Slashdot Mirror


A Dispatch From Outside the Prison Holding Barrett Brown

Daniel_Stuckey writes with an excerpt from his story at Motherboard: "Yesterday, I got as close as any media physically can to Barrett Brown, the American journalist that was locked up in late 2012 for pasting a hyperlink in a chatroom, which federal prosecutors alleged contained leaked credit card data from the Statfor hacks. Due to a media gag order upheld by the US District Court in the Northern District of Texas, Brown isn't allowed to make "any statement to members of any television, radio, newspaper, magazine, internet (included, but not limited to bloggers)," with the exception of Kevin M. Gallagher, who heads his defense fund. ... Earlier this week, US Attorney Sarah Saldaña filed a motion to dismiss 11 of Brown's charges, namely those related to the pasted hyperlink (including trafficking in stolen authentication features, aggravated identity theft, and access device fraud). The motion came as both a victory for Brown's case, and a sigh of relief to supporters who have continuously cited the absurdity of his charges related to hyperlinking."

30 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. A year and a half locked up by mrspoonsi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No trial yet, his free speech (as a journalist) removed, why? does he have the knowledge of a WMD which can wipe out man kind? no, he pasted a link to some credit card data. Good job he not share a few mp3s, it could be much worse.

    1. Re:A year and a half locked up by mrspoonsi · · Score: 2

      Even if his found not guilty, the state have already 'won' by making serve so long in prison.

    2. Re:A year and a half locked up by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "files this Motion to Dismiss Count One and
      Counts Three through Twelve in the original Indictment and in the Superseding Indictment
      in the above entitled and numbered cause."

      It seems to me that some douchebag(s) decided that free speech should be punished based on bullshit reasons. They just made up bullshit reasons to have him imprisoned, and kept incommunicado. A year and a half on, "Your honor, we want to just dismiss all these charges. They are totally bogus, and we'll never be able to prove any of them."

      Yes, this IS very much about the government saying "you are busted for speaking".

      --
      "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
    3. Re:A year and a half locked up by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      How could anything he says possibly impede prosecution, incite others to repeat his crime or aid others in either committing it or cover their tracks? That would be pretty much the ONLY good reasons I could possibly see for a gag order.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:A year and a half locked up by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, he is still being held for access device fraud (possessing stolen credit card info) and making threats to an FBI agent and his family. He is also on some obstruction charges connected to his hiding two laptops from a search.

      The pasting of links and all are just in the middle of this making you think something that isn't really the case.

    5. Re:A year and a half locked up by gIobaljustin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gag orders are pretty common.

      I like how you say this as if how common something is makes a difference to whether or not someone's rights are being violated.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    6. Re:A year and a half locked up by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      The moment they get someone who CAN actually tell a hyperlink from hypertension in the jury the prosecution is screwed. Why do you think reporting about it could possibly change that?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:A year and a half locked up by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      It's common because the courts have upheld the practice.

      United States v. McVeigh
      Jones v. Clinton

      Those are two cases a gag order was used in whole or part and stood up to challenges on their constitutionality. I'm sure there are more should anyone bother looking.

      The way you want it to be isn't always the way it is. It's like the second amendment, shall not be infringed seems to mean unless some contrived situation exists like living in a democrat controlled state.

    8. Re:A year and a half locked up by gIobaljustin · · Score: 2

      It's common because the courts have upheld the practice.

      Given power, people will abuse it. This isn't surprising.

      The way you want it to be isn't always the way it is.

      I never said otherwise. The problem I have is when people state things in such a way that it suggests that courts' interpretations of the law/constitution are always right and no one can object. Maybe that's not what you meant, but the sentence I quoted (and the one after it) seemed to suggest that.

      It's like the second amendment, shall not be infringed seems to mean unless some contrived situation exists like living in a democrat controlled state.

      Yes. Or how certain weapons are banned.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    9. Re:A year and a half locked up by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What exactly are those?

      First amendment: freedom of speech.
      Fifth Amendment: deprivation of liberty without due process
      Sixth Amendment: speedy and public trial by jury
      Eighth Amendment: excessive bail imposed

      Sure, the government violates these rights often. Doesn't mean they aren't violations.

      If Nixon could have put Woodward and Bernstein in prison, incommunicado, for the rest of his term, he'd never have been impeached.

    10. Re:A year and a half locked up by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is something more, that is pretty obvious though.

      When an attorney thinks he has something, he goes into a feeding frenzy, making up charges, and piling them on ad infinitum. The theory seems to be, threaten a man with ten thousand years of prison and two executions, and he will confess to jaywalking and accept a mere one hundred years in prison to get out from under all the rest.

