Silk Road Founder Loses Appeal and Will Serve Life (yahoo.com)

Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 10:45 · Score: -1, Troll

drugs are bad and for losers that can't deal with reality

Re:Good by allcoolnameswheretak · 2017-05-31 10:56 · Score: 1

Drugs are bad.
Mkay?
Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 10:57 · Score: 1

I think you are being fececious, but yes, good. All of you under 30 that think you can 'handle' recreational hard drug use need to get back to us in 10 years after your renal/liver/kidney/bowel/frontal lobe failure, hepatitis C or worse, and your subsequent organ transplants (if you can afford them - I'm not paying for that shit with my tax dollars). Many of you are arrogant and can't see past your own noses, I will have no sympathy for you when you realize you 'made a mistake', and neither will my money.
Re:Good by CaptainDork · 2017-05-31 11:14 · Score: 1

Or very good for those who need medication.

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 11:18 · Score: -1

I think you are being fececious, but yes, good. All of you under 30 that think you can 'handle' recreational hard drug use need to get back to us in 10 years after your renal/liver/kidney/bowel/frontal lobe failure, hepatitis C or worse, and your subsequent organ transplants ...
You forgot the significant probability of ending up homeless, and other very unpleasant side "benefits" of drug use.
I used plenty of recreational drugs when I was a kid. I quickly realized most of the drugs were stuff that should be avoided at all costs. Not everyone has the will power or presence of mind or self-discipline to walk away from such things, though, and there are plenty of wasted lives which stand as proof.
However it's not just the illegal drugs that are bad news. Alcohol is seriously bad stuff too, as is tobacco. Marijuana tends to cause people who may have been productive people to become worthless pieces of shit. Sure, there are exceptions, but the law of averages is against you when you use such substances on a regular basis.
I don't give a fuck about whether any of this stuff is illegal. What matters to me is that life is a precious thing and I am reasonably certain we only
get ONE life. Wasting that life is a much worse crime than simply using illegal drugs. You might try to argue that it's your life so you have the right
to waste it if you like, but the truth is that it is not really just your life. A line of ancestors are responsible for putting you on earth, and if you don't think you owe yourself a decent life, you do owe your ancestors the decency of at least making some effort to not fuck up the life you were given.
I don't think Ulbricht deserves a life sentence for drugs-related crimes, though. There will always be a demand for drugs because there will always be weak people who can't deal with the world in a sober state. But if Ulbricht really did make an effort to hire professional killers, he damned well does deserve life in prison for that. No one has the right to take another human life for the sort of reasons Ulbricht apparently had.
Frankly it sounds like Ulbricht is a sociopathic asshole who didn't understand there would be consequences for fucking with the existing system.
Well, it's now obvious there ARE consequences. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 11:22 · Score: -1

And John Corzine, Larry Summers, and Hillary Clinton ride off into the sunset in their yachts for committing "white collar" crimes.
Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 11:25 · Score: 0

A lot of people who use hard drugs regret it after starting. Just listen to rehab stories.
Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 11:38 · Score: 0

The #1 risk factor for drug use is a high IQ. They are a coping mechanism for having to live among the retarded masses. People with high IQ can actually do BETTER in life for years on drugs before they see the side effects because it dims them to slightly above a normal person, making them infinitely more sociable and less off-putting in the process. The solution to the drug problem is the same as the solution to every other problem on this planet: allocate resources based on IQ, not based on social aptitude (i.e. not to marketing, sales, business, finance, etc professions but to research scientists, engineers, etc.)
Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 11:44 · Score: 0

"fececious"
I don't think that's a word, unless you were referring to the feces in your post?
Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 11:58 · Score: 0

lol-- "I did drugs, so you shouldn't"
The first drug I did was acid.
A friend of mine was doing it, so I spent a few weeks in the university library reading "The Journal of Psychoactive Drugs" (many many articles written over decades). I came to the conclusion: "why isn't everyone doing acid"?
Never cocaine or opiates, but Jesus, yes, alcohol is terrible. It's legal and it's terrible, but it's all that's available. If marijuana, acid, and mushrooms were legal I think there would be many many fewer liver transplants.
It really needs to be taught, the real affects of drugs. You can't just say "drugs" are bad. You have to explain how this or that drug is bad in this or that way.
Marijuana, acid and 'shrums... not bad. Heroin and coke and alcohol.. pretty bad.
Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 12:20 · Score: 0, Troll

That's nothing...there was one bigoted criminal that recently made it into the friggen White House...
Re: Good by bigfinger76 · 2017-05-31 12:23 · Score: 1

I'm not paying for that shit with my tax dollars
Yes, you will. One way or the other.
Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 12:37 · Score: 0

Some people do fine with LSD. Many people cannot handle having the illusions and lies they've built their psyche and belief systems on torn from them.
Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 12:47 · Score: 0

The problem you'll encounter is once again political. Blacks consistently score lower on IQ tests so your proposal, though merit-based, will be called "racist". White people will be your most vocal critics, not because of concern for black people but because they won't be able to resist the chance to conduct intense virtue-signaling towards other whites.
They will reject your proposal because that's easy. Harder would be finding out why blacks score lower on IQ tests and working to address these causes. While that would most benefit black people, it takes effort and honesty so it will not be popular.
Otherwise I love your idea. You just need a plan to deal with this inevitable political problem or it'll never happen. What's that saying about how the biggest obstacle for a meritocracy is the fear of the mediocre of being judged on their own merits?
Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 13:20 · Score: 0

Yeah keep telling yourself that.....
Of maybe you need to wean yourself off whatever is giving you those delusions.
Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 13:27 · Score: 0

Marijuana, acid and 'shrums... not bad. Heroin and coke and alcohol.. pretty bad.
THE ABOVE IS UTTER BULLSHIT and should not be taken as any sort of advice worth following.
No one should take your advice that LSD is not bad. Your categorical statement that some drugs are bad while others are fine is the sort of thing ONLY an idiot would say. Why ? BECAUSE experiences with drugs vary widely from one person to the next. There's a saying that predates your stupid ass being born : one man's food is another man's poison.
LSD used a single time can induce a psychotic break in some people. That's as bad as it gets : you need to be institutionalized and your mind might never return to its undamaged state. But you'd tell people LSD is fine. I'm telling you right now that you're an idiot and you need to ***shut the fuck up*** before some naive fool takes your idiotic opinion as some sort of quality info.
Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 13:34 · Score: 0

