Slashdot Mirror


AT&T Hacker 'weev' Demands One Bitcoin For Each Hour He Spent In Jail

Daniel_Stuckey (2647775) writes "The notorious troll and hacker known as Andrew 'weev' Auernheimer spent 13 months in jail for exposing an AT&T security flaw. He was recently released when a federal court overturned the conviction on grounds of improper venue. Now, Auernheimer has penned an open letter to the Department of Justice in which he demands reparations for acts of 'fraud' and 'violence' carried out against him over the past three years. Those reparations must be paid in Bitcoin, he says — 28,296, to be exact. At current market value, that comes out to $13.7 million. The bombastic letter is titled 'Open letter to federal scum,' and was allegedly bcc'd to 'a few hundred journalists.' In it, 28-year-old Auernheimer writes that he calculated the sum owed to him based on his market value:" A gem: "Know that all this wealth will be directed towards a good and charitable cause. I am building a series of memorial groves for the greatest patriots of our generation: Timothy McVeigh, Andrew Stack, and Marvin Heemeyer. You see, In the 'Special Housing Unit,' which is Bureau of Prisons codespeak for 'solitary confinement' and 'torture,' I had enough time to think about the current state of federal government. "

269 of 449 comments (clear)

  1. A fifth horseman by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now we can watch our rights be taken away in order to punish assholes, on top of drug users, pedos, terrorists, and hackers.

    Remember folks, what the government does to weev, it can do to everyone else.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    1. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No shit? You mean the same country's government who passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, put the Japanese into concentration camps, got people fired and blacklisted for their political beliefs, etc. is more than willingly to abuse its powers? Say it aint so!!!

    2. Re:A fifth horseman by randomErr · · Score: 2

      The government has created a martyr. If they prosecute him again it will rally his troops. If they ignore him it will rally his troops. If they pay him off he will go away for a while.

      --
      You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
    3. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      His "troops" that is, people who think the likes of McVeigh, Stack, and Heemeyer as heroes probably doesn't need any more reason to rally. Most normal law-abiding citizens aren't going to rally behind the banner of McVeigh. He should have played the game and named a couple random founding fathers. Now he's allied himself with only those who find murdering innocent people a valid way to change the federal government (worked well didn't it?). I don't see him gaining much support.

      And why does he include Heemeyer in when speaking of federal government? Heemeyer's problem was with the local town council not the feds. He agreed to sell his property to a cement manufacturer for $250K then reneged and demanded $375K then a million. Obviously, the cement folks said fuck you and petitioned the town council to rezone an adjacent piece of land for their plant. The whole reason for Heemeyer's rampage was his own stupidity and greed. We're supposed to rally around that guy? You really want the law to allow you to go on a rampage if you, by your own greed, refuse a deal then get cut out of the final deal?

    4. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      This post is far too informative and fact-based to be useful around here.

    5. Re:A fifth horseman by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The government has created a martyr.

      No, they have created a kook. Anyone that considers mass murders to be "patriots", and thinks that the likes of McVeigh, Stack and Heemeyer are admirable, has lost all credibility. Rather than making the government more accountable, people like this give everyone that opposes authoritarianism a bad name.

    6. Re:A fifth horseman by bhcompy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly, it just sounds like he's picking at random, like in Die Hard.

      Karl: "Asian Dawn?"
      Hans: "I read about them in Time Magazine"

    7. Re:A fifth horseman by spire3661 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Larry Flynt was an asshole i can respect, but not weev.

      --
      Good-bye
    8. Re:A fifth horseman by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 1

      ...in order to punish assholes, on top of drug users, pedos, terrorists, and hackers.

      really??? drug users are in the same class as terrorists and pedophiles?

      jesus...with attitudes like this no wonder its so impossible for me to find any work whatsoever.

      --
      never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
    9. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Anyone that considers mass murders to be "patriots"

      US government drone strikes and bombings have killed thousands of people in the middle-east. In fact, thousands more than were killed in 9/11. Often, civilian "collateral damage" is considered perfectly OK.

      That is mass murder, and considered by the people doing it to be a patriotic thing.

      Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.".

      Seems like mass murder is more or less part of the national character in the US.

      Kook is a matter of historical perspective, and something the US (and in fact the world) has had in abundance for a VERY long time.

    10. Re:A fifth horseman by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      really??? drug users are in the same class as terrorists and pedophiles?

      How many billions have been spent on the war on drugs?

      Clearly someone thinks so. And has for a very long time.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    11. Re:A fifth horseman by slack_justyb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeap, this guy had a golden chance to make a cause and blew it by standing by people who kill other innocent people. Having a cause is one part knowing what to do and three parts getting the general public to like your cause. Using people who kill that general public tends to make them not like you all that much.

    12. Re:A fifth horseman by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Agreed.

      Now if he named folks like Snowden, Manning, and similar (where folks could actually go "yeah - they uncovered government badness and were whistleblowers", he could have gotten at least some support.

      I mean, c'mon: he could have even stopped short and not even named anybody. At first I figured okay, he probably got a bad shake and deserves the compensation for his maltreatment. But nooo... he goes on to let his freak flag fly, and name those dumbasses as his heroes. My thoughts immediately became: "fuck that."

      Mind you, the government is still way the hell in the wrong for locking him up if all he did was uncover a security flaw (and didn't sell or exploit it for personal gain), but holy shit...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    13. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "people who use drugs should be in jail"
      "everyone uses drugs"
      "wha-- no, not me! fuck you for saying so"
      "pain killers? alcohol is a drug... so is caffeine"
      "those dont count, my doctor gave them to me"
      "..."
      "and I need alcohol to face the shitty reality of my dismal life every day"
      "you're a cunt"
      "... I know"

    14. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "normal law-abiding citizens" is just a flowery euphemism for "thoroughly propagandized tools of the state".

      "Your Honour, I object to the suggestion that I'm a serial killer. I am, in fact, just not a thoroughly propagandized tool of the state."

      I'll grant that those who value liberty over social harmony,

      Are we using the sociopath's dictionary? i.e. "liberty" = I can do whatever and harm whoever the fuck I want; and "social harmony" = people agreeing that it's a bad idea to let me do this.

      In your example, Heemeyer owned his land and can sell it at whatever price he likes. When the prospective buyers didn't like the price, they used the power of the state to screw him over. This is corruption, not justice.

      Wrong! The "power of the state" is what was protecting him in the first place, i.e. zoning laws. He didn't like it when the state, seeing that he was greedily reneging on the initial reasonable sale price, stood back and respected absolute private property law: the right of the neighbouring business to build whatever the fuck it wanted on the land it owned next to his own.

    15. Re:A fifth horseman by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      No, they have created a kook. Anyone that considers mass murders to be "patriots", and thinks that the likes of McVeigh, Stack and Heemeyer are admirable, has lost all credibility.

      actually, mcveigh is a terrorist mass murderer, but stack and heemeyer are fellow kooks and crazies. neither of them killed anybody. stack stole a tank from a military base in san diego and led police on a low-speed chase and crunched several parked cars (no ammunition in the tank). heermeyer had a crazy grudge with the city where he lived, so he bought a bulldozer, "armored it" by reinforcing all sides with concrete and steel, then demolished several city buildings. In both cases, these dudes died (stack killed by police when the broke open the tank, heermeyer suicide when his bulldozer broke down.

      the sad news is that by sending out this "manifesto" weev made sure he will always be on a terrorist watchlist and will never fly again.

    16. Re:A fifth horseman by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      His "troops" that is, people who think the likes of McVeigh, Stack, and Heemeyer as heroes probably doesn't need any more reason to rally. Most normal law-abiding citizens aren't going to rally behind the banner of McVeigh. He should have played the game and named a couple random founding fathers. Now he's allied himself with only those who find murdering innocent people a valid way to change the federal government (worked well didn't it?). I don't see him gaining much support.

      McVeigh is the Oswald of our generation. A below-average special forces wanna-be who got duped into thinking he was being the hero, when in fact, he was getting setup to be the patsy for something horrible.

      Weev putting McVeigh on a pedastal for being anti-government proves that he's out of jail because he made a deal and switched sides.

      Comming soon: a new white-hat collective founded and lead by Weev, and staffed by future federal prison inmates.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    17. Re:A fifth horseman by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      What's your interpretation? Bloodshed and violence over politics are things that only happen in countries besides USA? That this quote couldn't possibly apply to the land we live in because our government isn't tyranical?

      I'm sure people told "TJ" the same things when he wrote it.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    18. Re:A fifth horseman by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >> The government has created a martyr.

      > No, they have created a kook.

      No, they have created a radical.

      Using the term "martyr" or "kook" is a judgment of merit. I agree with the latter, he's batshit looney, but it's not objective. Casting aspersions is all well and good in the popular media, but aren't we here to try to scratch a little deeper? Fine, he's a shitbag who's trying to get his ten minutes of fame and maybe ought to be back behind bars. But is he really the interesting part of the story in any sense other than lurid sensationalism?

      What we sane and self-aware citizens should be asking ourselves is not whether a lowlife deserves to be treated like scum -- of course he does, like terrorists deserve to be assassinated and child abusers deserve to be beaten. The question for us is whether we should do what we did -- not because he deserves better, but because we may have done something that is beneath us.

    19. Re:A fifth horseman by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Funny

      So you are saying we need to chose the lesser of the two weevils ? :-)

    20. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      US government drone strikes and bombings have killed thousands of people in the middle-east. In fact, thousands more than were killed in 9/11. Often, civilian "collateral damage" is considered perfectly OK.

      The fact that the US Government kills innocent people does not give us the right to kill innocent people ala Timothy McVeigh.

      Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.".

      Patroits and tyrants, yes. But Timothy McVeigh was not killing tyrants. Timothy McVeigh was killing innocents. Maybe a few people caught in the blast counted as tyrants, but the vast majority were innocents.

      Kook is a matter of historical perspective

      Perhaps, but saying "I did it because the US government is a bunch of kooks!" does not automatically make one not a kook, as you seem to think should be the case with Timothy McVeigh.

    21. Re:A fifth horseman by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.".

      From reading a lot of what gets posted by "patriots" on slashdot, you would think that Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the drool of wingnuts."

    22. Re:A fifth horseman by DG · · Score: 1

      And not at all surprising that it is posted as AC. Few would post something that stupid and mis-informed under their own name.

      McVeigh a hero? Sure, the same way Stalin was.

      --
      Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    23. Re:A fifth horseman by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 1

      You're using facts, logic, and restraint in your posts. You must be new here.

      --
      Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
    24. Re:A fifth horseman by pkinetics · · Score: 1

      Shawn Nelson stole the tank. Nelson broke his back and neck after a motorcycle accident. He sued the hospital, case got dismissed. Got addicted to meth, went off the deep end.

      Stack crashed his plane into the IRS building killing Vernon Hunter and injuring 13 others.

    25. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nobody made him sell his land.

      After he backed off from initial deal and then asked for ten times as much, the buyer said "fuck it" and got an adjacent plot of land. You know what "adjacent" means, don't you?

      Fucking corrupt government, not making this private corporation buy only my land and only on my conditions!

    26. Re:A fifth horseman by jp_831 · · Score: 1

      McVeigh's actions did work to an extent; there have been no more Wacos or Ruby Ridges since then. Now, they'll blight your career or arrest you on trumped up charges instead of killing you and murdering all witnesses.

      In many important ways, repression has become more severe, but casual wholesale massacres are no longer on the table.

    27. Re:A fifth horseman by kaladorn · · Score: 1

      Given his opinions, I wouldn't give him $0.01, let alone 13 million. And as far as demanding to be paid in bitcoins, ROFLCopter!

      If you voluntarily associate yourself with the murderers of innocent people, it says a lot about you. His own judgment is obviously very suspect (both for choosing associates and for assessing his worth). He comes off as a narcissist and a troubled soul who is projecting his rage at the outside world, rather than accepting responsibility and dealing with his own issues.

      He is neither hero, patriot, nor poor soul. He has made his own choices and has no ability (as far as I can see) to accept the consequences of his own decisions and their consequences. If this pattern repeats, he'll end up back in jail again.

      If he was smart, he'd take his freedom and run with it and spend some time fixing up his own problems.

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
    28. Re:A fifth horseman by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      neither of them killed anybody.

      Stack killed one other person besides himself. He seriously injured many more, and intended to kill them.

      stack stole a tank from a military base in san diego ...

