Slashdot Mirror
"Terrorist" Lyrics Land High Schooler In Jail
An anonymous reader writes "A Methusen, Mass. high schooler, who goes by the rapper name 'Cammy Dee' has been arrested after posting lyrics that police felt were 'communicating terrorist threats.' This wouldn't be the first time rap lyrics were investigated, but if formally charged for 'communicating terrorist threats' this would a set a chilling low bar for terrorist investigations."
Really, if the police have time enough to deal with this, then clearly all the more important crimes have been resolved.
Welcome to the USSA where freedom of speech means freedom to praise your government, where the right to bear arms means the right to go hunting, where the right to not be searched without a warrant doesn't apply, where due process can be ignored if the president wants you dead.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
From looking at the story, it seems like some prosecutor here wants to come off as tough on crime and terrorists to further their political career. This is Aaron Schwartz all over again. This person in question is just some 18 year old who did something stupid. A reasonable punishment seems like 500 hours community service and a $1000 fine. No reason for 20 years in prison for doing something stupid that harmed no one.The average sentence for rape is around 20 years.
The very same day, the head of the NRA said that all americans should be trained in automatic weapons for the eventual day when we have to take over our government.
That was actually a multi-billion dollar statement in terms of cost to the US.
Why? because now all those people who hold security positions and had to sign that they had never belonged to an organization that advocated the violent overthorow of the US govt will have to be re-investigated if they continue to belong to the NRA.
It's basically sedition.
where the white house gets attacked. why dont we lock those fillmakers up? or at least those actors spewing those hateful lines.
Dystopian fiction has always been an interesting topic for nerds. I mean, I'm pretty sure all of us have at least read one or two good dystopian novels that have changed our ways of thinking (1984, Brave New World, We, Anthem, The Time Machine, A Clockwork Orange, etc.) and so when we see the dystopian future that we hoped only existed in the realm of fiction (or at least somewhere other than the US and Western Europe) happening in our backyard, it becomes a discussion point.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Armed citizenry is kind of how we broke free and ultimately formed the nation. Just because it wasn't specifically against the US government, it isn't any less valid.
Really? How many "hate criminals" are shipped off to Gitmo without a trial?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Armed citizenry is kind of how we broke free and ultimately formed the nation. Just because it wasn't specifically against the US government, it isn't any less valid.
And the French Army, which is a small detail overlooked by libertarian revisionists.
Here's the double-standard:
Every holy book has brutally violent sections. In the Old Testament God orders genocide more then once. Which means that if you think Islam has to be singled out due to it's violent nature you also think that Judaism, and the third Abrahamic religion (Christianity) need singling out. And in the US the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims are pretty much everyone. It should also be noted that all three religions are explicitly anti-freedom in their holy books. God never lays out a freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. in the Old Testament. He simply says "Do this Jew-boy, or I will find a really creative fucking way to make you suffer." He doesn't create a Congress to balance the Kings of Judea. He just makes David a King. Then Jesus shows up and he doesn't say "Only obey the Emperor when the Emperor respects this list of your freedoms," he says "give the Emperor whatever the fuck he wants."
In other words, you really don't want to have a debate over whether the Koran is more anti-freedom then your Holy Book. It may very well be, but the simple fact is that it doesn't really matter. Just as modern Christians and Jews engage in mental gymnastics to justify obeying three branches of government when God clearly establishes a King and no Legislature, Muslims can reason their way around a Hadith.
Moreover you're missing her point:
When's the last time you heard of a Neonazi attack called terrorism? What about the Klan? Both groups exist solely to terrorize large proportions of the American people, but they are never identified as terrorists. In fact the most successful terror-campaign in US History was the Klan's campaign against blacks in the aftermath of Reconstruction. Before the Klan started several southern states were majority black. They managed to get 20 point drops in the black population throughout the South.
The Armed citizenry was part of it, but you're missing a lot. The Prussian Drill Washington instituted under Baron von Steuben was the antithesis of Armed Citizens, and even with an Armed Citizenry and an actual army Washington couldn't win until after Admiral de Grasse delivered the historic coup de grasse at the battle of Chesepeake. Armed citizens could make it difficult for the British to hold territory, but they simply could not drive the British out.
And that was in the days when 100 guys with hunting rifles were better-armed then 100 combat troops with military-grade weapons. Nowadays military technology has moved on. A guy with a rifle is not a threat to any modern Army. What they fear are roadside bombs, IEDs, and similar devices.
Do you mean 1776? Because the change in government in 1774 was the creation of Congress, and if Congress is the "rogue element," that an Armed Citizenry is supposed to fight then the Armed Citizenry lost.
If you're trying to refer to 1776, as I mentioned in another post we couldn't have won that war without a professional army, the French Navy, and French money to pay for it all.
Even if you give the Armed Citizenry 100% credit, you have to ask how they'd beat the US Army today?
The Taliban have weapons orders of magnitude better then anything that has even been legal in the US because they have RPGs. Their backup weapon is better then anything currently street-legal in the US (fully auto AKs are not street legal). And yet most of their successful attacks are IEDs.
Military technology is changed. As a weapon today the rifle is where the sword was in 1860-65. It's useful militarily in certain tactical situations, but basing your entire tyranny-prevention policy on rifles...
Glenn Greenwald has been commenting on this issue for a while with respect to the disparate law enforcement treatment Muslims receive in general, and specifically most recently in the way the Boston bombers have been labeled terrorists before there is any real knowledge of motive.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/boston-marathon-terrorism-aurora-sandy-hook
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
This.
The thing that will prevent tyranny is an educated populace, and the political faction most associated with the NRA is the same faction that is trying to gut education in this country.
They want everyone ignorant and afraid, so they can sell more guns.
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
"Even if you give the Armed Citizenry 100% credit, you have to ask how they'd beat the US Army today?"
Members of the United States armed forces are also CITIZENS of this land. Each of them has a home, located in some city or town, located in some state or another. Each of them (well, the overwhelming majority, anyway) has loved ones, whom they probably value more than they value the US government.
I'll remind you of General Robert E. Lee, who didn't want to see the states fight each other - but decided that if there were to be a fight, he would fight for his home state of Virginia.
If revolution should happen, you cannot rely on the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force to remain intact as fighting units, to be used against the people of the United States. Nor can you rely on the government's ability to retain control over all the hardware, command infrastructure, or much of anything else.
For this reason, and others, the Department of Homeland Security was formed. The government hopes to retain control of DHS if and when the shit hits the fan. Unfortunately for the government - DHS consists of mostly incompetent buffoons, far less capable than agents from any other agency. Further, the loyalty of Napolitano's troops remain untested.
Anyone can sit around and make up scenarios about how a revolution would evolve, and the results of said revolution. History proves one thing: civil wars are fucking MESSY!!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br