I actually googled the claim and on the surface it seemed like there is a stuffy that actually says that in the UK.
But after reading it I would agree that who ever read the headline of the article and jump to conclusions like the guy did is probably really dumb.
First there isn't a classification on the types of drugs which basically include marijuana so fucking everything is gonna get thrown off.
The article then go on to say that those with higher IQ tend not to smoke. Because the science is there and the science in cannabis is not as strong as cigarettes.
So all it boils down to is that smart people are more open to experience and is only deterred by prove.
So they smoke marijuana, but that doesn't mean they are more likely to abuse hard drugs.
Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 13:45 · Score: 1, Funny

Obama?
Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 15:24 · Score: 0

why, only stupid fucking kids would follow his advice, good time to cull the herd and let Darwin rule....
Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 20:06 · Score: 0

Alll tobacco stores owners should be jailed for life. Both my grandfathers and grandfather of my wife died on cancer caused by smoking. Thousands of people per year die on tobacco abuse.
Re: Good by DMJC · 2017-05-31 20:22 · Score: 1

Jokes on you I'm wasting my life in a dead end job as an IT guy anyway.
Re:Good by tehcyder · 2017-06-01 01:54 · Score: 1

The #1 risk factor for drug use is a high IQ. They are a coping mechanism for having to live among the retarded masses.
Interesting spin on the classic slashdot "I am so unbelievably clever that I got bored and left school early without taking any sheeple-fodder exams, which is why I am unemployed and living in my parents' basement" argument.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-01 04:29 · Score: 0

You are not called racist because your brilliance brings out uncomfortable truths. You are called racist because your stupidity shines through in your attachment to ignorant arguments with no real world basis. It isn't political. It is common sense that attempting to create a hierarchical structure of human capability based on a subjective category that separates people based on skin color is nothing short of ignorant. I know it might help you to feel better about yourself thinking you were born a member of a master race as you slave for another man in a higher position, but let's be real, there is nothing special about you bro. You were born human like every other color of people in the world. Your position in life is not due to affirmative action, illegal immigration, or whatever other excuse you are trying to give to yourself. The political part, is when the rich ones in power convince you there is something unique you share with them that gets you to fight on their behalf. Just like the peasants going to war while the kings sit feasting, your being played by your political masters to push their propaganda. Oh what glory it must be to be a member of a master race enslaved into actually believing their is a master race. Lulz
Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-02 04:11 · Score: 0

Drugs are good
They let you do things that you know you not should
And when you do 'em people think that you're cool
And when you do 'em people think that you're cool

Sure, sure... by Frosty+Piss · 2017-05-31 10:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

Sure, life is a bit much for these crimes. But what of this?

March 2013 â" Dread Pirate Roberts solicits the first of six murders for hire, after a Silk Road user tries to extort money by threatening to reveal usersâ(TM) identities, according to prosecutors. (The killings were not carried out.)

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.

Re:Sure, sure... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 11:18 · Score: 1, Informative

Sure, life is a bit much for these crimes. But what of this?

March 2013 â" Dread Pirate Roberts solicits the first of six murders for hire, after a Silk Road user tries to extort money by threatening to reveal usersâ(TM) identities, according to prosecutors. (The killings were not carried out.)
It's been known that there was more then one DPR and Ulbricht denied it.
Re:Sure, sure... by JBMcB · 2017-05-31 11:36 · Score: 2

That wasn't what he was convicted of, though. There is one pending trial for solicitation for murder or something like that.

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Re:Sure, sure... by retchdog · 2017-05-31 12:06 · Score: 2

on the bright side, he's already serving life, so whatever.

--
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Re:Sure, sure... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 12:07 · Score: 0

Those charges were dropped because they were bullshit. The media made sure everyone knew about them but hasn't widely reported they were nonsense. All he did was run a website.
Re:Sure, sure... by Kjella · 2017-05-31 16:17 · Score: 1

on the bright side, he's already serving life, so whatever.
Yeah, and that leads to some perverted incentives sometimes. Like you will be going away for life for one murder or you got a 5% chance of killing all the witnesses and 95% chance of doing five life sentences but whatever. Once the expected punishment is so high your life is practically over if you get caught, only the chance to get away with it matters.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Sure, sure... by DrXym · 2017-05-31 22:05 · Score: 1

True but what he was convicted of is sufficient. The other stuff just speaks of his character. He's not some libertarian hero, rather he's an asshole scumbag ready to murder people disrupting his business.
Re:Sure, sure... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 23:41 · Score: 0

Reasons something is not widely reported in the press:
1. Conspiracy to look some kid look bad.
2. They are not actually true.
I wonder which one it could be...
Re:Sure, sure... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-01 04:15 · Score: 0

He was never convicted of those crimes. We should not take into account accused crimes when determining a sentence. Only the crimes someone is convicted of.

Deterrence by interkin3tic · 2017-05-31 10:48 · Score: 3, Funny

Before Ulbricht was sentenced, prosecutors sent the judge a 16-page letter asking that in order to deter others he be given a lengthy sentence, one substantially above the mandatory minimum of 20 years.

Welp, I was about to setup a knockoff silk road, but given the harsh treatment of this guy, I'd better not. Good job prosecutors!