      No he didn't. He crashed a plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas.

      You have him confused with Shawn Nelson.

    29. Re: A fifth horseman by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      You clearly have no idea. Here's your blue pill:

      http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

    30. Re:A fifth horseman by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Honestly... if McVeigh is his hero, I'm pretty happy about never having to be stuck in a tin can 35,000 feet up with him. Maybe he'd like to be a martyr to his cause, but I don't wish to be.

    31. Re:A fifth horseman by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      No, they have created a radical.

      A radical is someone who acts on their beliefs. A kook is someone that just posts their idiotic opinions on websites. This guy is a kook.

    32. Re:A fifth horseman by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      oh nm. I wonder what weev thinks of nelson?

    33. Re:A fifth horseman by NoKaOi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You see, In the 'Special Housing Unit,' which is Bureau of Prisons codespeak for 'solitary confinement' and 'torture,' I had enough time to think about the current state of federal government. "

      The guy is clearly messed up in the head from his experience (or maybe he was to some degree before, I don't know). They successfully broke him. Most likely with all that time in solitary confinement, in his mind he rallied behind the names of people who are famous for hating the government, regardless of their cause. I wonder if he can find a good psychotherapist willing to accept bitcoins.

    34. Re:A fifth horseman by jason.sweet · · Score: 1

      And why does he include Heemeyer in when speaking of federal government?

      Probably because of his sweet beard.

    35. Re:A fifth horseman by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Remember folks, what the government does to weev, it can do to everyone else.

      Sure. That is in fact one of the reasons that people establish governments in the first place: to keep other people socially constrained to a certain minimal level of acceptable behavior and to sanction those who do not comply. In the case of the US, the Preamble to the Constitution clearly states this as a goal: "We the people of the United States, in order to [among other things] . . . insure domestic tranquility . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

      What those behavior standards are and what sanctions can be applied reflect the society that establishes the government.

      In the Weev case, I think society's expectations and the government's implementation of those expectations don't really work that well for anyone. We've got a guy with personality, psychological and social problems that make him prone to bad behavior. They also make him rather thoroughly unlikable. So when he does commit a crime, his punishment is at least as much -- IMO -- for his unlikability and society's distaste for mental illness as it is for the actual crime committed. And for his punishment we choose the one thing that will certainly make him worse: increased, extreme isolation and other abusive treatment. To not expect him to come out worse than he went in is pure delusion. But this time it's society's delusion, not Weev's.

      The obvious strawman response to this is something along the lines of: "So, Rob, we should just let him get away with anything because he's 'sick'?" To which I have no response, because it's a strawman.

      My point is if we wanted to find a way to make a bad situation like this worse, it's hard to imagine how we'd do it more effectively. It's unfortunate for all of us that this is the best we've got.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    36. Re:A fifth horseman by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1

      The government has created a martyr.

      No, they have created a kook. Anyone that considers mass murders to be "patriots", and thinks that the likes of McVeigh, Stack and Heemeyer are admirable, has lost all credibility. Rather than making the government more accountable, people like this give everyone that opposes authoritarianism a bad name.

      Actually, he was a kook before this happened--his idea of fun was rape-trolling. Hardly an upstanding citizen to start with. It's part of the reason the feds felt so free to mistreat him--they knew his political views would make him toxic-waste for any activists trying to stick up for him. I'm also not discounting the possibility that they knew who this guy was and jumped at the chance to try and make anything stick just to see a world-class asshole get his comeuppance.

      Here's what's likely to happen: He'll get a lawyer who will tell him 1) You have a good lawsuit here, perhaps several, but 2) they'll never pay you in bitcoin, ever, and 3) Shut your goddamn mouth so you don't poison every potential juror on earth, because these swine will ALL roll the dice on trials with "official capacity lawsuit" lawyers defending them, so your best hope is to have jurors not know you're "pro-toddler murder" until AFTER the civil trial is over.

      Then he'll either shut up and collect his money and fade into obscurity or go for his 15-minutes-as-Cliven-Bundy and then fade into obscurity, but not before developing a lucrative right-wing/nutter following that he'll exploit through book sales and speaking fees.

      --
      Who did what now?
    37. Re:A fifth horseman by russotto · · Score: 1

      The government has created a martyr. If they prosecute him again it will rally his troops.

      He has no troops. If they prosecute him again, it'll be buried in the back page of a paper no one reads, or maybe it'll make Slashdot. Nothing will stop them, and this time they'll win. Or if they don't, they'll do it again.

    38. Re:A fifth horseman by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      drug users are in the same class as terrorists and pedophiles?

      Yes. Thanks to the War on Some Drugs, the government can steal your property without warrant or due process via Civil Forfeiture: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...

      See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... since it apparently went over about a dozen slashdotter's heads.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    39. Re:A fifth horseman by borcharc · · Score: 1

      What does whatever he wants to spend his damages on somehow reduce his right to damages?

    40. Re:A fifth horseman by dnavid · · Score: 1

      You see, In the 'Special Housing Unit,' which is Bureau of Prisons codespeak for 'solitary confinement' and 'torture,' I had enough time to think about the current state of federal government. "

      The guy is clearly messed up in the head from his experience (or maybe he was to some degree before, I don't know). They successfully broke him. Most likely with all that time in solitary confinement, in his mind he rallied behind the names of people who are famous for hating the government, regardless of their cause. I wonder if he can find a good psychotherapist willing to accept bitcoins.

      Everyone who thinks prison broke weev's mind seem to think its possible to break a bag of gravel by putting it in the wrong box.

    41. Re:A fifth horseman by PRMan · · Score: 1

      He was already messed up in the head. This just confirms it.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    42. Re:A fifth horseman by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 1

      FBI procedure was changed after Waco and Ruby Ridge before the Oklahoma City bombing, and even McVeigh himself regrets his actions (he wasn't aware the building included a daycare center)

    43. Re:A fifth horseman by TWX · · Score: 1

      Never attribute to maliciousness what you can attribute to stupidity.

      I suspect that weev's problem is that he lived a very insulated life by his own choice and wasn't forced to confront the realities of the rest of the world. Once he ran directly afoul of those realities he managed to work the reaction that he received into his existing world view, which served to reinforce it rather than to dispell it. I wouldn't be surprised if such a situation contributed to his being put into solitary confinement, and that what we're seeing is simply more reaction to how his life as he structured it came into conflict.

      I've been friends with a few other people that went through this, albeit to a lesser extent. For each of them it was a result of being surrounded only by people that either shared their view and acted as a mirror, or didn't challenge their view and thus provided essentially no help. In the case of the last friend that I found in this state I did challenge his world view, and as a consequence lost him as a friend for it.

      This is partially why education is important, and I don't mean education solely on subjects that the student wishes to learn, but general, broad education. Having one's beliefs challenged from time to time, sometimes successfully, helps keep people grounded in reality as opposed to perceiving the world to be structured in a way that it isn't. Being surrounded by only like-minded people that encourage only one view ultimately leads to disaster when things get out of hand.

      I'm not saying that weev was solely in the wrong in this instance, but I don't doubt that he actually made the situation worse for himself.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    44. Re:A fifth horseman by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      I believe the prevailing line among the die hard Oklahoma bombing defenders is that the daycare center was the moral equivalent of a human shield, instead of, well, an employee benefit.

    45. Re:A fifth horseman by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      oh nm. I wonder what weev thinks of nelson?

      Nelson was just crazy. He was a meth addict, and may have had some brain damage from a motorcycle accident. He had no political agenda. The others all had at least some political motivation.

    46. Re:A fifth horseman by ultranova · · Score: 1

      the sad news is that by sending out this "manifesto" weev made sure he will always be on a terrorist watchlist and will never fly again.

      So what's sad about it? He gets to pretend he's Kinda Big Deal, NSA gets to take its voyeuristic tendencies out on someone who both deserves and likes it, and the rest of us don't have to worry about the little egomaniac going over the edge and imitating his idols.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    47. Re:A fifth horseman by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      and the guy who drove an armored bulldozer through city hall? he sounds like a nut case to me.

    48. Re:A fifth horseman by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      it's sad because he's obviously a nut case after being in solitary and is lashing out with nasty language. He'll get over it after some R&R and therapy for several months. But he'll be branded with this for his whole life. I doubt he really understood the consequences of his actions, or didn't care because he was swept up with delerium.

    49. Re:A fifth horseman by Hategrin · · Score: 1

      Philosophically, it doesn't. But the reality of political science (if it's not business, it's politics) isn't rooted in Socratic wisdom or Aristotelian Logic.

    50. Re:A fifth horseman by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'd give him a lot more than $0.01! I'm willing to support allocating whatever government resources are needed to prosecute him in an appropriate venue and house him indefinitely.

    51. Re:A fifth horseman by yacc143 · · Score: 1

      US government drone strikes and bombings have killed thousands of people in the middle-east. In fact, thousands more than were killed in 9/11. Often, civilian "collateral damage" is considered perfectly OK.

      The fact that the US Government kills innocent people does not give us the right to kill innocent people ala Timothy McVeigh.

      True. And McVeigh was mostly a home-made terrorist.

      That still leaves some issues:

      • How do you influence a government (and their private sector buddies, let's call them the "elite")? They've shown many times that they don't really care much about their constituents. Plus they've shown time over time, that they don't consider them bound by the rule of law.
      • One has to wonder how the press in GB at the time described the Founding Fathers. Wonder if they were described as nice loving freedom fighters. And how the current press (current language usage, morals, understandings, would describe the situation in the colonies.
    52. Re:A fifth horseman by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      And it is precisely sociopathy to have an absolutist stance of "liberty" over "social harmony".

      Cause you know, sociopaths are always so absolutist in protecting the liberty of other people.

    53. Re:A fifth horseman by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      A kook is someone that just posts their idiotic opinions on websites. This guy is a kook.

      No, kook is still a value judgment, much like calling his opinions idiotic. They may be so -- I even think they are -- but focusing on that aspect of this story is sensationalism, not thinking. It is better left to the drooling mouth breathers who think Jerry Springer is hard hitting journalism. Like calling Hitler a madman, it may be true, but it is shallow and has no place in substantive discussion.

      A radical is someone who acts on their beliefs.

      Wrong. A radical who acts on their beliefs (in the sense I think you are implying) is a specific subtype of radical, "violent extremist."

    54. Re:A fifth horseman by TriCCer · · Score: 1

      It's a post about a slashdot troll, and not even the mods seem to notice.

      --
      c0w goes moo.
    55. Re:A fifth horseman by TheRealLifeboy · · Score: 1

      You're replying to a post about McVeigh, who indeed was guilty of multiple homicide.

      Ah, McVeigh, who didn't get a fair trial even close. The whole inquiry into the OCB event was just as one-sided and staged as was the 9/11 report conspiracy of the US Government.

      And then people all over the world are dumbfounded by clowns like AC who don't use an iota of their briancells to think or question. To AC and his buddies there are no woods, only a few perfectly explicable trees... not being able to see past them is the tragic comedy of mainstream US dumbed-down sheeple.

    56. Re:A fifth horseman by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Why do you specify "other people" when that was not stated before? Every champion of "liberty" over "social harmony" means their own liberty over the liberty of others.

    57. Re:A fifth horseman by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3663... He confessed. There was no doubt that he was the man. He did it. That the trial assumed that a little more than normal, but hardly "unfair". Had there been some defense, he'd have had an opportunity to present it. Which parts of the trail were unfair? The "report" isn't a trial.

    58. Re:A fifth horseman by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Billions? Try trillions.

    59. Re:A fifth horseman by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      It's not a diehard bombing defender thing, I don't condone what McVey allegedly did, the simple fact is that placing creches in certain Government buildings is a relatively recent thing. So is planting bombs in them. Under them. Next to them. Whatever. Which came first? Employee daycare, or nutballs leaving truckloads of fertiliser outside? I've been away too long, I lost my TFH passcard. May I have another?

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    60. Re:A fifth horseman by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      Hitler was a hero to the Germans, right up to the point where he was cornered in a bunker in Berlin (allegedly), only the reports of his passing had the final diehards (pardon the pun) drop their weapons and raise their arms in surrender. I'm pretty sure the Caesars were beloved of the Roman Empire, right up to the moment the knife went in. But to those who write the history, Hitler, McVeigh, Gadaffi, Hussein, and Khan were all psychopaths. History on all those people has been rewritten, redacted, classified, buried, and reworked into urban legend. I wonder if you ask an Iraqi historian, if he'll agree that Winston Churchill was a hero, or a villain?