      "We're from the government, and we're here to help."

      --
      "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
    11. Re:A year and a half locked up by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Oh I know what you are saying about the frenzy.. that's likely why 13 counts were dropped- nothing but fodder to scare him and when it looked like it wasn't working, they decided not to bother.

      I was watching the state supreme court on the Ohio channel the other day and saw a case in which one of the supreme court justices asked a prosecutor if the gun spec for a crime was mandatory or something the prosecutor can pile on for leverage in negotiating a plea agreement. To think that a supreme court justice advocating piling charges on someone to force them to plea guilty to something less instead of pursuing or ensuring justice.

    12. Re:A year and a half locked up by diamondmagic · · Score: 2

      Yes, yes it does. Free speech means you cannot be subject to force or coercion for what you merely say.

    13. Re:A year and a half locked up by russotto · · Score: 2

      What did they do, threaten to charge his mother with more crimes if he demanded his right to a speedy trial?

    14. Re:A year and a half locked up by sjames · · Score: 2

      So the prosecution routinely overwhelms the defense with procedural crap to make sure it HAS to request an extension. That is, it constructively denies the right to a speedy trial.

  2. Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is why I thank the Lord that I live in the greatest country in the world and not in some craphole place like North Korea or Russia where journalists can get held in prison for years for like this. We should send in the best frikkin' army in the world and free him. That'll show those commie bastards.

  3. Media gag order by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The charges are stupid, but the media gag order is downright scary. There is a good reason the 1st amendment was written and it was that control of information is the ultimate in power. It was recognized that when the government is allowed to shut you up that it is then that the worst abuses can occur.

    But this case highlights another serious problem with the US justice system and that is where, after this is dismissed, that the prosecutors will face little or no consequences for trying to enforce the will of a corporation.

    And, of course, there is even less chance that this politically well connected company or its officers will face any consequences at all.

    There needs to be some mechanism where governments that try to abusively control information results in horrific penalties to those involved such as serious jail time. Otherwise those who leak, those who film police, and those who deny inconvenient freedom of information requests will just continue to hide embarrassing information using the most abusive powers at their disposal.

    For example, I can't remember the last time someone was arrested for filming and anything bad happening to the police who then tried to destroy the footage. This should be minimally resulting in destruction of evidence charges, and often kidnapping charges for the arrest. So no laws need to be changed or anything in these cases, just a willingness to realize that the police are not perfect little roses and that we are all better off when they are head up to even higher standards of justice.

  4. Prosecutors too busy to catch the real criminals by purpledinoz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It amazes me that US prosecutors go full throttle going after people like Barrett Brown and Aaron Swartz, while people like Jon Corzine (who made $1.6B of customer money disappear at MF Global) and many other fraudsters in the banking industry are left alone to continue their fraud. And no one seems to care enough to do something about it.

  5. Why ? Because USA has become more Soviet than USSR by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No trial yet, his free speech (as a journalist) removed, why?

    The United States of America was the country I fled to, after I got out of China.

    In the China I escaped from, back then, people could be locked up, without trial, and the authority could use any trump up charge against them, and there is nothing the people could do, as China has no "Bill of Rights" nor a Constitution that guarantees the rights of the citizens.

    Nowadays, in China, people are still being locked up, on trumped up charges, but at the very least, the authority has to try to prove that their trump up charge is valid (but of course everybody know that they are bullshit).

    On the other hand, the very country that I fled to, the United States of America has become the United Soviet of America.

    Not only the authority can lock up anyone with any trumped up charge, without any trial, the authority can also go against the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America, as though both documents are now as worthy as a soiled toilet paper.

    What the fuck is going on, man ?

    Why are the Americans, - (and I am one of them, a naturalized American) - especially those who are born and bred, letting the nation to turn into such a horrible police state ??

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  6. The "prosecutors" have become "PERSECUTORS" by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It amazes me that US prosecutors go full throttle going after people like Barrett Brown and Aaron Swartz

    Do not be amazed !

    The US prosecutors have become PERSECUTORS.

    Instead of prosecute, the PERSECUTE.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  7. In other words ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    ... this is not that different from the inquisition !!

    Instead of the "Spanish inquisition", what we have here is the American Inquisition.

    As though America never learn anything from the witch hunt episodes (including the burning of "witches" in the 1700's, and the "red scare" period in the 1950's) of the yesteryears.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  8. The state have "won" because by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... the state have already 'won' by making serve so long in prison

    The state have "won" simply because the Americans, me included, are morons !

    It is us, the American citizens, who let the government tore up the Constitutions and we deserve any and all abuses from the government.