Re:Deterrence by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 11:00 · Score: 0

Thats funny because there is no shortage of DNMs, in fact there are even more DNMs than before.
I have no trouble getting high.
Re:Deterrence by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-31 11:05 · Score: 1

Welp, I was about to setup a knockoff silk road, but given the harsh treatment of this guy, I'd better not. Good job prosecutors!
Every how to write a business plan book should have a "going to prison" section under the "costs of doing business" chapter. Maybe some entrepreneurs will have a change of heart about the way they conduct business.
Re:Deterrence by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 11:33 · Score: 0

I get high off Jesus and Jesus says you're a junkie faggot liberal dick smoker. Jesus wants you to burn in hell.
Trump 2020!!!!
Re: Deterrence by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 12:13 · Score: 0

Reporting you to the FBI!
Re:Deterrence by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 12:34 · Score: 1

Tourettes troll strikes again!
Re: Deterrence by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 12:55 · Score: 0

The main purpose of mandatory minimum sentences is to ensure continued business for the private prison industry. It's a big business like any other. This is especially true for nonviolent drug offenses. It works because being "tough on crime" is easy to campaign and difficult to argue against without being demagogued. Just like "fighting terror" or "for the children". It's basically show business.
Re:Deterrence by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 13:29 · Score: 0

Moving to another country - one that won't extradite - might be one precaution, but you would probably be stuck there for the rest of your life.
Re:Deterrence by Tom · 2017-05-31 20:01 · Score: 1

That sentence actually is troublesome. Note that I'm not commenting on the case in general, only on this particular bit.
In my home country, and most of Europe, such arguments are explicitly illegal and if the judge is on his feet, should land the prosecutor in a big pile of trouble. One of the core principals of the legal system should be to judge the case at hand, and the case at hand only.
People should not get harsher (or lighter) sentences because of external circumstances. They should not get more prison time to deter others, or because the crime rate is high, or because we can only catch x% of criminals, so let's punish them extra hard. To deter others should not be a factor in the decision or the penalty. What's next? Punish black people harder because they need extra deterance? Punish men harder because they tend to be more violent? This is a slippery slope which is exactly why that principle exists.
Punish the crime, not the circumstances. If the punishment is not high enough for deterence, re-think the sentencing rules and change the law, but don't bend the law.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Deterrence by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 20:56 · Score: 0

> Moving to another country - one that won't extradite
Ask Eichmann about that carpet roll by Mossad... Shalom!
Re:Deterrence by thegarbz · 2017-05-31 23:00 · Score: 1

Hi sentence was for more than just running a shady site. There was a long list of crimes he was charged with. Were you intending to copy them all?

Life? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 10:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Life... for running a website.

Meanwhile rapists and murders are getting out at 2-3 years for good behavior.

Re:Life? by DaHat · 2017-05-31 10:50 · Score: 2

What penalty would you suggest for someone who runs a website which facilitates illegal acts like rape & murder?

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Re:Life? by interkin3tic · 2017-05-31 10:51 · Score: 0

They really only get out that early if they're white and rich. This guy presumably made the mistake of not being rich.
Re:Life? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 10:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

You mean like craigslist or uber?
Re:Life? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 10:54 · Score: 1

They really only get out that early if they're white and rich. This guy presumably made the mistake of not being rich.
Easy way to get not-rich? Have the government steal^H^H^H^H^Hseize your assets before you are guilty of a crime leaving you with no money to defend yourself.
Re:Life? by Frosty+Piss · 2017-05-31 10:58 · Score: 1

They really only get out that early if they're white and rich. This guy presumably made the mistake of not being rich.
Hmmm....

...before the end of 2011, moving to Australia for a while and then San Francisco. He limited his splurges to a Thailand jaunt, where he indulged in "jungles and girls." Later, in a chat, he joked that he wished he could explain Silk Road to family and friends who couldnâ(TM)t understand why an apparently unemployed young man was so busy: "Iâ(TM)m running a multimillion-dollar global drug operation!' In addition to the diaries, he saved his chats, kept an Excel spreadsheet of his business and a Bitcoin âoewalletâ with $18 million on his laptop.

Well, it was BitCoin, so not money? Apperently enough to fund a life without a treditional job that took him Thailand for "jungle and girls".

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Re:Life? by DaHat · 2017-05-31 11:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Except Craigslist wasn't built (that we know of) with the primary intent of facilitating illegal activities, nor do they take deliberate steps to hide the identities of those doing such things, nor make available certain services in areas where it is illegal... and where the government has the ability to arrest & prosecute them.
Doing so tends to incur the wrath of the powers that be, just ask Carl Ferrer.
Regarding Uber... do you mean in the sense that they are an unlicensed taxi in some jurisdictions? Or some may use their service during the commission of a crime (ie take an Uber to go rape someone)?
In either case, not much of a federal matter, and local municipalities tend to go after them for the prior (which rarely have criminal penalties associated), rather than the latter where they would be little different from a common carrier.
What's next? A poor car analogy?

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Re:Life? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 12:15 · Score: 3, Informative

Silk road ONLY facilitated drugs.
They banned weapons, even.
No murder or rape was available or possible through it.
Please keep using straw men, though.
Re:Life? by Antique+Geekmeister · 2017-05-31 16:44 · Score: 1

And child porn, and human trafficking. I'm personally less concerned ethically about illegal drug use. But assassination as you mentioned, and child porn and human trafficking as I mentioned, cannot be considered "victimless crimes".
Re:Life? by thegarbz · 2017-05-31 23:00 · Score: 1

Life... for running a website.
And soliciting the murder of six people.
Re:Life? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-01 04:15 · Score: 0

fuck you, you dumb bitch. you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.
Re:Life? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-02 04:16 · Score: 0

Oh how quickly you forget OJ Simpson and Hans Reiser. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with money, but way to be a bigoted prick.

Wrong argument by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 10:49 · Score: 0

Not going to convince a court that a warrant to search a computer violates the 4th. Would have been better to argue the sentence was too long. He's going to serve time no matter what because the evidence was completely against him.

