' have a problem and you don't?
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
How much for theatening POTUS ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 13:50 · Score: 0

How many year in prison would you get for writing a life threatening letter to POTUS ? Because that is the equivalent here. So keep your BS about thought crime for yourself.
The Moral of the Story is... by captjc · 2012-05-04 14:14 · Score: 1

...don't associate with people named "Mustapha." Also "Damien", "Boris" and "Rasputin".
It won't end well.

--
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Its a statistics game; not security by bussdriver · 2012-05-04 14:19 · Score: 1

Another bad guy caught with another headline to make politicians and managers look good by playing the numbers game. Why delay another stat at great expense and lost political points when you can get results TODAY? Besides, enemies give you more purpose why would you want really to eliminate them completely?
Run the system like a business, short term gains at low cost and with high volume. Why invest in long term things that will benefit the people who get your job afterwards? If you don't perform as well as the last guy by raising the numbers you may not be around for long...

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Wait... by MICHICAUST · 2012-05-04 22:04 · Score: 1

...he didn't actually do anything and gets five years in prison for - nothing??? What third-world dictatorship does he live in?!?
In other situation... by Alex+Belits · 2012-05-04 22:38 · Score: 1

...I would welcome a 5-year prison sentence for a person who calls himself a physicist while entertaining idiotic superstitions. But this is a matter of incompetence and possibly fraud, not terrorism.

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.