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    61. Re:A fifth horseman by fuzzy2k · · Score: 1

      And why does he include Heemeyer in when speaking of federal government?

      The whole reason for Heemeyer's rampage was his own stupidity and greed. We're supposed to rally around that guy? You really want the law to allow you to go on a rampage if you, by your own greed, refuse a deal then get cut out of the final deal?

      Consider the source. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but apparently would like to buy a drawer of his own. He wants to be paid somewhere between 3 and 700 dollars/hour for his time, due to getting off on a technicality. It could be he was let go more because the prosecutor couldn't figure out how to explain what he did, than anything else. Still, he wants what may be worth millions, or maybe only several hundreds, of dollars for his time and inconvenience.

      Go big or go home, as they say. He was clearly paying at least half assed attention when that phrase came up somewhere. At the very least he knows how to get some attention here.

      --
      --- Say something clever. Pretend it was me. Thanks.
    62. Re:A fifth horseman by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      Why do you specify "other people" when that was not stated before? Every champion of "liberty" over "social harmony" means their own liberty over the liberty of others.

      Because when I speak, I don't go along with statist propaganda about my own views. Champions of liberty mean everyone's liberty.

      Champion of "social harmony" mean harmony with their vision of society, and if you don't happen to want to live that way, they're happy to use violence and threats of violence against you until you comply.

    63. Re:A fifth horseman by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Because when I speak, I don't go along with statist propaganda about my own views.

      OK, so you make up your own words. Got it. Since you choose to ignore a common language, I guess there's nothing else to say. Whenever caught in stupidity, you'll just claim I'm using the "statist" definition or something.

  2. Clearly they've broken him and... by Assmasher · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..he's now Weev 2.0 - now with added 'crazy'!

    --
    Loading...
    1. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Prison does that. Americans are so interested in retribution and punishment that they forget what can happen to someone you treat like an animal, particularly given that said person will be released some day. The ironic part is that death row inmates are treated far better.

    2. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 2

      We need to stop letting sociopaths run our prisons. We should be giving all candidates psychological tests to make sure they're all compassionate people interested in keeping their prisoners safe and rehabilitating them so they can turn their lives around. Of course if you push for this, there are a ton of right-wing lunatics that will embarrass themselves by calling you "a bleeding-heart liberal." It's hard to reform society when many terrible people vote.

    3. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yeah, nobody sane is going to sympathize with Timothy McVeigh.

      His reference to solitary confinement caught my attention. There was a recent Frontline on solitary confinement. It is scary. It is a modern-day dungeon. These guys are so messed up there is nothing to do but lock them up and throw away the key, which messes them up even further. The convicts certainly aren't blameless to begin with, but we are over-doing it. I non-violent hacker (if that's what "weev" is/was) should not be there.

    4. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      I totally agree.

      I can't imagine a scenario where sensory deprivation does anything other than make things worse. I can understand separating them from the population and taking away privileges, but there should be some basic privileges that you simply don't take away - otherwise you get 'crazy' more often than not (it would seem.)

      --
      Loading...
    5. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We all know this, but no one cares enough to actually do anything about it...

      A government powerful enough to give you everything you need is powerful enough to take everything you have...

      That isn't something taught in public schools of course, but it should be...

    6. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by TheCarp · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Oh you mean a sane person couldn't idolize a mass murderer who has used bombs to commit murder? Because that describes two men I can think of who get a lot of idolization.... Obama and Bush. Each of them and the people under them are easily responsible for more murders than any of the people on that list.

      I see no real difference. At least those people acted on their own rather than ordering someone else to do their dirty work.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    7. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      I always wondered that with the recidivism rate so high and the cost of housing inmates so high, solving the post-release job/hiring issues by offering employers who employ ex-convicts an annual/monthly tax break for employing them.

      At rates of over 70% nationally for many crimes, offering 70% of half of that cost to employers annually would be interesting. Offering them nearly a thousand dollars a month in tax breaks for each convict employed at some specified pay rate...?

      Surely, less difficulty in securing and holding a job would lower recidivism. Very few people appear to enjoy prison, and yet struggle far worse after they get out than before they went in.

      Anyhow, I'm speculating wildly, but what we currently have does not work at all...

      --
      Loading...
    8. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Sperbels · · Score: 2

      Well, if the rumored prisoner/guard experiments are true, even compassionate guards turn into animals when given the opportunity.

    9. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's plenty of things wrong with our prison systems. There should be less effort spent on "punishment" and more time spent on education and reform. I'm not talking about Clockwork Orange type of reform; I'm talking about getting these criminals into a class room and teaching them something. Not just the basics like reading, math, and history, but also a trade.

      This is critically important. Imagine some guy who had a hard time making a living. He held up a as station at gunpoint to grab a few hundred bucks to pay the bills or whatever. The judge sends him to prison for 5 years.

      What happens when this guy gets out? He had a hard time finding legitimate work before and he'll have a really hard time finding it now. So what happens? Desperation sets in. Another robbery. Maybe drug peddling. Whatever. The cycle continues.

      We need to spend time on breaking this cycle and that means training these guys and getting them prepared - especially mentally and socially - for a life after prison. What we do to inmates right now is in and of itself a crime. Is it any wonder our prisons are so full?

    10. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by timeOday · · Score: 2

      I don't follow your logic. Let's assume you're right about Obama and Bush. How does that make McVeigh a great patriot? What you do you think he accomplished?

    11. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Unemployed? Commit a small crime, do a short sentence, then tack on "brings tax breaks" to your resume.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    12. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Assmasher · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That really makes sense. If you're unemployed, instead of getting a job commit a crime, do some time in prison, then decide, ok - now I want to get a job and I bring a tax break, you just have to accept that I'm an ex-con.

      Talk about a straw man...

      --
      Loading...
    13. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by digsbo · · Score: 3, Informative

      What rumored experiment? It's well documented: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    14. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Ichijo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Governments should assess the societal cost of each inmate who continues to commit crimes and offer half of that to the prison if the inmate emerges properly rehabilitated, perhaps in lieu of the normal per-inmate payments. This would make the profit motive work for us rather than against us as crime is lowered and our streets become safer.

      Of course it might result in prisons wanting to release some murderers early because they've been rehabilitated, and some prisons may even refuse some shoplifters if they think the cost of rehabilitating them outweighs the societal cost of them stealing a pack of gum every once in a while, but would either of these results really be so bad?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    15. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Actually, some states do (did?) exactly that. Long ago, I worked at a poultry processing plant in Arkansas, and many of the workers there lived in 'halfway houses', where they were part of a program to ease inmates of the state prison farms back into society. It was a parole alternative for non-violent offenders/convicts, but they got out of prison earlier, depending on behavior. They were paid the regular wages, worked regular shifts, but went home every day/night in a van, and the halfway house was locked up. If anyone did anything dumb, they went back to the farm, but aside from a few re-integration classes and being confined to the home when they weren't working, they were treated like anyone else.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    16. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Actually, I saw a program just like that (see above) - the company gets a solid tax break, the inmates' money is put into a savings account in their name (minus a small monthly stipend for housing), and they even had classes to help the inmate learn how to function as a normal human being.

      The soon-to-be-ex-con gets a job and a chance to prove themselves. I know of one who not only worked his ass off at the plant, but after he got out they hired him on as a supervisor with a nice raise to boot. Many of the inmates there did pretty well (most likely because the selection process to get there in the first place, the requirement to be a non-violent offender, etc.)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    17. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      That's not even remotely the same thing.

      --
      Loading...
    18. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      While war tends to kill a metric shitload of innocent people, there are distinct differences between it and simple mass murder.

      I'm not saying that either one is right or just, but at least try to learn the differences. Simple equivocation of the two is a sign of ignorance and/or naiveté. Please stop doing that.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    19. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      The tax breaks are there. The resume-building is there. The gaining of a good track-record is there. What more did you seek?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    20. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      Governments should assess the societal cost of each inmate who continues to commit crimes and offer half of that to the prison if the inmate emerges properly rehabilitated, perhaps in lieu of the normal per-inmate payments.

      dude, how much could I be paid if I went out and did a crime and confessed so I was a "first time offender" who could be rehabilitated?

    21. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      And, are you suggesting mass murder is OK as long as you accomplish something?

      Your question is paradoxical only because of how you phrased it, since we only call something "murder" after we judge it to be unjustified.

      But I guess the basic answer is "yes," or in other words, I am not quite a pacifist. For example I cannot blame Russia for violently resisting German invasion in WWII.

      A basic calculus for this would be whether the killings (e.g. bombing an invading army) will save more lives than it costs. A more messy but more reasonable calculus also must weigh the guilt or innocence of the people likely to perish, or at least the merit of the causes those people are fighting for (since individuals generally have very little choice which side they fight for.)

    22. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      Read the lucifer effect by Phillip Zimbardo

    23. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      Where, in your post, are the tax breaks?

      Where did my proposal mention resume building?

      Where did I propose anything about a "good track-record"?

      You also seem to have confused released inmates with "halfway houses."

      Half-way houses are not "parole alternatives" they are used to help parolees integrate back into society.

      --
      Loading...
    24. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      The CIA using drones to kill civilians in countries you are not at war with is not war. It's state-sanctioned murder.

      If the Pakistani secret police flew a drone into NYC and blew up buildings full of civilians, I'm pretty sure you'd call it terrorism. The US is doing this every single day.

    25. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      McVeigh knowingly targeted a building with a day care center in it and killed 19 kids along with the rest of his victims.

      That isn't patriotism and it isn't "action against the government." That's straight up terrorism.

    26. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Fascinating article. I'm sorry that I have no mod points to give you a boost but thanks for the thoughtful essay link.

    27. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      Of course if you push for this, there are a ton of right-wing lunatics that will embarrass themselves by calling you "a bleeding-heart liberal." It's hard to reform society when many terrible people vote.

      Well, your suggestion is pretty ridiculous and it does sound like a very bleeding-heart liberal thing to say. Personally, I'd probably fail a "psychological compassion test" but I'm still pragmatic enough to realize that our current prison system is a terrible way to deal with criminals and does nothing to reform them. Your solution is very micro and does nothing to change the overall structure of the prison system. It also doesn't do anything to cull the prevalence of sociopaths among prison guards -- a defining characteristic of sociopaths is that they're pretty good liars (lying is easy when you lack a conscience), which makes subverting a "psychological compassion test" pretty easy for them when they realize what they're being tested for.

      A macro solution would be removing private industry from the prison system so prisoners aren't merely livestock for a company that lobbies to incarcerate more and more people. Turn prisons into educational facilities rather than controlled housing facilities that sometimes offer bits of education. Reduce prison populations by legalizing marijuana, improving public education, and get rid of prison sentences for most non-violent crimes.

      About the only thing psychology is good for is advertising. It's an embarrassment to science.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    28. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Room and board. Society shouldn't require committing crimes to get these things.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    29. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Drethon · · Score: 1

      And a patriot uses indiscriminate targeting to carry out patriotic plans?

    30. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by pkinetics · · Score: 1

      Without knowing anything about him, I'm guess he has delusions of grandiose and persecutory.

    31. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We need to stop letting sociopaths run our prisons. We should be giving all candidates psychological tests to make sure they're all compassionate people interested in keeping their prisoners safe and rehabilitating them so they can turn their lives around. Of course if you push for this, there are a ton of right-wing lunatics that will embarrass themselves by calling you "a bleeding-heart liberal." It's hard to reform society when many terrible people vote.

      Not gonna help. We know now from sociological experiments that the environment turns nearly all the guards into sociopaths. It's a structural problem, not a people problem.

      But the most pressing issue with our prison industrial complex is the sheer volume of citizens that are subjected to it. The US has the largest prison population by far in the entire world, both by numbers and proportion of the population. And that is directly attributable to the police-state infrastructure created and perpetuated by the Federal government, just like Weev has stated.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    32. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by umghhh · · Score: 1

      'when given opportunity' is a key phrase. Society that is by principle and openly hard on crime to keep children safe and all these other things, goes quite close to giving a hint that this i.e. treating others like trash will be tolerated behaviour. Add to this overcrowding and privatization of penal system and you get a perfect situation when the condition you stated is almost always true. It is in fact a wonder that terrible things do not happen more often.

