Slashdot Mirror


'G20 Geek' Byron Sonne Cleared of Explosives Charges

New submitter davegravy writes "Byron Sonne, the Toronto-based security consultant, chemistry hobbyist, and geek who was arrested leading up to the Toronto G-20 for alleged plans to bomb the event, has been found not guilty of all charges. Sonne was held in prison for 11 months without receiving bail, and the ruling comes two years after his arrest. Sonne is considered by many in the Toronto security community as a champion of civil rights and a sharp critic of security theatre."

16 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. Unfair by Terry+Pearson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Those who oppose security theater are often it's first victims.

    1. Re:Unfair by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mr. Sonne went out of his way to purchase specific chemicals that are integral components in bomb-making.

      So what? Not illegal to purchase those components if you aren't making a bomb. In fact, it isn't even illegal to buy those things even if you're "thinking about" making a bomb. Possessing these things isn't a crime unless he actually builds a bomb. He didn't build a bomb, never had any intention of building a bomb, and the cops KNEW full-well he had no intention of building a bomb.

      So why the charges, if not to silence a critic?

      He went out of his way to express his intentions to "test security" at the G-20 summit.

      Not illegal. Ever heard of "Freedom of Speech?"

      Security took notice of those activities (which he apparently assumed they wouldn't), and they responded as if he posed a threat to bomb the G-20 summit (which was exactly what he tried to make it look like he was thinking of doing).

      More like they saw that a guy who'd been criticizing them publicly for ineffective security regimens and saw an opportunity to tarnish his reputation and chill his speech in the future by branding him a terrrorist. Even though he's been acquitted, the damage is done: In the narrow-minds of many this man is now a "terrorist" and damaged goods as a security analyst. ...All because he criticized the wrong person.

      And really, how anybody can claim it is anything else than that is beyond me: Almost every advanced nation factors a defendants INTENT to commit a crime into the equation of whether they're guilty or not. In no scenario can anybody claim this guy had intent to blow anything up: He's said he never intended to, and no investigator when pressed has EVER presented evidence he intended to build a bomb. This is a "wink-and-nod" between the cops involved to strike-back at somebody who is critical of their security-theater gravy-train--nothing more.

      --
      Who did what now?
    2. Re:Unfair by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What sort of response would you have the police make?

      You do realize it is possible to have an investigation and not file criminal charges, right? That there is no requirement to file criminal charges just because there has been an investigation, correct? That prosecutors aren't just "allowed" but are "expected" to not file charges in unwinnable cases because the defendant in question is somebody who has ridiculed them publicly for years. Don't you?

      That prosecutors and cops pressing an un-winnable case to the hilt, and just happen to be doing so against somebody who has been criticizing them publicly for years is a pretty large coincidence. But you're right, I'm sure his years-long criticism of Canadian anti-terrorism "security" theater had nothing to do with the reason he was used (correctly) to "send a message" to anybody else that might say the "wrong" things and "reveal our weaknesses" to "terrorists."

      You're right, nothing to see here: Big Brother always knows whats best, and ours is not to reason why.

      --
      Who did what now?
  2. Re:Could have been worse... by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At least he got a trial.

    Yeah. In Canada. Meanwhile, next door...

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  3. Doesn't matter that he won. He lost. by DynamoJoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He lost 11 months of freedom and overall two years of his life fighting bullshit charges. He had to move in with his parents, his girlfriend left him (she got arrested too), I presume he's no longer employed, and two years later he has nothing to show for it but a hollow victory in court. The government got what they wanted out of him: He's a warning to others of what they can do to you even if you've done nothing wrong.

    --
    bah.
  4. Re:How does it work in this case? by Rakishi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The prosecutors weren't inept. They knew exactly what they were doing and have managed to pull it off brilliantly.

    They wanted to make an example of him and scare anyone else from even thinking about talking against the government.

    They didn't need to win, they just needed to drag things out and hurt the guy as much as possible. The more inept the acted the better off they could do that.