    We are the ones who have ruined the country.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  9. Land of the free, home of the brave ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    Don't you make me puke !

    America is no longer the Land of the Free.

    America has become the Land of the Eunuch.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  10. Re:Why ? Because USA has become more Soviet than U by coastwalker · · Score: 2

    I am very sorry to say that it appears to be because the cold war is over and that the reasons we fought the cold war were being constantly repeated to us to justify the cost - "they don't have free speech, they don't have independent legal systems, they oppress minorities". Apparently now we no longer have that enemy we are fighting for those reasons its OK to openly do all the things that we were supposedly fighting against. Its very sad.

    --
    Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  11. Looc r Stac by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Insightful
    There is no perfect system of government. As one Dottie bumper-sticker claims, the Constitution of the US isn't perfect, it's just a whole lot better than what we have now.

    This is absolutely some bullshit, but even the most fervent Bill of Rights activist would admit Mr Brown kind of stepped on his dick when he pasted that hyperlink.

    His charges and time served are being acknowledged as absurd by the US Attorney's office because of attention like this. The powers that be are not so powerful yet that some semi-organized public outrage does not still motivate them.

    The poor bastards in Guantanamo have been largely forgotten... oh yeah, and they have the scarlet T on them.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Looc r Stac by rmdingler · · Score: 2
      If the bulletin board were to contain say, information such as credit card numbers and matching SSNs, the ground you legally stand becomes infinitesimally less stable.

      Old B squared has made much more of a career as a bear-poker than as an actual journalist, and should've been aware giving the opposition ammunition to use against him was in poor judgement. His heroin problem was widely publicized, perhaps for the same reason, but it plausibly contributed to his decision-making process.

      He's an idealist, and like many who've become heroes in the fight for personal freedoms, he is not without his flaws... but my hat is off to him.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  12. Re:Prosecutors too busy to catch the real criminal by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not that amazing. The US government has been sold off to the highest bidders. They just interpret the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean so it doesn't get in their way anymore. At least they're smart enough to know there are limits to what they can do without waking up the apathetic majority. As long as they don't go too far most people are content to ignore the danger of a government that has slipped it's leash.

  13. Re:Prosecutors too busy to catch the real criminal by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Personally, I find this to be the single most infuriating aspect of the financial crisis -- in any country. Every single time I hear about public time and money being wasted on frivolous prosecutions, I am keenly reminded that these are the same police services and directors of public prosecutions who won't investigate the banks. Not who can't; who won't -- Refuse to even. it would be one this if the justice system was simply universally inept. But cases like this shows they can and do act with extreme prejudice when they have a mind to.

    It's shambolic, slipshod, corrosive to the justice system and ultimately seditious. It's the clearest indication of the justice system which has been seized by political interests, and which refuses to perform its stated function to maintain the rule of law.

    P.S.
    Regarding Corzine. The money did not "disappear". Corzine stole it out of customer accounts to covers his bills at JP Morgan. He knew exactly where it went; and the SEC and the Justice Department know exactly where it went but refuse to do anything about ti. They're too busy perusing basement dwelling geeks and beatniks to investigate those cases which actually rock the foundations of commerce and law. Stellar job there Mr Holder; Kudos.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  14. Re:Prosecutors too busy to catch the real criminal by davecb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    France has examining judges, Canada and the U.S. have special prosecutors, in part to ensure that political pressure can't shut down a prosecution. Examining judges are mostly automatic of serious crimes, but special prosecutors are rare and unusual, and appointing one often take considerable political power.

    Solved problem in jusrisprudence, just not our jurisprudence!

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  15. Why is such an incorrect post "insightful" by HBI · · Score: 2

    First Amendment rights don't extend to threats and trafficking stolen financial instruments
    Fifth Amendment rights are clearly satisfied; the motion practice described above indicates he was charged and habeas corpus is not an issue.
    Sixth Amendment rights are muddied by the aforementioned motion practice - I am positive that if he had wanted a trial by now, he'd have one. I think the point is that he'd get convicted of something, hence the delay.
    Eighth Amendment - someone with a bunch of stolen credit cards available has resources, so evaluating 'excessive bail' ...please.

    Woodward and Bernstein weren't instrumental to the Watergate case, they were simply public relations arms. The case was proceeding without them, and would have ended up in pretty much the same place if they'd been run over by a bus. Despite the mythology, the principals would have found some other reporter to feed data to. The independent prosecutor was the key to the case beyond February 1973, initially Cox and later Jaworski. It is important to remember that initially, the press reports of Watergate were not considered a large issue by the White House. The potential testimony of the burglars themselves was the primary issue initially, hence the hush money delivered until after the 1972 election.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.