    33. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      It would be interesting to compare and contrast the "before being f*cked by the government" weev's thinking to post prison weev...

      --
      Loading...
    34. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      I always wondered that with the recidivism rate so high and the cost of housing inmates so high, solving the post-release job/hiring issues by offering employers who employ ex-convicts an annual/monthly tax break for employing them.

      We already do that. It's called the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC). Unfortunately, it's suspended right now and Congress is not taking up renewal until the Republicans concede to including a raise to the minimum wage in the same bill. It's sad that actual useful ideas that both sides can agree on always end up with poison pills added from one side or the other.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    35. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      So, civilian "collateral damage" in Iraq and Pakistan is OK then?

      I didn't say it was always justified, or often justified, I just gave one extreme example in which it was justified. For what it's worth I think the Iraq war was a big sham, and also huge mistake even from a purely selfish (for the US as a whole) perspective.

    36. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      Thanks for pointing that out. I like it, the only problem is that the amount is really low. $2400 annually tax credit at the very most and there are lots of conditions on them.

      Better than nothing though.

      --
      Loading...
    37. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      If the Pakistani secret police flew a drone into NYC and blew up buildings full of civilians, I'm pretty sure you'd call it terrorism.

      There's a difference between Pakistan and the United States that you've overlooked: We keep our dogs off their lawn. Nobody in the United States is planning the mass murder of Pakistanis. If they were we would take care of them ourselves. We wouldn't let somebody who killed 3,000 Pakistanis live 5 miles from West Point.

      Perhaps if the Pakistanis cleaned up their own backyard we wouldn't have to do it for them?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    38. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      Did you read the criticism section? The Stanford prison experiment and the related Milgram experiment are considered case studies in bad experiment design in early psychology.

    39. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by dugancent · · Score: 1

      He did no such thing. He blew up a federal building, in a different state, full of people that had no connection at all to what happened there.

      He accomplished nothing.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    40. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1

      And that is directly attributable to the police-state infrastructure created and perpetuated by the Federal government, just like Weev has stated.

      True enough, but not exactly the poster-child we'd like espousing the point of view that the government is fucked and needs desperately to be reformed.

      --
      Who did what now?
    41. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I make simple equivocation because I understand these so called differences and judge them to be nothing more than window dressing. Those differences are immaterial to me; in fact, I would go the opposite way. You see, war is a political crime committed by people in power....people who, by the very fact that they are in power, have less excuse and should be held to a HIGHER standard for their actions, especially violent ones when they really have less justification than others for violence.

      So Tim Mcveigh yah, he did something bad, but every single drone strike is worst than what he did, because they deserve to be held to a higher standard for their behaviour. Your "differences" are little more then the excuses that allow those in power to hold themselves to the lowest possible standard or even none at all since they never face any repercussions for flagrant violation of even those standards....and even if there was a reckoning, they would just toss some of their lowest level fodder to be sacrificed for their transgressions.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    42. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      And there is one you have overlooked.... that all people (not just citizens, not just people we like, not just people physically here) are innocent until proven guilty. So nobody there is planning it either until you prove they are in a court of law. Or at least.... the US government made in their constitution the promise to all of us that they would hold that standard. Pakistan never promised that to me or mine.

      So the US government really has no place engaging in extrajudicial killings based on heresay, which is exactly what their drone strikes are. Your claim that its about people planning to kill us is not being proven in a court of law, no charges are being filed....this is simple mass murder, and a breach of the very contract upon which the government was founded.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    43. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Innocent until proven guilty is a concept of the civilian criminal justice system. It does not apply on foreign battlefields to those who are trying to kill us. The relevant legal precedents go back centuries and don't say what you think they say. Our actions in Pakistan/Afghanistan are perfectly defensible from a legal standpoint.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    44. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      "Rehabilitation" is something that the general populace believes in and blindly assumes is the purpose of prison, but the legal system and prisons themselves have long made it officially clear that rehabilitation is not the purpose or intent of jails and prisons, nor is it part of their mandate. Prisons will generally take that to the extreme and point out that since they're not legally instructed to do rehabilitation, it would be some sort of illegal experiment if they tried.

      Any "rehabilitation" is entirely the responsibility of the prisoner.

    45. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Yes and that is why I don't consider that legal standpoint as a reasonable standard...and in fact, pretty fucking worthless.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    46. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most crime is caused by poverty and unavailability of employment. A fact that has been known for well over two hundred years.

      I know some homeless people who have commited crimes for the sole purpose of getting a prison stint as it is altogether more comforting than living on the street. "At least in jail, you know where your next meal is coming from".

      Watch any documentary about homelessness and you will see this is not an anecdote but a near-universal maxim.

      Create a system where "ex-cons" are discriminated against, and those same people are going to go and commit more crimes seeking the spoils of crime or the comfort of incarceration.

      In South Korea, a persons criminal history is secret once they are released from jail. The moral logic is sound: they commited a crime, they paid the penalty, they are again on equal moral footing with everyone else. The rational logic is sound: disclosure of criminal history results in persecution which results in recidivism.

      The system we have in western countries of persecuting for life "rehabilitated" people is sickening from a moral perspective, and unsound from a rational perspective.

    47. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by airdweller · · Score: 1

      Don't read it. Zimbardo is a bad scientist.

    48. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by digsbo · · Score: 1

      You don't need to have statistical significance and best-practice psychometric design to make useful observations. There is certainly a big difference between the design of psychological studies that identify things like the correlation between childhood abuse and self-injurious behavior (cutting), and experiments such as this one, which are obviously not expected to yield statistically meaningful data, but rather create a situation in which dynamics can be observed. Many of the dynamics of the experiment which can be criticized as flaws can also be observed in the real world scenarios it was meant to emulate. The criticism of both this and the Milgram experiment are largely based on the combination of causing real harm to the subjects in addition to having a vague and statistically meaningless/useless outcome. But even by recognizing the experiment could cause real harm, we certainly advanced the science, and also became aware of dynamics that surprised people, while documenting them and providing a basis for future evaluation and refinement.

      You don't start off with good experiments and results. The beginning is rough.

    49. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Prison is the opposite of rehabilitation. It was always meant to be in the US. It's a shame that reforming people is considered "soft on crime". It's cheaper and more effective, but not politically acceptable. That always proves to me that Libertarians aren't about "small" or effective government, but sociopathic hate of everyone else.

    50. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      running prisons for profit demands that every cell is occupied - to maximise profit. Rehabilitation of offenders as productive members of society does not bode well for the future of your private prison. What's the point of it if it's empty? You also want low-maintenance prisoners. The State can keep the dangerous ones in their high security prisons where the guards carry shotguns and watch from a safe distance and behind chicken wire, I'll take the local taxation dodgers and the parking fine refusers in my private prison, because they're the fools that can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag never mind even think about anything so radical as set light to a toilet roll and stage rooftop protests... it might also help to have a friendly judge to keep feeding the machine. Wouldn't you know, just how many judges have interests in private prisons? (answer: most of them)

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    51. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      We all know this, but no one cares enough to actually do anything about it...

      A government powerful enough to give you everything you need is powerful enough to take everything you have...

      That isn't something taught in public schools of course, but it should be...

      Gerald Ford, August 1974.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    52. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      While I have some libertarian (classic libertarian) tendencies, the people who espouse modern libertarianism seem to me to live in fear of everything.

      They're afraid of people that don't look or act like them, they're afraid of the government, they're afraid of anything they themselves didn't discover or suggest, et cetera...

      Especially relating to gun control. I'm not anti-gun, but I simply cannot understand why what APPEARS to be the majority of gun owners think that government limits on gun ownership in any way endangers their ability to reign in the government.

      All the "it's the last bulwark against tyranny" crap. Really? If the government told gun owners you could only own a single shotgun or rifle and handguns were outlawed (not that I'm saying this should happen) - do the gun 'nuts' really think they still couldn't overthrow the government with one gun?

      How many guns can they shoot at the same time during the uprising? LOL.

      Anyhow, I've gone off on a rant, lol.

      Sometimes I feel like the last reasonable American (which is both smug and clearly untrue) because I have the feeling that most moderate people are just rather quiet about their beliefs.

      Anyhow, I'll shut up now.

      --
      Loading...
    53. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      I have a question.

      Why did Germany invade Russia?
      Was it in response to the Russian invasion of Poland and annexation of Ukraine?
      Or was it the case, commonly accepted yet utterly ludicrous, that Germany thought she could take on and beat down an army easily a hundred times her size with another similarly sized army behind it (the population of China with her military history - hello, Khan?), while at the same time fight on two other fronts (the Africa campaign and the Western Front in France) while maintaining flow of fuel and ammunition to all three fronts from a dwindling stockpile of both neither of which were being replenished from anywhere??

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    54. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I feel like the last reasonable American

      I felt the same, so I moved. When nobody wants to fix the obvious problems, there's nothing left to do.

      Lower taxes, more services, less corruption. Better in every way, so long as I don't want handguns for defense (guns are legal and "common", rare).

  3. Bitcoin ? by psergiu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why Bitcoin and not Dogecoin (or any other e-currency) ?

    --
    1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    1. Re:Bitcoin ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seems like he's been out of the loop on that for some reason...

    2. Re:Bitcoin ? by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      Why Bitcoin and not Dogecoin (or any other e-currency) ?

      My guess would be he wanted to use the one with the most penetration, because his real objective (or at least a simultaneous objective) is to do a little crowdbusking.

      As a side note; he may be little more than an irritating troll, but it will be interesting to see where this goes. Think of him as a walking, flaming, honeypot.

    3. Re:Bitcoin ? by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

      You can't buy drugs with Dogecoin. At least I don't think you can. Can someone with better knowledge of black-market sites chime in?

    4. Re:Bitcoin ? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      My guess would be he wanted to use the one with the most penetration

      Probably not his favourite word these days.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Bitcoin ? by __aawbkb6799 · · Score: 1

      Also doesn't the fedgov have a big stash of bitcoin confiscated from silkroad?

      This.

    6. Re:Bitcoin ? by PRMan · · Score: 2

      Because you can actually USE bitcoin? You know...to BUY things? Doge is a joke.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    7. Re:Bitcoin ? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Which is a problem because being on drugs is a requirement to want to use Dogecoin.

  4. Timothy McVeigh by berj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow.. good role model there.. Timothy McVeigh. I repeat.. Wow.

    1. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Zantac69 · · Score: 2

      No kidding...

      weev can get bent.

      --
      1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
    2. Re:Timothy McVeigh by drakaan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah...I was borderline sympathetic up until that point. What a douche.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    3. Re:Timothy McVeigh by MrBingoBoingo · · Score: 1

      All it means is he has the balls to troll both online and offline.

    4. Re:Timothy McVeigh by PvtVoid · · Score: 5, Informative

      Marvin Heemeyer is the man though..

      "Outraged over the outcome of a zoning dispute, he armored a Komatsu D355A bulldozer with layers of steel and concrete and used it on June 4, 2004, to demolish the town hall, the former mayor's house, and other buildings in Granby, Colorado. The rampage ended when the bulldozer got stuck in the basement of a Gambles store he had previously destroyed. Heemeyer then killed himself with a handgun." (See here.)

      Truly a 'Merkin hero.

    5. Re:Timothy McVeigh by GrahamJ · · Score: 2

      I would have considered him a hero if he hadn't offed himself, which is certainly a cowardly act. That aside, the rampage itself was as American as you get.

    6. Re:Timothy McVeigh by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Yeah, unbeweevable.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      That was Ted Kaczynski. McVeigh was the Oklahoma City bomber.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    8. Re:Timothy McVeigh by meerling · · Score: 2

      Yeah, and demand letters like that, especially when sent to bloody everybody including a whole packload of journalists are not a good sign regarding his mental health. I read the letter, and it's not as bad as some of the 'letters', rants, and 'manifestos' dangerous nutbags have used, but it's close enough to the earlier ones to be worrying.

      To abuse an old quote, "Get thee to a nuttery!". No, seriously, get this guy some mental healthcare before he does something totally psycho and irrevocable.

    9. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would have considered him a hero if he hadn't offed himself, which is certainly a cowardly act. That aside, the rampage itself was as American as you get.