Re:Wrong argument by pellik · 2017-05-31 11:27 · Score: -1, Troll

Yeah, the government overstepping and using parallel construction to cover up illegal activity is no big deal, just appeal based on some bullshit.
Re:Wrong argument by DaHat · 2017-05-31 11:30 · Score: 1

Yeah, the government overstepping and allegedly using parallel construction to cover up illegal activity is no big deal, just appeal based on some bullshit.
FTFY.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans

Take heed kids by DaHat · 2017-05-31 10:49 · Score: 1

Whether you are up to legal or illegal things... practice good op-sec, as the contents of your insufficiently protected PC can often be used against you in ways you may not want.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans

Re:Take heed kids by Trax3001BBS · 2017-05-31 12:40 · Score: 1

Whether you are up to legal or illegal things... practice good op-sec, as the contents of your insufficiently protected PC can often be used against you in ways you may not want.
Heck it was the kids on Silk Road that inudated it with Adderall for sale post.

He embarrassed the government by Urinal+Pube · 2017-05-31 10:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

The poor guy never had a hope of getting a fair trial.

Re:He embarrassed the government by jfdavis668 · 2017-05-31 11:03 · Score: 1

A fair trial by whose standard?
Re:He embarrassed the government by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 11:05 · Score: 0

Fair trial? Let's recap.
He was caught red-handed while logged into SR in public. He paid someone he believed was a hitman to kill someone.
He got off easier than his victim would have if he'd been able to get in touch with a real hitman.
Re:He embarrassed the government by pellik · 2017-05-31 11:28 · Score: 1, Troll

Yeah, it's ok for the Government to cover up it's transgressions with parallel construction because clearly he was a bad guy.
Re:He embarrassed the government by DaHat · 2017-05-31 11:37 · Score: 1

Yeah, it's ok for the Government to cover up it's alleged transgressions with parallel construction because clearly he was a bad guy.
FTFY, or would you like to provide proof (not claims, but actual definitive proof) that that is what happened?

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Re:He embarrassed the government by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 11:39 · Score: 0

Don't like it? Get the fuck out, liberal faggot.
Trump2020!
Re:He embarrassed the government by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 11:45 · Score: 0

It was a fair trial.
Re:He embarrassed the government by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 12:50 · Score: 0

Low effort my man.
Re:He embarrassed the government by WorBlux · 2017-05-31 13:23 · Score: 1

Hitman thing was bogus or unprovable. Wasn't even brought up in the trial. Additionally DPR was not the only account with admin access.
Re:He embarrassed the government by Cytotoxic · 2017-05-31 17:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, the government admitted that they had two corrupt officers on the investigation. They were being investigated at the time and the government actively covered it up. They admit this freely - in fact they have made the charges in court. The appeals court judge cites their reasoning in the denial, saying that it was proper to keep the proceedings of the grand jury secret, despite the defendant's right to a fair trial.
The "alleged" part would be Ulbricht's assertion that they were blackmailing him an threatening to frame him.
Some of the behavior of the legal system in this case is scary. It seems to me that they are really worried about this internet thing being used to sell drugs, so they are going to collect a few scalps as a deterrent, come hell or high water.
Here's a write-up of the appeal from the point of view of "holy crap, this is bad for freedom". The scariest point the writer makes is that the appeals judge hints that the justification for the overly harsh sentence of "life without parole" is that the defense team made the argument that the war on drugs was a bad thing with negative consequences.
Here's a bit from the decision:

In this case, a reminder of the consequences of facilitating such transactions was perhaps more necessary, particularly because Ulbricht claimed that his site actually made the drug trade safer, and he appeared to contest the legitimacy of the laws he violated.
The government argued that he deserved a harsher sentence because they alleged that they could trace 6 deaths to drug overdoses from Silk Road purchases. His lawyers countered that by providing a community rated marketplace he made the drug trade safer for users, mitigating this harm and providing a net benefit. The judge is saying that this claim makes it important that the court administer a harsher sentence.
Re: He embarrassed the government by loufoque · 2017-05-31 18:13 · Score: 2

So I guess the lesson here is that you shouldn't question the legitimacy of a law, however stupid it might be?
Re:He embarrassed the government by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 19:52 · Score: 0

Don't like it? Get the fuck out, liberal faggot.
I don't have to because it's a free country. You would understand that if you were a patriot.
Your treasonous statement of intolerance raises interesting questions. Why do you hate freedom so much? Are you working with terrorists?
Re: He embarrassed the government by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 20:50 · Score: 0

It wasn't. It was a trial in a country with a thoroughly broken legal system. There is no such thing as a fair trial in tge US.

Life sentence by MalleusEBHC · 2017-05-31 10:58 · Score: 1, Insightful

He was given a life sentence for convictions on drug trafficking and money laundering. This should be unconstitutional except our cruelty has become usual.

The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide from ourselves the violence we intend toward each other. Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. You have done violence to him, consumed his energy. Elaborate euphemisms may conceal your intent to kill, but behind any use of power over another the ultimate assumption remains: "I feed on your energy."

Frank Herbert, Dune Messiah

Re:Life sentence by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 11:20 · Score: 0

Basically the ramblings of an insane man.
Re:Life sentence by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 11:27 · Score: 0

The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide from ourselves the violence we intend toward each other. Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. You have done violence to him, consumed his energy. Elaborate euphemisms may conceal your intent to kill, but behind any use of power over another the ultimate assumption remains: "I feed on your energy."
Frank Herbert, Dune Messiah
So the implication is that making a child stand in the naughty corner for telling her parents a very bad lie, making a shoplifter serve community service for 40 hours, and making somebody serve a life sentence are equally moral/reprehensible?
I absolutely disagree. I suspect you do as well when actually made explicit rather than as a hippy "the system is broken" rant.
Re:Life sentence by phantomfive · 2017-05-31 11:47 · Score: 1

He also tried to hire hitmen for multiple hits. So, as far as I'm concerned, he should be getting at least as much as Madoff.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Life sentence by Gravis+Zero · 2017-05-31 11:54 · Score: 2

He was given a life sentence for convictions on drug trafficking and money laundering.
I understand your objections but the sentence really reflects that he hired a hitman to kill six people. They could give him a normal sentence and then try him for procuring murder but it's a waste of time and money.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Re:Life sentence by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 12:00 · Score: 0

However that's not what he was convicted for. The amazing point here is that money laundering or drug trafficking alone will result in life sentences. That the person is otherwise a scoundrel is irrelevant.
Re:Life sentence by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 12:05 · Score: 0