  5. Re:Could have been worse... by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh, don't worry - even the guys in Gitmo get trials. If they're found guilty, they're either executed or locked up forever. If they're found not guilty, they go back into prison until the prosecution finds something else to charge them with. It's completely fair!

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  6. Bomb Ingredients? by mhajicek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Crown alleged he had all the necessary ingredients to build a homemade bomb

    I don't know anyone that DOESN'T.

    1. Re:Bomb Ingredients? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Crown alleged he had all the necessary ingredients to build a homemade bomb

      I don't know anyone that DOESN'T.

      This, a million times over; there isn't a homeowner in North America who doesn't possess materials capable of being combined for explosive effect, most of which reside under our kitchen sinks (or wherever you stash your cleaning supplies).

      Claiming this as a valid rationale for prosecution is like claiming that owning bullets is intent to commit murder. It's not valid, it's just fucking stupid.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  7. Re:How does it work in this case? by KhabaLox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it would certainly make railroading a lot less interesting for the prosecution

    I think you would find just the opposite. If the prosecutor faced jail time for losing a case, he or she would probably go to more extreme lengths to insure a conviction.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  8. Re:Could have been worse... by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Either they're civilians or they're POWs either way there are rules that we need to be following. This "they're enemy combatants" is basically a way of saying "they have no rights, not even the ones what we all got together and agreed that everyone has. We will do whatever we want with them; torture, endless imprisonment, sexual and religious humiliation, it doesn't matter because we have declared that the rules don't apply to them. It's bullshit. It's the kind of thing that America (home of the free) is supposed to be better than and it makes me personally ashamed of how my nation is treating human beings.

  9. Re:Could have been worse... by currently_awake · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Prisoners of War (soldiers) get released at the end of the war, not these guys. Civilians get charged in a civilian court with civilian rules and lawyers, not these guys. If you want to criticize China and Iran for this sort of horror you should avoid doing it yourself.

  10. Re:Could have been worse... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everyone has human rights. That's why they are called human rights, all humans have them.

    You can call them "unlawful combatants" but they are either civilian criminals or POWs. Not giving them any rights, torturing and treating them as sub human just shames yourselves.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  11. Re:Could have been worse... by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So what is he supposed to do?

    Transform gitmo into something worthy of human habitation and at least stop treating those who would be released as prisoners.

    It's funny how the US set up gitmo, breaking go knows how many laws, international treaties and human rights, but when it comes to dismantling the place, all of a sudden they can't because of the rules. Actually it's not funny at all.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  12. Lesson pointedly taught: Don't do this, or else. by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's why the 11 months, that's why the easily refuted charges, the pointless lying by the security forces. They aren't punishing him as much as they are demonstrating what they can do to YOU or YOU or YOU, if you get lippy.

    It's working. People are shutting up. You can't meter what ain't there, but public disagreement with the established police state is muted by these endless arrests. People don't want to go into debt for the rest of their lives, lose their jobs and their families, just to say "I disagree."

    Stay tuned for Rahm Emmanuel's series of lessons in Chicago later this week. It's Tuesday, and already the security forces are running helicopters overhead. We have LDAPs! Let the schoolin' begin.

  13. Re:Could have been worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    “Unlawful combatants” is political speak, an attempt to create a new category that does not exist, so that the government can say that these people have no rights.

    The Geneva Conventions have many different categories: enemy soldiers, enemy civilians, enemy civilians who have taken up weapons, enemy spies, criminals. The categories may not be mutually exclusive, but they are exhaustive. And all of them have rights. Their treatment will vary depending upon their category. But none of them are to be tortured. None of them are to be starved. None of them are to be treated unfairly. All are to receive appropriate medical care. And once the war is over (remember “Mission Accomplished”?), they are not to be detained indefinitely.

    Your own Declaration of Independence affirms that these people have rights, because all people have rights:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...

    Emphasis mine. Your Declaration of Independence, and your Constitution, apply not just to US citizens, but to all people, everywhere. Go read your country’s founding documents. They are things of beauty. It is a shame that people like you do not understand the noble ideals that your country was founded upon, and that US citizens do not force their government to uphold those ideals.