      Cowardly? Go ahead tough guy, see if you can make a little cut in your arm. No big deal, a little blood and pain. It will be healed in a couple days. Even the 'bravest' of men shy away from the thought of hurting themselves. Fear often rules the lives of people that judge other's cowardice.

    10. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      No, this is "the unabomber guy." Before they caught McVeigh though I believe it was widely speculated that his crime had been an act of the Unabomber, who had at that time not yet been caught.

    11. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      Oh. I wonder what weev thinks of the Unabomber

    12. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      McVey was just stupid enough to be unbelievably lucky, or he was a patsy.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    13. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some people think Timothy McVeigh is a hero because (perhaps rightly) he observed that the government had declared war on its people when they burned alive 87 strange religious people in Waco, Texas and then put out a full court press to label them as crazy people, with little evidence. In addition the Weaver incident spun out of control due overzealous law enforcement doing surveillance based on a tip of a professional drug addict informant who was running out of real people to inform on. When Weavers dogs found a heavily armed, out of uniform, surveillance team in the woods near their cabin they panicked and gunfire erupted starting the entire incident that lead his 14 year old son dead. Then they murdered Randy Weaver's 16 year old unarmed daughter after the feds gave a shoot on sight order for anyone seen inside his cabin. Timothy McVeigh's actions were bad but he did not do them without reason, he saw an out of control violent government, killing innocents for political gain. In his mind, and many others, they felt that government had declared war on its people and responded in kind.

    14. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      In the amount of time it took you to write that post, you could have googled it yourself. WTF? Knowledge about nearly anything is only seconds away and yet I frequently see posts like this from people too lazy to wade through a few paragraphs on wikipedia. For fucks sake.

    15. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Go ahead tough guy, see if you can make a little cut in your arm. No big deal, a little blood and pain. It will be healed in a couple days.
      >Even the 'bravest' of men shy away from the thought of hurting themselves.

      Yet teenage girls cut themselves all the time

    16. Re:Timothy McVeigh by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

      It doesn't take a lot of brain-power to make a bomb, kill a bunch of innocent people, and get caught.

      We'd be a lot safer if only smart people could cause us harm, but stupid people are just as dangerous.

    17. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Sperbels · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I just got trolled, didn't I?

    18. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Marvin Heemeyer is the man though..

      "Outraged over the outcome of a zoning dispute, he armored a Komatsu D355A bulldozer with layers of steel and concrete and used it on June 4, 2004, to demolish the town hall, the former mayor's house, and other buildings in Granby, Colorado. The rampage ended when the bulldozer got stuck in the basement of a Gambles store he had previously destroyed. Heemeyer then killed himself with a handgun." (See here.)

      Truly a 'Merkin hero.

      Well, I guess you could say Mr. Heemeyer did NOT have a "pronounced stoutness about the tum and a predilection for little fur hats"...

      Genghis would be proud.

    19. Re:Timothy McVeigh by DarkTempes · · Score: 1

      Or maybe he's just REALLY angry after being in prison for two years?
      Can you even imagine yourself in an American prison for that long and what that might do to you?

      Not that it validates anything he says but I wouldn't call him a douche based on that little bit of information.
      He's probably a douche for all of the trolling he's done before now though.

    20. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1

      Marvin Heemeyer is the man though..

      Really? The label I'd apply would be "deranged hillbilly trash," but I guess to each their own, eh?

      --
      Who did what now?
    21. Re:Timothy McVeigh by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      ... Which makes weev's invocation of McVeigh ironic, since the Unabomber actually targeted government officials, and McVeigh murdered a bunch of children.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    22. Re:Timothy McVeigh by jxander · · Score: 2

      In case the point was missed, Weev is a well renowned troll.

      We have every reason to believe that the whole tirade was a setup to get people on that emotional roller coaster of "YEAH, he's right, the government is totally... wait, what?? Who?"

      For the lulz

      --
      This signature is false.
    23. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Oh. I wonder what weev thinks of the Unabomber

      Probably not much, since Kaczynski was a luddite and would have hated bitcoin.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    24. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, he's just made himself pretty darn unsympathetic as a criminal defendant. Lots of excellent pro bono legal work went into getting him out of prison, on the basis that he was tried in an improper venue (halfway across the country from where his activities happened). The government can still try him again in the right venue, and with these kinds of comments, there are a lot of people who'd support another trial and another conviction.

    25. Re:Timothy McVeigh by bussdriver · · Score: 2

      Sorry friend, McVeigh was no coward. If he was so cowardly, he wouldn't have taken the risks he did in the first place and he wouldn't have been as easily caught. He was so anti gov he didn't have plates on the car and if he had any sense or fear he'd have not let such things make him stand out so easily. Besides, given his motives, he was trying to inspire a revolution which if at all successful would have given him an outlet to do more "cowardly" insurgent tactics. He didn't cry like a baby when they executed him. BTW, his military training was in explosives. Was he supposed to charge the building with a rifle?

      Stop calling people using their tactical advantages cowards. The American Revolution was quite cowardly and broke the rules of war of the time. If they had honorably followed the rules of war they would have lost big time. Seriously, how stupidly "courageous" do you have to be to stand up in firing lines at close range and shoot at each other like it was some kind of sport?

      Flying killer robots are cowardly; on a whole other level beyond McVeigh but that is ok?

    26. Re:Timothy McVeigh by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I've got karma to burn.
      Here's McVeigh in his own words.

      McVeigh's Apr. 26 Letter to Fox News
      Published April 26, 2001

      I explain herein why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. I explain this not for publicity, nor seeking to win an argument of right or wrong. I explain so that the record is clear as to my thinking and motivations in bombing a government installation.

      I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI's "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the '80's; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens.

      Knowledge of these multiple and ever-more aggressive raids across the country constituted an identifiable pattern of conduct within and by the federal government and amongst its various agencies. (see enclosed) For all intents and purposes, federal agents had become "soldiers" (using military training, tactics, techniques, equipment, language, dress, organization, and mindset) and they were escalating their behavior. Therefore, this bombing was also meant as a pre-emptive (or pro-active) strike against these forces and their command and control centers within the federal building. When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operation, it is sound military strategy to take the fight to the enemy.

      Additionally, borrowing a page from U.S. foreign policy, I decided to send a message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile, by bombing a government building and the government employees within that building who represent that government. Bombing the Murrah Federal Building was morally and strategically equivalent to the U.S. hitting a government building in Serbia, Iraq, or other nations. (see enclosed) Based on observations of the policies of my own government, I viewed this action as an acceptable option. From this perspective, what occurred in Oklahoma City was no different than what Americans rain on the heads of others all the time, and subsequently, my mindset was and is one of clinical detachment. (The bombing of the Murrah building was not personal , no more than when Air Force, Army, Navy, or Marine personnel bomb or launch cruise missiles against government installations and their personnel.)

      I hope that this clarification amply addresses your question.

      Sincerely,

      Timothy J. McVeigh

      USP Terre Haute (IN)

      Part II:

      Q: What's the deal with you expressing interest in having your execution televised?

      A: First, it has nothing to do with seeking to be on camera - just look at how few on-camera interviews I have done. Rather, it is to make a point: In the U.S. we show, on television, re-enactments of real executions; mock-fictional executions (in movies); and real executions from foreign countries - yet we are ashamed to show our own justice system in action. It is ironic that we show foreign executions, but are afraid to show identical domestic laws being carried out.

      Q: What were some other options considered besides bombing? Who would you have targeted?

      A: I waited two years from "Waco" for non-violent "checks and balances" built into our system to correct the abuse of power we were seeing in federal actions against citizens. The Executive; Legislative; and Judicial branches not only concluded that the government did nothing wrong (leaving the door open for "Waco" to happen again), they actually gave awards and bonus pay to those agents involved, and conve

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    27. Re:Timothy McVeigh by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Likewise. I hate the federal government, too, but I want to secede, not kill people. I hate the government for doing the same thing McVeigh did, only on a larger scale - can't see how worshipping McVeigh would help with any of that.

    28. Re:Timothy McVeigh by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

      He shot himself in the head. That doesn't hurt.

    29. Re:Timothy McVeigh by GrahamJ · · Score: 1
      There is no worship involved.

      From Wikipedia:

      A hero (masculine) or heroine (feminine) refers to characters who, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of weakness, display courage and the will for self-sacrifice

      Sounds about right. Again I'm leaving aside the suicide part so even if you look at his inevitably being busted as self-sacrifice (and certainly adversity) the shoe fits pretty well.

      I'm not condoning what he did you but you have to admire his conviction.

    30. Re:Timothy McVeigh by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

      I assure you I am the furthest thing from religious.

      In suicide they usually have the perception that life is an insurmountable obstacle, that ending it is much easier than carrying on. Whatever the cause of that perception (mental illness, deep depression etc) it's not a matter of having balls.

    31. Re:Timothy McVeigh by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      ...who just happened to be inside a Government building.

      Intent aside (I'm not a mind reader), that is the fact. There were perfectly good private creches dotted around, why suddenly did the Fed feel the need to install creches in its buildings?

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    32. Re:Timothy McVeigh by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      Smart people are individually dangerous. Stupid people are collectively deadly.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    33. Re:Timothy McVeigh by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      why suddenly did the Fed feel the need to install creches in its buildings?

      I can guarantee you it wasn't to make anyone who tried to blow the building up look like a monster.

      They probably added the daycare because they realized workers lose less time from work if their kids are in the same building. It was actually a fairly common practice in the 1990's, though not necessarily widespread.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    34. Re:Timothy McVeigh by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      it just strikes me as unbelievably odd behaviour considering the Fed's stance on other countries it reported as having prepped human shields using children, and the timing is just too perfect to have been a coincidence.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    35. Re:Timothy McVeigh by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      OK, I'm a pretty paranoid dude (enough so that I still question the official 9/11 story), and even I think that theory is nut-butter crazy. That should tell you something.

      I'm guessing that if the feds knew of a plot beforehand, a more likely scenario is that they might have tried to, you know, stop it, rather than using their own children as human sacrifices to some still unknown end.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  5. "PAY ME MY MONEY, YOU LYING SUBHUMAN GARBAGE." by PvtVoid · · Score: 2

    That's going to work.

    1. Re:"PAY ME MY MONEY, YOU LYING SUBHUMAN GARBAGE." by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      It kind of works for AT&T, Verizon, et. al. They are perhaps slightly more polite "Pay me my money, or else I'll throttle your bandwidth", but the implication that we're subhuman garbage is clear.

    2. Re:"PAY ME MY MONEY, YOU LYING SUBHUMAN GARBAGE." by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Its generally referred to as a "supply-and-demand driven market", where AT&T, Verizon, etc offer you a service, which you pay for and then receive; generally, failing to pay for your service results in the service being withheld.

      I know this is graduate level stuff, but try to stick with me here.

    3. Re:"PAY ME MY MONEY, YOU LYING SUBHUMAN GARBAGE." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the implication that we're subhuman garbage is clear.

      Well they do know your disgusting and perverted porn predilections from their logs.

  6. Yeah right. by Desler · · Score: 1

    Hope he enjoys the "state sovereign immunity" rejection letter he'll receive.

  7. Why we can't have nice things... by globaljustin · · Score: 2

    Weev is ruining it for everyone with his egotistical douch-nozzle approach to this whole thing.

    I support *everything* Weev is doing, from a conceptual standpoint.

    That's where it ends...this stupid letter shows what happens to a good mind when all other voices are shut out internally.

    WE MUST CONNECT WITH OTHER PEOPLE NOT BROWBEAT THEM WITH OUR SUPERIORITY

    I mean...if we ever want to win this fight...

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:Why we can't have nice things... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I dont know that you could call "esteeming McVeigh" "browbeating them with superiority".

      I sort of feel like theres a distinction there.

    2. Re:Why we can't have nice things... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I have 3 posts on this topic (4 now), one of which is completely off topic. One defines the terms "murder" and "terrorism", and the other (the parent post here) expresses disdain for Weev's glorification of McVeigh.

      If youre attempting to post-stalk me, youre doing a crappy job of it. Nothing I've posted here could remotely be described as character assassination. I do give you props for accusing me of ad hominems and following it up with an (apparent) attack on the fact that I practice a religion, though-- that takes a good deal of chutzpah.