"So the implication is that making a child stand in the naughty corner for telling her parents a very bad lie, making a shoplifter serve community service for 40 hours, and making somebody serve a life sentence are equally moral/reprehensible?"
No, that's not at all what this is implying.
Re:Life sentence by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 12:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

"They could give him a normal sentence and then try him for procuring murder but it's a waste of time and money."
Really? Seriously?
So, you're entirely okay with a legal system recognizing the concept of precedent setting a precedent that money laundering or drug handling will lead to life sentences because actually prosecuting for the actual conspiracy to commit murder charge is too hard?
Re:Life sentence by MalleusEBHC · 2017-05-31 12:35 · Score: 3, Informative

Fifth Amendment: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
If you want to punish him for hiring a hitman, you need to convict him first. This is the exact bullshit the fifth amendment is meant to protect against.
Re:Life sentence by phantomfive · 2017-05-31 12:39 · Score: 1

That the person is otherwise a scoundrel is irrelevant.
Whether or not a person is a scoundrel, along with chances for recidivism, are definitely relevant to sentencing.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Life sentence by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 12:42 · Score: 0

"They could give him a normal sentence and then try him for procuring murder but it's a waste of time and money."
Really? Seriously?
So, you're entirely okay with a legal system recognizing the concept of precedent setting a precedent that money laundering or drug handling will lead to life sentences because actually prosecuting for the actual conspiracy to commit murder charge is too hard?
There is no precedent set here that "that money laundering or drug handling will lead to life sentences".
Money laundering and drug trafficking can easily and foreseeably facilitate heinous consequences. Depending on the particular case, a life sentence may be appropriate in the context of sentencing in general.
And speaking of that context, sentencing in the US is generally draconian.
Re:Life sentence by Gravis+Zero · 2017-05-31 13:21 · Score: 1

If you want to punish him for hiring a hitman, you need to convict him first. This is the exact bullshit the fifth amendment is meant to protect against.
I agree that they are being lazy. I seemed to have inadvertently removed "by their logic" in editing my comment. #>_<

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Re: Life sentence by backslashdot · 2017-05-31 14:08 · Score: 2

If they have proof he tried to hire hitmen, why don't they convict him on that?? Obviously they have nothing solid. He is given a punishment based on something he may not even have done! His only hope now is that a future sane president issues some kind of a pardon or chance for parole. There are a lot worse people than him being given very light sentences.
Re:Life sentence by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 14:24 · Score: 0

"So the implication is that making a child stand in the naughty corner for telling her parents a very bad lie, making a shoplifter serve community service for 40 hours, and making somebody serve a life sentence are equally moral/reprehensible?"
No, that's not at all what this is implying.
It's trendy now to misinterpret what someone said, always in the form of "something less sophisticated and easier to attack than what - properly understood - was said" so that you can be the first special snowflake to find the "glaring flaw" that the author completely missed, thus proving how much "smarter" you are! Really, it's all the rage these days.
I suspect it also breeds trolls. I bet many trolls are people who tried to have legitimate conversation and found it nearly impossible, so they gave up and decided to stop getting frustrated and start having some fun.
Re:Life sentence by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 14:28 · Score: 0

He hasn't been convicted of being a scoundrel (ie. attempting to hire hitmen) so it should not play a factor in sentencing. It is effectively libel until then, and I should hope his lawyer would have objected to any presentation of these allegations in the court room.
Re:Life sentence by slimjim8094 · 2017-05-31 14:31 · Score: 1

Are you OK with getting Al Capone for tax evasion?

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Re: Life sentence by phantomfive · 2017-05-31 14:59 · Score: 1

His only hope now is that a future sane president issues some kind of a pardon
He has no hope for that.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Life sentence by gl4ss · 2017-05-31 21:21 · Score: 1

They could give him a normal sentence and then try him for procuring murder but it's a waste of time and money.
have fun fighting your parallel constructed evidence that shows you soliciting for murder because they can't be bothered to...
you know what - who the fuck knows who even solicited for what since he was hacked for a while without proper warrant?
how about you get life sentence for jaywalking to "reflect that you wanted to hire a hitman to kill the president of the usa" - because it's a waste of money to prosecute you for the actual more serious crime you're being accused of to get the evidence for your jaywalking?

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Life sentence by Gavagai80 · 2017-05-31 22:35 · Score: 1

Capone only served 7 years for his tax evasion. Still too harsh for the crime though. If you can't prove a crime, you shouldn't consider it in sentencing for a different crime.

--
This space intentionally left blank
Re:Life sentence by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 22:41 · Score: 0

The quote has been misused. It's about unjustly stealing the most precious and irreplaceable asset any one person has, time. It is not about punishing criminals.
Re:Life sentence by MalleusEBHC · 2017-06-01 01:55 · Score: 1

The quote has been misused. It's about unjustly stealing the most precious and irreplaceable asset any one person has, time. It is not about punishing criminals.
A quote about time as "the most precious and irreplaceable asset any one person has" isn't relevant to discussing a lifetime prison sentence?
Re:Life sentence by david_thornley · 2017-06-02 03:34 · Score: 1

Or, for that matter, three days of jail time? That's three days the prisoner isn't getting back.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Much better for us all by WolfgangVL · 2017-05-31 11:03 · Score: 2

And safer too right?! It's in the public's interest to buy our $CONTRABAND from strangers, in person, down dark alleys. All that illicit safety found behind a keyboard was rotting our culture!

Sure, he tried to have a few fellow criminals bumped off when they turned on him, but consider the lives silk-road saved from a lifetime of sub-par employment after being popped on stupid drug charges, the medical bills avoided when the large cash transactions went bad, how about the power stolen from the much more violent physical black market, and the funeral costs avoided by dropping the x/1 equation waiting at the end of the followed money?

How about the dirty cops involved? where's that life sentence? That's an example better served, I think.

Dread Pirate Roberts has just provided a perfect blueprint to tax the black market, destroy huge and powerful criminal orgs, provide safety and security to something we should have all decided we cannot stop a long time ago.