  8. Intelligence eclipsed by hate by Stumbles · · Score: 5, Informative

    Really? Those three deserve hommage by Stuckey? Stack intentionally flies his plane into a building kill several. Heemeyer has fun with a bulldozer. And worst of all in some respects, McVeigh detonates a bomb killing a hundred plus people. If those are the types you admire as worthy of a memorial then you have one warped sense of admiration. None of those even come close to fitting the description of a patriot.

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
    1. Re:Intelligence eclipsed by hate by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 2

      > None of those even come close to fitting the description of a patriot.

      Most of the people claiming to be patriots these days are anything but. It's always selfish, clueless people who are engaging in fantasy role-playing to pretend that they're better than quality people.

    2. Re:Intelligence eclipsed by hate by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

      And neither does this guy. hmmm maybe there's some kind of connection there?

    3. Re:Intelligence eclipsed by hate by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget the "patriots" who destroyed others' legal property in protest against their rightful government. What's the difference, anyway?

      ...the difference is that the patriots of the American Revolution spent a few decades lobbying and writing essays before any violence, pursuing a diplomatic resolution even after the fighting broke out.

      In my opinion, patriots don't just promote some message. They stand for and live by the ideals of their country, even if their government doesn't. For an American, that means patriots are the ones promoting peace and democracy, respecting opponents' opinions and their right to express those opinions, and above all else ensuring that the governmental processes are fair, even if the outcome isn't.

      There's nothing fair about the process of slaughtering civilians just so your manifesto is broadcast on TV.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    4. Re:Intelligence eclipsed by hate by Megane · · Score: 2

      Stack intentionally flies his plane into a building kill several.

      Not several. He hit a break room. He killed himself and one guy who was just getting a cup of coffee.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    5. Re:Intelligence eclipsed by hate by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Weeve is not a brave kind of guy, he's a griefer and a fool; smart, but makes bad decisions. A lot of hackers do. By choosing that list of people, he's trying to scare government agents from doing it again to him. He doesn't understand the world well enough to understand how to get what he wants. Threatening violence against the government is not going to help, but he thinks it will because it's helped against other people in the past.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Intelligence eclipsed by hate by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget the "patriots" who destroyed others' legal property in protest against their rightful government. What's the difference, anyway?

      ...the difference is that the patriots of the American Revolution spent a few decades lobbying and writing essays before any violence, pursuing a diplomatic resolution even after the fighting broke out.

      No, the difference is that nobody got killed by the Boston Tea Party. Also American society mostly backed the Boston Tea Party and its goals. You can't really make that claim that the majority of Americans were sympathetic to the other 3 cited cases. When society says "You're wrong and crazy" that is a difference.

  9. His Time May Still Come by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    That the court overturned the conviction on grounds of improper venue does not prevent the Gub'ment from going after him again in the "proper" venue. If he makes himself enough of a pain, it could be sooner rather than later. Certainly they are watching him closely now.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  10. You owe the state a dime by paiute · · Score: 2

    The prison library called to say there was an overdue book on his account:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  11. Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Morpeth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I absolutely detest the state of things right now, the NSA/Snowden revelations, corporations/lobbyists running the gov't, rights being ignored, etc. BUT that said, TImothy McVeigh was a murderer... including 18 children:

    Peachlyn Bradley, 3, Oklahoma City
    Gabreon D.L. Bruce, 3 months, Oklahoma City
    Ashley Megan Eckles, 4, Guthrie
    Baylee Almon, 1, Oklahoma City
    Danielle Nicole Bell, 15 months, Oklahoma City
    Zachary Taylor Chavez, 3, Oklahoma City
    Anthony Christopher Cooper II, 2, Moore
    Antonio Ansara Cooper Jr., 6 months, Midwest City
    Aaron M. Coverdale, 5 1/2, Oklahoma City
    Elijah S. Coverdale, 2 1/2, Oklahoma City
    Jaci Rae Coyne, 14 months, Moore
    Taylor Santoi Eaves, 8 months, Midwest City
    Tevin D'Aundrae Garrett, 16 months, Midwest City
    Kevin "Lee" Gottshall II, 6 months, Norman
    Blake Ryan Kennedy, 1 1/2, Amber
    Dominique Ravae (Johnson)-London, 2, Oklahoma City
    Chase Dalton Smith, 3, Oklahoma City
    Colton Wade Smith, 2, Oklahoma City

    Many people are angry and frustrated, but please read those names and ages and tell me again about his 'heroism'?

    --

    'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
    1. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by QuasiSteve · · Score: 2

      While I agree with the sentiment that thinking of somebody like McVeigh as an absolute hero, I don't think the reason for that should be hinging on the fact that children died in the attack. It's a bomb. It's about as non-discriminatory as weapons go.

      Assume no children died, would that somehow qualify him as being a hero after all?
      What about teenager Cartney McRaven, age 19?

      What about Kathy Cregan, Rheta Long, Laura Garrison, LutherTreanor, Olen Bloomer, Calvin Battle, Norma Johnson, Donald Burns Sr., Donald Fritzler, Eula Mitchell, Anna Hurlburt, John Vaness III, and Charles Hurlburt - who were all probably looking forward to their retirement or were otherwise just at the wrong place at the wrong time?

      What about the 135 other people who don't fit the criteria of child, teen or 60+?

      Timothy McVeigh was a murderer, period. Read that, and tell me again about his heroism.

      While we're at it - let's not start thinking of weev as a hero either. His mentioning of McVeigh could just as well be part of his usual trolling, which borders on the distasteful at best.

    2. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He didn't put a bunch of kids inside a legitimate target. There were also DEA and BATF in that building. Also since by current military guidelines any male old enough to carry a gun is a militant, so he killed a lot more militants than kids.

      Legitimate target? Those were civilians you freak.

    3. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      He attacked a federal building. Or as Obama and Bush say "Collateral Damage".

      But I get you, it is only "murder" when it is a foreign terrorist organization, not an American one.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dont use 'children' to prop up your argument. The adults lives in the building were just as valuable. Using 'children' language is News-Speak.

      --
      Good-bye
    5. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By the definition civilians use, maybe. The US military wouldn't agree.

      Capcha: Sprayer

    6. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by TheCarp · · Score: 3

      They were? A lot of them were males old enough to hold a gun, that is good enough to call brown people militants, and murder them in drone strikes. Sorry that turnabout is fair play.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    7. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Even if one accepts the false premise that the people were guilty of something for working for the government, the children were not. They were innocent bystanders in that sick fucks mass murder and now this shit, weev, is praising the worthless piece of shits who murdered them.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    8. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You may want to read up on the Law of Armed Conflict and the Geneva conventions. That federal building was not a "legitimate target" any moreso than blowing up some random Park Ranger's house because he is a "Fed". The kids were not human shields, they were in a daycare for employees. And, militants to the military are also armed civilians (fine, there were probably a handful of FBI or ATF agents in the building carrying a pistol). There was no state of war or declared conflict in Oklahoma in 1996, therefore, he McVeigh carried out a terrorist attack against a mostly defenseless group, and murdered 18 children in a daycare while doing it. If he really had a beef with the US government, why didn't he go after a "legitimate target" such as a US military installation? Coward...

    9. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Nexion · · Score: 1

      Strangely absent from that list are Mc Veigh's actual targets. They took the day off because there was a possibility that an attack would occur against their agency knowing, full well, children were in the line of fire. Mc Veigh, IMHO, was evil. However if he was evil what does that make those agents?

    10. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Nope. The children had no choice. That's why they get brought up.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      Neither did most of the adults.......

      --
      Good-bye
    12. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Yes a nice list of minor technicalities you have with your technical definitions that are narrowly defined so as to wrap war in a thin air of legitimacy. I really neither care for those technicalities nor the agreements which created them. I call em like I see em.... and I see a violent gang in Washington that deserves to be put down.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    13. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Morpeth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I didn't say the adults lives weren't valuable, so don't put words into my mouth. There is NO way an infant or toddler could make ANY choice or cause ANY action that could in any way be a threat to McVeigh. Hence my pointing them out. It's not a prop or news-speak, sorry you're so cynical.

      While I don't in any sense condone ANYTHING he did, he could try to argue adults can make choices or actions that in some whacky way he could attempt to rationalize as a threat -- my point of bringing up the kids, is that they had ZERO, absolutely ZERO to do with whatever beef he had in his twisted mind.

      --

      'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
    14. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Its not murder when nation states with clearly declared intentions are involved. Its murder when its an individual in a non-combat scenario against unarmed civilians. Its terrorism when its non-governmental organizations with that target civilians.

      If you're still not getting it, you may want to re-take that poly sci class.

    15. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by rochrist · · Score: 2

      A legitimate target. What as asshole. Better make sure goverment offices never offer daycare services to their employees, because that makes 3 year olds legitimate targets for assholes like you.

    16. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      And Fort Hood was "workplace violence" .... we get it.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    17. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by MSG · · Score: 1

      Trivia: you mean "newspeak". It's a reference to 1984:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

      It is not a reference to news.

    18. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Xaedalus · · Score: 1

      Do you remember the bloody baby that the firefighter held, that was pulled out of the wreckage? There were five others like that. And those were just the ones under 2 years of age. You willing to do something like that to further your beliefs? If so, you're no better than the enemy that's in your head.

      --
      Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    19. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Well I am anti-war, not a pacifist exactly. I firmly believe in self defense and I understand and approve of taking up arms against oppressive regiemes. The only people I am mean towards really are the members and supporters of the same.

      Liberal? Yah by some standards. I really like that meme going around "I support the right of gay married couples to defend their marijuana plants with guns"..... yes that describes me. I don't even own a gun; don;t personally see the need; but I begrudge nobody else theirs....nobody except.... those who would deny them to others....those who murder others and then turn around and claim to support peace.

      That said a liberal is one who still believes in the possibility of political solutions within the system, that ship sailed for me a long time ago.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    20. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      It was a tweak on Newspeak, a blend of fiction and meatspace. I knew full well what i was spelling out, I meant precisely what i typed.

      --
      Good-bye
    21. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Matheus · · Score: 2

      So you're saying McVeigh was a hero because collateral damage is acceptable and the building in question was a "legitimate target that just happened to have civilians/kids inside".

      I was going to write out a well reasoned argument but honestly the best response is "Are you fucking kidding me?!"

      Well... a piece of it...
      Whether you agree with McVeigh's politics or no at no point was he at war with the US. By his own admissions this was meant to send a message and is by definition a terrorist act. The blast also caused damage to hundreds of buildings that were not federal buildings. Even if the destruction had been limited to just that building this is a *office building bombed during the work day. Federal offices perform number of functions which inherently include civilians of all shapes and sizes (ages). He also stated that he wanted a high casualty count to emphasize his message. These were no accidental collaterals here.

      You speak as if the BATF was lining their walls with children as human shields which couldn't be farther from the truth.

      Dick.

    22. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If you see a violent gang in Washington, why bomb babies far away?

      If you want to target a violent gang, why attack unarmed and non-violent people?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    23. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The building in question was not the home for a terrorist organization.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    24. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yup, and if McVeigh had bombed the FBI building, or the Texas National Guard, or BATF offices, or Janet Reno's house, I'd actually have some sympathy for the guy.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    25. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And if he'd found a way to confine his attacks to those who had some slight culpability in Waco and/or Ruby Ridge, or at least worked in the same organization, I'd probably feel sympathetic. I'm not at all sure that bombing the perpetrators is a bad idea. However, bombing a child care center made him no better than the worst parts of the US government.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    26. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      You would have to ask the person who made those choices. Unarmed and nonviolent? The BATF and DEA were both in that building....both heavily armed and ultra-violent.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    27. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > Whether you agree with McVeigh's politics or no at no point was he at war with the US

      A distinction that matters only to people who see the US as a legitimate entity. These technicalities that seperate war as a special brand of violent act really only exist as excuses for those in power to legitimize their own terrorism. All war is terrorism; no exceptions.

      > You speak as if the BATF was lining their walls with children as human shields which couldn't be farther from
      > the truth.

      Perhaps not intentionally but....as a violent terrorist group they had to expect there could be reprisals for their actions. They were at least negligent and showed callous by being centered within civilian populations.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    28. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      You may wanna take that class, but heres a brief answer.

      Bullshit. Murder is murder. Whether the murdered is armed or not.

      Self-defense has NEVER legally been defined as murder, nor have international courts EVER considered one soldier killing another to be murder. Murder generally involves an unprovoked killing of an unarmed person in a non-combat scenario. This isnt a technical or legal definition, but my summary of the ones I have gotten (from poly sci classes, research, etc).

      Define "non-governmental organization"

      Id recommend you look that up, but this is a fairly general term. Im sort of surprised you've never heard anyone mention "NGOs"

      And McVeigh might say he was not targeting civilians

      "Government employees" are still civilians, if they arent in the military or police.

      2 individuals killing one person is murder.

      2 individuals generally do not form an NGO. If they WERE acting as an NGO, you probably could call it terrorism.

      Most of your questions are answered in things like the Geneva convention (where it establishes ground rules, such as requiring the use of clear uniforms and so forth). Generally if you have soldiers with clear uniforms and nationality, them killing each other is governed by the Geneva convention and other such treaties. If one side is not wearing uniforms but IS taking up arms, they generally lose many of their protections, but remain valid targets.

      But really you need to google this stuff, Im summarizing what is basic entry-level international relations stuff. NGO, "combat", "soldier", "murder", "civilian"-- these are all well defined terms, and its sort of irritating to pretend like theyre not. Im giving you the benefit of the doubt here and spelling some of this stuff out, but really you have a personal responsibility to be informed if you want to enter a discussion on this stuff.

    29. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Post WW2 German officials were not charged with "murder", but with provoking war, crimes against humanity, and so on. Generally you dont fire up an international tribunal because one country's soldiers killed yours-- theres an understanding that thats how war works. Where international courts get involved is when you go beyond the standard "soldiers killing each other" stuff.

    30. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Waco had a child care center. The building McVeigh bombed had a child care center. McVeigh does not get the moral high ground here over pretty much the worst the Federal government has to offer. He wasn't a hero.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    31. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      How many children died when Hiroshima and Nagasaki got nuked? I remind you, the only two occasions in recorded history when nuclear weapons were used in anger. I don't consider those aircrews heroes, I consider them to be mass murderers, I don't care how you justify the killing and the fact that they were just following orders holds about as much water as the number of times that phrase was repeated at the Nuremberg war crimes trials - the fact that those aircrews were American makes it all the more disgusting when it's now Americans trying to tell the rest of the world how to behave! And just like a bomb, I make no distinction according to age, skin colour, religion or sexual preference. If you're in the blast zone, you're dead as far as a bomb is concerned.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    32. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      Hiroshima.

      Nagasaki.

      That is all.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    33. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      so were the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Bremen...

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    34. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      sooo... Hussein building a school in the middle of a compound is different how?

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  12. So we should care? by ADRA · · Score: 1

    He was convicted of a crime (assuming his guilt was established correctly) and the case was overturned on a 'venue' law, so, why the fck does anyone care about this exactly? That a douche tries to one-up his haters? If I wanted that, I'd read more Rob Ford. That's a guy with actual train-wreck entertainment value.

    --
    Bye!
    1. Re:So we should care? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      For one thing, a lot of us are concerned about the legal ruling in question. Is using a website exactly as it is supposed to be used illegal access? I don't like the consequences.

      I have no love for weev, but I'm willing to support a real douchebag when I think the government's unjustly trying him.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  13. If I were the Feds by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 2

    I would agree to pay him, but while negotiating the payment, I would make sure the IRS got word.

    Can anyone say "audit".

    1. Re:If I were the Feds by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      You think that when the IRS audits him, they won't find plenty of irregularities in his books. If they even exist?
      He could wind up ion the courts for decades.

    2. Re:If I were the Feds by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Civil awards are not subject to taxes. Sorry.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  14. Don't count your chickens... by westlake · · Score: 1

    He was recently released when a federal court overturned the conviction on grounds of improper venue.

    Which means his case can retried elsewhere. He cannot claim "double jeopardy."

    if the government fails to produce adequate evidence to prove an element of the crime, then the defendant is acquitted and the government doesn't get another bite at the apple. But this has nothing to do with a conviction being vacated because of a procedural error.

    Does Double Jeopardy Forestall Auernheimer's Retrial?

    1. Re:Don't count your chickens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The government can only try him again in another venue if and only if they do not attempt to introduce even a tiny iota of new evidence. They must also produce the same witnesses they produced in the first trial, and they must give the exact same answers as they did in the first.

      While in theory it is possible for the government to try him again, in practice it isn't, because in essence the trial must be replayed in the new court exactly as it was played in the old court with not a shred of new evidence produced.

      Any new evidence WILL trip the double jeopardy bomb. New evidence also includes any change in prior evidence or testimony.

  15. Bitcoin dwarfs Dogecoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    1) 28,296 Dogecoin is only worth about $13.

    2) He doesn't want government-issued currency because he feels this would be paying into the system that oppressed him, and Bitcoin is the most popular private currency.

    3) Dogecoin changed their money supply from fixed to infinite this year, so it's probably not safe enough to store millions of dollars. It's more of a joke/tip currency.

  16. His Rage is Understandable by The+Raven · · Score: 2

    But still pointless, useless, and self-destructive. The letter is bad enough that if he denied writing it, I would believe that it was a character assassination attempt. The guy didn't deserve prison, but he's still an idiot.

    --
    "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    1. Re:His Rage is Understandable by dubbayu_d_40 · · Score: 1

      Right on. I see guys like this loose their shit all the time because they think they're programmers, but unfortunately have limits when dealing with complexity. Oh wait...

  17. Don't feed the troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    See title.

  18. no law against being an a-hole yet. by tommyatomic · · Score: 1

    In this particular situation what did anyone really expect? All loopholes aside the guy was wrongfully imprisoned. Many of his supporters admit the guy was a bit of an a-hole. I cant imagine him not being pissed about what happened and wanting a little compensation. And everyone likes a little righteous retribution. Especially a-holes.

  19. Im no psychologist by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But Mister Weev seems a touch frustrated by the machinations of the american legal system as they pertain to billion dollar monopolies. The US Government has granted retroactive immunity to AT&T for a cornucopia of offenses with such timeliness as to be indistinguishable from an NTP stratum. Given the historical context in which AT&T has consistently operated, it would be no surprise if the government not only categorically refused payment, but retroactively enacted legislation ensuring Weev was guilty.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:Im no psychologist by sconeu · · Score: 2

      it would be no surprise if the government not only categorically refused payment, but retroactively enacted legislation ensuring Weev was guilty

      Google "Ex Post Facto" and "Bill of Attainder". Now granted, the US.gov has been using the Constitution (or at least the Bill of Rights), as toilet paper; but even the Roberts court would choke on declaring such legislation Constitutional.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  20. Re: by niado · · Score: 1

    I would have considered him a hero if he hadn't offed himself, which is certainly a cowardly act. That aside, the rampage itself was as American as you get.

    Suicide is generally caused by mental illness. Whether you characterize it as cowardice or not is a philosophical distinction, but portraying the "cowardly act" of a mentally ill person as a correctable character flaw vs. an illness that needs medical attention is unproductive.

  21. McVeigh?! by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    I am building a series of memorial groves for the greatest patriots of our generation: Timothy McVeigh, Andrew Stack, and Marvin Heemeyer. You see, In the 'Special Housing Unit,' which is Bureau of Prisons codespeak for 'solitary confinement' and 'torture,' I had enough time to think about the current state of federal government. "

    And tell me, as an innocent person who got harmed, did you have any time to think about people being harmed when McVeigh murdered them, in spite of them being innocent third parties totally unrelated to McVeigh's ostensible oppression, and also completely unrelated to anyone's complaints about the federal government?

    Weev, there's something really important that you need to hear, so please pay attention to this: Fuck You.

    I'm a fellow government-hater, except.. no. You are too much of a worthless piece of shit asshole for me to want to be a fellow anything with you. Please, please go fuck yourself (preferably with a bullet), so that they rest of us can spread advocacy of moving power back away from DC to more accountable localities, without worthless pieces of shit like you, distracting them with their nutcase "I know how to solve this civics problem: let's murder a bunch of innocent bystanders!" distractions. You are not helping, asshole.

    Well, maybe you are helping someone.

    I was sorry you got fucked, but your attempt to retroactively earn what happened to you, seems to have nullified the emotional component of that. You just did the feds a big favor; they used to have to worry about having made you a martyr, but now they can sigh with relief. When they falsely arrest the next guy, instead of the public crying out, "oh no you don't, not again!" the people will say, "Oh, another McVeigh clone? I'm glad you feds caught him in time."

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  22. Weev always was a piece of shit by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because his conviction wasn't proper, doesn't mean he's not an asshat, or even that he didn't break the law. Note that his conviction was overturned because of the venue (meaning it was tried in the wrong court) not because of a problem with the charge or evidence. Now that's a good thing, the state needs to do everything properly in a trial, and if they fail to do so, the defendant gets to walk. That is a cornerstone of the American justice system.

    This is just him showing more asshattery, and a pretty good indication that his time free is likely to be only temporary. Anyone with that level of delusion and self grandeur is likely to do something illegal again, and sooner rather than later, and the state will probably make sure to do everything right the second time around.

    Like a friend of mine used to work in the PD's office. He got a client who had been arrested for tagging (graffiti) since a cop stopped him and found sharpie markers in his pockets. The kid had sure as shit been tagging and had used said markers to do it, but the cop hadn't seen that, and had no reason to search him, so my friend got it tossed out. So what happened? Same kid went and tagged again, but this time the cops watched him do it and caught him in the act. The kid was miffed my friend couldn't do anything the second time.

  23. As Oscar Willde said to George Bernard Shaw by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah? Well you're a fucking idiot who knows nothing about everything.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:As Oscar Willde said to George Bernard Shaw by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      That, sir, is a slanderous insult.

      I can spell it perfectly well, I just can't fucking type for shit.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:As Oscar Willde said to George Bernard Shaw by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Too many commas, in, that last sentence.

      And if I disobey your orders, Mr Tailgater? Yes, AK [skid] Marc, I know it's you.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:As Oscar Willde said to George Bernard Shaw by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Just because you lie about your identity to troll others doesn't mean I do the same. You are a lying idiot. And I've never posted AC since I bothered to register for an account. Certainly not to waste time trolling a lying idiot like yourself.

  24. Timothy McVeigh by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    was a coward.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  25. Timothy McVeigh a great patriot? Fuck weev. by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    Fuck him in the ass with baseball bat with nails sticking out of it. McVeigh committed mass murder and terrorism. He deliberately killed children. I didn't give a shit about weev, but now I hope they fucking bury him alive.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  26. I hope that he gets his money by inhuman_4 · · Score: 1

    I hope he gets everything that he asks for.

    Yes the Timothy McVeigh, Andrew Stack, and Marvin Heemeyer part was in very poor taste. Yes his "open letter" is childish.

    I don't care. The government doesn't get to abuse someones rights, no matter how much of an asshole that person may be.

  27. Wow, uhm, uh... Jeez... by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Man, having never heard of this guy before, I was rather sympathetic and thinking "Man, finally a use for all those FBI-confiscated Bitcoins" until that last part about Tim McVeigh... Then all I could think was "Uh...wow, screw this asshat."

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  28. Timothy McVeigh a Patriot? by TrentTheThief · · Score: 1

    What a load of horseshit.

    Patriots don't go around bombing civilian targets. That sort of shit winds you solidy in the terrorist category.

    weev? You were doing okay until you mouthed off with that nonsense. I hope some freewheeling fed decides to pop you.

    1. Re:Timothy McVeigh a Patriot? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      I agree - as soon as he brought up Timothy McVeigh in the list of his idols then it's clear that this is a case not for jail but for a mental hospital.

      Or maybe infect him with some strange rare untreatable disease. Ebola may be too obvious, but the HeLa cancer strain could work.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  29. Overturned on grounds of improper venue by wiredog · · Score: 1

    Which just means that he can be tried, again, in the proper venue.

  30. The reason to point out the children by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    Is that there is no way they were complicit in anything.

    So the crazy nutball shithead argument for the OKC bombing is something along the lines of the government being evil, the workers in that building being part of some government conspiracy, etc, etc. You can see that kind of bullshit logic in one of the other replies to the grandparent, who talks about "McVeigh's actual targets" and gets all conspiracy nut as though it was the government's fault.