He should be working in government.

--
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.

Re:Much better for us all by c · 2017-05-31 11:28 · Score: 2

Dread Pirate Roberts has just provided a perfect blueprint to tax the black market, destroy huge and powerful criminal orgs, provide safety and security to something we should have all decided we cannot stop a long time ago.
He should be working in government.
He sounds overqualified.

--
Log in or piss off.

I have seen people shoot someone by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 11:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

And get 5 fucking years this guy gets life for this little bit of bull shit.
We become more like China and Russia every day.

Re:I have seen people shoot someone by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-01 04:53 · Score: 0

He hired hitmen to kill people. Save your sympathy for someone who deserves it more.
Re:I have seen people shoot someone by david_thornley · 2017-06-02 03:37 · Score: 1

He allegedly hired hitmen to kill people.

FTFY.
They didn't convict him on that, so the allegations should have no effect on legal proceedings. If they'd convicted him of that, I'd find the sentence reasonable.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

How is this different from eBay? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 11:07 · Score: 1

I believe eBay avoids some liability by saying they are just a place where auctioning is done.

Did he setup the storefront specifically to sell illegal things?

Re:How is this different from eBay? by DaHat · 2017-05-31 11:33 · Score: 1

eBay also reduces their liability by prohibiting both legal & illegal items which they think would lead to bad PR and/or legal issues.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans

Damn by DontBeAMoran · 2017-05-31 11:10 · Score: 1

...money laundering charges...

I'll be triple-checking my pockets every time I do the laundry from now on!

--
#DeleteFacebook

Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 14:27 · Score: 0

...money laundering charges...
I'll be triple-checking my pockets every time I do the laundry from now on!
Your username says one thing, yet you have done another.
Only a "moran" would find this humorous.
Re:Damn by DontBeAMoran · 2017-05-31 14:43 · Score: 1

And... and... eh... only a double-moran would reply to this!
I got you now!

--
#DeleteFacebook

There's one thing he won't have to worry about: by Cyberpunk+Reality · 2017-05-31 11:18 · Score: 1

Each night, there won't be anyone telling him they'll most likely kill him in the morning.

--
Rule 35 of the internet: "If it can be hacked, it will be". - Charles Stross

Watch the Deep Web Documentary by kbahey · 2017-05-31 11:28 · Score: 1

Watch a documentary about him.

I have doubts that he is (the only) Dread Pirate Roberts after watching it.

Here it is: Deep Web

--
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.

Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 11:29 · Score: 0

Why was his laptop not encrypted and if it was in what way did it prove to be insufficient? What is the best way to encrypt a laptop and keep it safe from prying eyes?

Re:Encryption? by DaHat · 2017-05-31 12:05 · Score: 1

When he was apprehended he was logged into his laptop... which tends to negate most encryption methods as short of using partially homomorphic encryption, you've got to decrypt your data to do most things with it.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Re:Encryption? by Clomer · 2017-05-31 12:08 · Score: 2

Why was his laptop not encrypted and if it was in what way did it prove to be insufficient? What is the best way to encrypt a laptop and keep it safe from prying eyes?
He did encrypt his laptop. The agents that arrested him watched him from a distance until he logged in. Then they moved in, making sure they didn't give him a chance to lock it.

--
Intelligent responses welcome, flames will be met with marshmallows.
Re:Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 15:12 · Score: 0

Annoyingly, this is a solved problem and he didn't know the solution.
Re:Encryption? by ancientt · 2017-05-31 15:41 · Score: 1

This teaches us an important lesson: Always set up an automatic kill-switch. Were I concerned that my computer might give law enforcement evidence against me, I'd set up a reboot or wipe script to run in the background. What I actually do, since my worries in that area are minimal, is set a countdown timer for bed, for those times I'm watching a show while getting ready to go to sleep. If I don't interrupt it, it'll shut down the things that might be playing, lock the screens and turn them off.
That gets me thinking, what would I do if I were /one of the/ Dread Pirate Roberts? Well for starters, I'd run my laptop off of a bootable live CD. I'd probably remove the hard drive completely rather than risk it storing information by some unanticipated method. If it is just the FBI that I'm worried about, then I'd probably set up an an 'innocent' OS install, on the hard drive I'm not using for dastardly deeds, where I played candy-crush and logged into Facebook like a good sheeple. On the other hand, as an exercise in black-hat paranoia, personally I'd be more concerned about the NSA, and I'd expect the NSA to be more likely to mess with firmware to cause an installed hard-drive to store data.
There are plenty of things one could do in order to attract the unfriendly eye of the FBI but I think most of the time the NSA is unlikely to get involved. The FBI is scary, and I hope they never decide I'm interesting, but they paid money to hack into an iPhone. The FBI may be scary to the extent of "if they're after you, you better take serious precautions" but to me the NSA is scary to the extent of "if a machine has ever been out of your sight, consider it compromised."
As a blackhat, I'd do everything logical and possible to prepare myself against the possibility my laptop could be grabbed out of my hands while I'm using it and that I should never leave it behind. That's just logical blackhat defense against the FBI. On the other hand, as a blackhat fearing the attention of the NSA, I would be worried about the possibility that I could be drugged or any machine I might touch could have been pre-compromised. If I were a blackhat, I'd be soooo paranoid!
I'm a white-hat. I work hard to make sure I'm safe from anything seriously scary, but as a white-hat I also try to consider the perspective of a black-hat and how to protect the things I'm responsible for against them. Sometimes I have moments where I'm paranoid, worrying that some black-hat might have gone above and beyond to think of the things I didn't think of. When I'm in that mood, I try to think the way a black-hat might think. Those moments are dark. I can't imagine living a life where you're always worried that some government agency might take an interest in you. What I imagine the FBI might be able to do is scary, but what I imagine the NSA might be able to do is cold sweat, wake up screaming, did they hack my light bulbs, scary!