    Ok fine, but even if you accept that BS, there's the issue of the kids present. They weren't involved, they weren't complicit, etc. So it is a pretty hard action to defend. Even if someone buys in to the fact that government agents some how "deserve it" you have to deal with the fact that he chose a target where employees bring their children (and there are other federal facilities where that's not allowed).

    1. Re:The reason to point out the children by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Ok that is a much more nuanced and convincing argument than a list of child names, thank you.

      --
      Good-bye
  31. i was with him right up until... by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was with him right up until he revealed his love of deranged, hillbilly trash like McVeigh. Weev did get a raw deal, but it is worth mentioning that the people in the justice system (that run it) are in fact people, and people (flawed as they are) love seeing assholes (like Weev) get their comeuppance. And given what an asshole he is, I'd say that comeuppance was a long time coming.

    But hey, good news for him: He now has a legitimate cause to fight for the rest of his life. If this keeps him from discrediting other causes through his support (this manifesto essentially makes Weev completely toxic to any political activism on any topic, forever, period) then we should consider it a net win.

    --
    Who did what now?
  32. I'm with you, however..... by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Please help me out here. I'm all for moving power *away* from DC to more accountable localities, but can you kindly fill me in on the methodology?

    You see; I'm of the opinion that the government, particularly the federal government, has become so corrupted, so full of bad political influence by monied interests, so controlled by cash (particularly in light of Citizens United and other rulings that claim that money==speech), that the only way I can see to bring the country back to rationality is via armed conflict.

    And then many people, including, unfortunately, innocent bystanders will be killed -- and it's also unfortunate to realize that our own country and armed forces kill innocent bystanders regularly -- in other countries, and yet, my guess is that you're *not* willing to consider our armed forces as the same pieces of shit McVeigh was.

    Please understand me; I'm *not* attempting to defend McVeigh, I am just pointing out that when it's done by "one guy", it's terrorism, and when it's done by an institution, it's Foreign Policy.

    Drone Strikes have allowed America to kill entire parties of people, including women and children, with impunity, with no answerable oversight, with no reporting by the media, and with no outrage from the American people. We, as a country, are guilty of murder a million times over, and yet we regard McVeigh as the monster.

    So, please, let me know what you're proposing; I'm ready to listen. I'm hoping for a convincing argument that we are not already lost as a country; because right now the 1% run things, and we have zero say in the matter. America is a schoolyard bully, and we have a long way to go before maturing into a responsible world citizen.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:I'm with you, however..... by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      I'm going to "go off" a little here, mainly because I'm trying to talk myself into something. I almost didn't even bother posting this.

      can you kindly fill me in on the methodology? .. I'm hoping for a convincing argument that we are not already lost as a country

      By actively taking responsibility. And don't wait for, or care about, any arguments as to the future. Whether or not your part of the country is lost, is a decision (not a discovery) that you make.

      You see; I'm of the opinion that the government, particularly the federal government, has become so corrupted, so full of bad political influence by monied interests, so controlled by cash (particularly in light of Citizens United and other rulings that claim that money==speech), that the only way I can see to bring the country back to rationality is via armed conflict.

      Consider what is required, for armed conflict to viably change policies. (Not counting the policy of over-reactive crackdown; I'll give you, that you can achieve that, if it's your goal. McVeigh was successful in further empowering the feds in this regard; yet another reason to hate him.) I think armed rebellion to end corruption, would require a whole bunch of people, who currently prove every two years that they don't care about anything, to start giving a fuck. And you can't aim gun at another person (especially when you know they're likely to point one back), without first giving a fuck, about what is going to happen next.

      I think before you get even a fraction toward that level of giving-a-fuck, you'll be able to accept the lesser burden, of personally running for an office, or bothering to show up and vote for someone who does that, instead of using America's default algorithm (I think the programmer called it "negligentApathy 1.0"), which is "Whose ad budget was the highest, among those who have the correct letter next to his name? I'm voting for that guy." It is way easier to resign to your fate of having to be a US Senator, or a state district representative, or a city councilor, or a neighborhood association board member, or even a father, than it is to go risk your life sniping at people who are invariable better than you at that game. (And that's the hard version. It's even easier to not be that guy, but to write-in his name. And somewhere on the scale of difficulty between these things, is getting that guy onto a ballot so he doesn't have to be written-in.)

      Once people get that far (where people vote or run, based on politics rather than ads), all the campaign advertising money in the world will be not quite useless, but nearso. If people give a fuck and become political, then money really will be speech: most of it wasted and dissolving in the uncaring winds, like us two here on Slashdot. Let them impotently spend their money buying television ads that nobody saw anyway. Your current problem isn't that they bought the ads; it's that anyone saw them, or used them for purposes of other than counting them to determine approximations of how badly a candidate must have sold out to someone.

      If people start caring about politics, then you're never going to have to kill anyone, because long before then, you're going to get over the lower hurdle of your guys winning their first election. Not because you're a nice guy or because murder is bad, but because it's easier. Maybe not easy but easier than being a revolutionary soldier.

      Or to put it another way: winning an armed conflict to overthrow corruption, would itself require some element of civic spirit. You can't achieve it, without passionate people. And once you have the people, you don't even need your guns anymore.

      How do we get there? Here begins my bullshit (and I'm going to put some words in your mouth), but actually, I alread

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  33. ~$484 per hour! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    So I assume he shits out gold bars for a living?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:~$484 per hour! by dnavid · · Score: 1

      So I assume he shits out gold bars for a living?

      24 hours a day, seven days a week, even when he sleeps, apparently.

  34. narcissism of ideology by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    his idolization of McVeigh shows how disconnected his thought processes are...

    the ego plays into it where if you asked Weev about this, he'd launch into a rambling speech/manifesto about his worldview and how it is superior and if you don't get it then you won't understand the McVeigh thing

    again it's about shutting out any other points of view internally...it's a sign of narcissism

    i'm not saying Weev is crazy but he's evidencing really bad judgement & this explains where it comes from

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  35. And the blood of babies... by Xaedalus · · Score: 1

    McVeigh knew he was going to take out a day-care center. Anyone remember the photos of those babies being pulled out of the wreckage? I still do.

    --
    Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
  36. Intelligence eclipsed by hate by bkaul01 · · Score: 1

    At least they have one thing in common: they're all dead. Maybe he'll soon follow?

  37. Weev is being stupid. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    I agree that he was wronged. But rather than imply threats or demand money in an "open letter", he would be FAR better off getting an attorney and pressing charges under 18 U.S.C. 242, "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law".

    At first glance it appears to be an anti-discrimination statute. But on closer reading (and by both Congressional intent and court affirmation), it applies to all Constitutional and Common Law rights.

    Government officials and law enforcement are not immune... the statute was specifically intended to curb governmental abuse.

    The maximum penalty is life in prison. The conviction rate for 18 USC 242 once charges have been brought is impressive. Well over 90%.

    1. Re:Weev is being stupid. by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      Wronged??? The case was thrown out for being held in the wrong State not because he was found Innocent.

      http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/improper+venue
      I bet he will get arrested within the next 3 years he,s an ass plus what he did was criminal and hes free on a Technicality.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    2. Re:Weev is being stupid. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Wronged??? The case was thrown out for being held in the wrong State not because he was found Innocent.

      I grant you that -- at least in my opinion -- the guy is a large-caliber asshole. On that we can agree.

      But asshole does not equal crime. Illegal or negligent prosecution or imprisonment is.

      The EFF claims he did nothing illegal in the AT&T affair. If anybody is an authority on this kind of thing, EFF is. That isn't proof, but I tend to believe EFF over overzealous, corporate-brownnosing, incompetent government cops.

    3. Re:Weev is being stupid. by pspahn · · Score: 1

      That isn't proof, but I tend to believe EFF over overzealous, corporate-brownnosing, incompetent government cops.

      You might want to take the blinders off. The EFF does a number of really great things, but they are not always the Robin Hood everyone makes them out to be.

      A guy I met recently told me his story of the EFF. I don't recall all the details, but here's the gist:

      Business owner is using Facebook for promotion of his company.

      Owner's FB account is suspended because someone claimed trademark ownership of the business' name.

      Several other businesses with similar names also have accounts suspended. The specific part of the name that is questionable is the use of "Urban Gardening/Urban Gardeners".

      Business owner gets lumped in with other businesses in court case. His case was different because of the type of trademark he was allegedly infringing. Because he got incorrectly lumped in with the case, he was responsible for the outcome as well.

      EFF took the case for these defendants and refused to acknowledge the special circumstance this business owner had compared to the others because it was a high prestige case for them. As a result the business owner unfairly lost his business name.

      I'm not trying to flame the EFF, but before I heard this story, I had the same impression everyone around here does; the EFF is a bastion of freedom and watches the backs of the little guys. Ultimately, they are just like any other group of lawyers and will throw anyone to the wolves if they are not part of their agenda.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    4. Re:Weev is being stupid. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It sounds like some guy came up with a sympathetic-sounding "version" of his story, and sold it to you at face value. That tells me nothing about him, or the EFF, but something about you.

    5. Re:Weev is being stupid. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      You might want to take the blinders off. The EFF does a number of really great things, but they are not always the Robin Hood everyone makes them out to be.

      Are you nuts?

      Hey, man, I didn't claim they're perfect. But if I am faced with the choice of believing EFF vs AT&T and some known-to-be-overzealous Federal prosecutors, I'm going to believe EFF.

      I clearly stated it wasn't proof of anything. But all other things being equal, EFF has the greater credibility.

  38. Re:Learn to read comprehensively by borcharc · · Score: 1

    This is 2014, people just regurgitates talking points distributed by whatever fake news site they started reading 10+ years ago, preferably with as much emotion, one-upmanship, and self back patting as possible. The nation is full of uneducated morons who think they are gods gift to the world. They have learned in decades of government education that saying anything fundamentally critical of the government is heresy.

  39. The break-down by states. by westlake · · Score: 2

    The US has the largest prison population by far in the entire world, both by numbers and proportion of the population. And that is directly attributable to the police-state infrastructure created and perpetuated by the Federal government

    Now and again the geek needs to be reminded of how federalism really works in the US.

    The prison population of the US varies enormously by state. But the states of the desert Southwest and the old Southern Confederacy are right up there --- and it is damn hard to see them following the federal lead on anything.

    Here is a small sampling:

    Prisoners per 100,000 population

    1 Louisiana 867
    5 Texas 648
    7 Florida 556
    14 Virginia 468
    20 California 448
    39 New York 288
    41 Washington 269
    48 Massachusetts 200
    50 Maine 148

    List of U.S. states by incarceration rate

  40. weev, GNAA president demands one bitcoin for... by TriCCer · · Score: 1

    Why is no one mentioning that weev was the GNAA president?

    --
    c0w goes moo.
  41. More bad US laws by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Due process is for wimps. Even the left praises the Magnitsky Act as a way to go after those who violate human rights. But the irony to me is that the law itself is an abuse of rights, such as the right to a fair trial. The act was passed for all the right reasons, but it is as evil as any of the other blunders we have made in the US.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:More bad US laws by BalthCat · · Score: 1

      Uh, abuse of rights of non-citizens to enter a country they've no inherent right to visit, and to use a banking system they've no inherent right to use? That's not exactly the poster-child for due-process abuse, you might want to find another.

    2. Re:More bad US laws by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      No rights were denied anyone through that, so why would you require a "fair trial"? The due process was denied to Magnitsky.

  42. Re: weev, GNAA president demands one bitcoin for.. by TriCCer · · Score: 1

    "Notorious troll posts controversial letter". We're really doing this? Was no one else around when gnaa tagged every Slashdot article?

    --
    c0w goes moo.
  43. I agree with 90% of what he said by pebear · · Score: 1

    He would have had me if he never invoked McVeigh's name. I can't stand by murders of people and those who do. Too bad because most everything he said in the letter was true. But when you mix in one lie with a pile of truth you end up with a pile of lies.

    --
    Paul E. Bahre
  44. 1 bitcoin per "service" ? by Optali · · Score: 1

    Mate, this is expensive, 1 bitcoin for each hour of sexual service... not even the best pron stars and luxury prostitutes earn this much... I bet he is exaggerating about his professional skills.

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  45. Debate. by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    I'm just arguing based upon actually reading about the man and expanding my understanding instead of just calling him names and demonizing him mindlessly. The world is not black and white. Learn some history.

    I would say more but the post is written by a child not mature enough to discuss the issue.