--
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
Re:Encryption? by Antique+Geekmeister · 2017-05-31 16:54 · Score: 1

Except for $5 dollar wrench security hole. https://xkcd.com/538/
I'm afraid that someone incarcerated and with powerful agencies annoyed with them can face far more than the infamous $5 wrench form of encryption cracking. These include legal and illegal threats to family, solitary confinement, lack of access to critical medical needs. They can also include more clearly illegal but available abuse such as rape, physical beatings, and starvation.
Re:Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-01 02:59 · Score: 0

You actually sound like more of an ass-hat, lol.
Re:Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-01 03:14 · Score: 0

Lets not forget that they don't even need the smoking gun to make charges stick. The Silk Road guy had fake passports intercepted and then delivered to his house and there was more than enough testimony from planted agents to make charges stick without the "we straight up caught you in the middle of doing it" evidence. Even if the laptop was never decrypted they'd have still got him. I mean... he used his own email address to promote the damn place when he'd just set it up, an email address he used his real details to create!
This is not to say that it's pointless to encrypt, but in this case I don't think it would have made all that much difference overall.
I've wondered also what the task force planning meeting was like for that raid too...
Right, Bob, you're going to grab him and pin him after Watching Team see him logged in properly. Carl, your team are going to make sure no one else gets in the way by sitting around him and dicking around for the whole time, play some Angry Birds or something I don't know. Steve, you've got the hardest job... when he's pinned you MUST make sure the screen saver doesn't come on! Make sure you keep that mouse moving! The WHOLE DAMN TIME STEVE! Don't stop.
He's probably still sitting there rubbing the touch pad just in case it's needed for evidence again.

Christ what a country by rsilvergun · 2017-05-31 11:58 · Score: 0

we're currently selling arms to the Saudis so they can bomb the shit out of Yemen (Women, Children, Hospitals, you name it) and a guy that ran a web site and poses no further danger to the community gets life...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:Christ what a country by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 12:09 · Score: 0

Christ what a false equivalency.
Re:Christ what a country by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 16:50 · Score: 0

How is it false? Are morals different for (international) politics than for common people? I don't think so.
If bad deeds are big enough, they are not bad deeds anymore? Is that what you are saying? Or if they are padded with propaganda claiming the deeds are not bad?

Why by Kernel+Kurtz · 2017-05-31 12:01 · Score: 1

would people do this sort of thing in the USA?

There are much safer places to operate from.

Re:Why by DaHat · 2017-05-31 12:10 · Score: 1

No doubt because he, like many criminals, thought himself smarter than everyone else and so able to evade law enforcement.
You are right though, there are safer places to operate from, though many of the ones he might want to live in are likely to have friendly law enforcement and/or extradition treaties... just ask Kim Dotcom and Julian Assange.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans

American Kingpin by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-31 12:17 · Score: 1

Casey Neistat did a review of "American Kingpin: The Epic Hunt for the Criminal Mastermind Behind the Silk Road" by Nick Bilton. I haven't read it yet but looks like a good read.

https://youtu.be/7-nzTfv5IZY?t=88

Re:American Kingpin by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 13:28 · Score: 0

The moment he mentions you could buy body parts is the moment this died for me. Hypocritic consumerist bullshit.

What about the Wall Street Bankers? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 12:25 · Score: 0

Cases like HSBC's money laundering or Goldman Sachs screwing over their own clients, then in that case they get out-of-jail card and collect bonus.

Anyway Ross Ulbricht is an idiot, he should never have stayed in the US to begin with. Even if you are oversea like Kim Dotcom, if whatever you are doing is deemed in any way not "cooperating" with the US government then you are screwed, often for life unless you are in China or Russia.

Land of the free my ass.

Cruel and unusual punishment by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 12:56 · Score: 0

This is 2017 and the corruption is in our face..not only cops, cbp but mayors and governors and presidents all on the take draining the coffers of the people and in bed with the narcos
https://www.theatlantic.com/ma...
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/...
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/...

And yet, the narco bigs, the mass killers, brutal leaders and true kingpins, cut favorable deals.

If he is no longer in prison, where is Serafin Zambada Ortiz?
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/...

Osiel Cardenas Jr. Sentenced to 10 months in Supermax
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/...

Osiel Cardenas Nephew sentenced to 20 years in Texas
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/...

Sentenced 5 years in 2014 but Queen of the Pacific is ordered released
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/...

Daniel Barrera: Colombia "last of the great capos" gets 35 years in N.Y. sentencing
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/...

Life Sentence Slashed: Francisco Javier Arellano FÃ©lix becomes a "cooperating witness"
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/...

A life sentence is rare in drug trafficking cases, having been imposed in less than one-third of one percent of all drug trafficking cases
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/...

plea bargaining assumes guilt crushes the innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 19:33 · Score: 0

The system punishes far more heavily the chutzpah of demanding a trial and other constitutional protections than actual serious crimes where the defendant makes life easy for the prosecution. The public defender will rarely provide adequate protection in the face of an unlimited federal prosecution budgets and the tactic of throwing every charge imaginable from the actual offense to Al Capone type tax evasion charges. With harsh minimum and maximum sentencing and a lush ecosystem of tough on crime technicality add-on charges even people who actually know themselves to be innocent on all charges take a massive risk actually demanding their right to a fair trial in the face of most juries and grand juries wanting to throw some sort of bone to the poor hard working prosecutor, or worse the need to punish someone who has to be a 'bad guy', especially if the defendant is successfully portrayed as not a 'good guy'. Our system has effectively hacked the problem of constitutional protections to a point where they have become more effective at obtaining prosecutorial success and sentencing than 1940s Nazi occupied Europe(Godwin=true) by forcing the most realistic guilty and innocent people to bypass their former right to a trial before their peers and review of evidence. It is a shitty hack to take the heat off of a tiny privileged minority in America, the well off career climbing people in the various prosecuting attorney's offices.
Back on topic, this person provided a storefront for people to buy without fear of having to commit violence or being violently targeted in what I have heard to have been a peer vetted market of psychotropic chemicals. I could see this as a way to cause less harm then street corner transactions where nobody knows what they are getting. Yet he gets a no-parole life sentence like Charles Manson or the Nazis in Spandeau Prison while actual murderers who plead out get a decade or two in prison.
Our so-called justice system has become a non-monetary bribe to voters who fear a propaganda straw man more than the loss of the constitutional rights of bad guy 'others' until they are the targeted other.

You can't cut in on the CIA's business by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 19:49 · Score: 0

and expect to get away with it.

Not painful enough by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 20:12 · Score: 0

The man tried to get people killed.

An eye for an eye.

He should be released.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-01 00:24 · Score: 0

People have right and responsibility of their own actions should be able to use any drug without government control.

It is sad state when we live live in a nanny state where people are not treated as grown-ups who can so what they want (without directly harming others) and are denied access to drugs they might want.

https://www.psychotherapy.net/interview/thomas-szasz

Psychedelics and Psychosis by Tenebrousedge · 2017-06-01 01:45 · Score: 1

LSD used a single time can induce a psychotic break in some people.

I don't recall reading about any instance of this where the person did not already have some sort of aberrant mental condition. This study found that psychedelic use was not an independent risk factor for psychosis. I think that the other studies I've read had broadly similar conclusions.

I'm telling you right now that you're an idiot and you need to ***shut the fuck up*** before some naive fool takes your idiotic opinion as some sort of quality info.

You must feel embarrassed to have typed that.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.

Scale by JBMcB · 2017-06-01 01:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

True but what he was convicted of is sufficient. The other stuff just speaks of his character. He's not some libertarian hero, rather he's an asshole scumbag ready to murder people disrupting his business.

I don't think the question is whether or not he's some sort hero. The question is if indirectly helping to distribute drugs, "computer hacking" and money laundering are worth a life sentence. According to Wikipedia, they brought up evidence of the murder conspiracy at the sentencing phase, which I completely don't understand - he hasn't been convicted of that yet.

If he's found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder or whatever, then yep - he should probably go away forever. As it is, he's going away for a longer stretch then some people get for actually murdering someone.

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.

Speaking of Saudis... by Tenebrousedge · 2017-06-01 02:06 · Score: 1

We should be bombing the Saudis for spreading Wahhabism. I mean, to be honest they kill a lot more of their fellow Muslims than they do Westerners, but any religion that teaches the killing of the insufficiently faithful is a religious duty for all its followers simply needs to be eradicated.

Watching various Administrations handle them with kid gloves has been galling, but Trump has been especially provocative. The travel ban was a foolish move under any circumstances, but to enact a ban and not only exempt the biggest state sponsor of terrorism but bend over backwards at every turn to reassure them of our continued loyalty. We need that like we need to pay people to teach our enemies to make war upon us. Oh, wait.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.

Re:Speaking of Saudis... by meta-monkey · 2017-06-01 03:44 · Score: 1

1) The travel ban was for failed states / war zones / places where we have no embassy so we can't vet anybody. You cannot call up the government of Somalia and ask them if Odobungo here is a terrorist because they don't have a government. So no, including Saudi Arabia in the list of "countries we can't vet people from" wouldn't make sense because it's at least technically feasible to vet people from KSA since they have a functioning government and we have an embassy there.
2) Unless you're going to use nukes, bombing Saudi Arabia isn't going to do you any good. I thought we leaned this from Iraq. The people aren't yearning for Democracy and blue jeans and Hawaii 5-0 reruns if only they could throw off their oppressive government. They like their oppressive government. Overthrow their government and ask them what kind of government they want and they'll say "more Sharia law, please!" They're not sitting around saying "man I really wish I could blaspheme Allah and draw pictures of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)." They're sitting around saying "man I sure am glad we have this Islamic government that punishes anyone who blasphemes Allah or draws pictures of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)!"
So no, bombing KSA won't do you any good unless you're planning to wipe them out of existence, or do it Ann Coulter's way ("Invade, kill their leaders, convert them to Christianity.") Instead you need to give them the carrot to reform their own shit, which is basically what Trump yelled at them to do. Drive them out of their places of worship, drive them out of their communities, drive them out of this earth! Will it work? Beats me, but it's definitely better than topple stable governments so even more ruthless Islamists can take their place.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Speaking of Saudis... by Tenebrousedge · 2017-06-01 10:48 · Score: 1

The travel ban was for failed states / war zones / places where we have no embassy so we can't vet anybody
So what? The argument was not that Saudis should be included in the travel ban for the same reasons, the argument was that they should be targeted for spreading terrorism around the globe.

They're sitting around saying "man I sure am glad we have this Islamic government that punishes anyone who blasphemes Allah or draws pictures of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)!"
You'd be surprised at how much support for democracy/republicanism there is within various Islamic populations. Islam in its political aspects does sort of have issues with democracy, but
And yes, the argument was "convert or die". If you believe God wants you to kill people who are less than perfectly faithful, to the point of being willing to die for that, I think that you should be assisted in that with the utmost celerity. If you are not a jihadist, go with God/Allah/Buddah/Odin/Whoever and have whatever repressive government you want. Feel free to disagree with that particular moral boundary, but don't argue against positions I don't hold.

Instead you need to give them the carrot to reform their own shit, which is basically what Trump yelled at them to do.
You have no idea what you're even saying. There is no favorable interpretation of Trump's actions. Wahhabism is evil like Nazism is evil. The House of Saud founded Wahhabism and continues to promote it as the default form of Islam. Defending the alliance between our peoples is defending jihadism. I hope that you're not blindly partisan to the point where you would do such a thing.
oh, right, and because I know you're not going to bother looking the term up: both Al Qaeda and ISIS are offshoots of Wahhabism. You were saying what good things about these people, again?

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Re:Speaking of Saudis... by meta-monkey · 2017-06-01 12:04 · Score: 1

Look, my answer to Islam is Coulter's. I'm a traditionalist Catholic. If the Pope called for a crusade I'd be down. But I don't think that's a political reality.
What's your answer to Saudi Arabia? Nuke them? Crusade? I don't think those are politically viable options. Pretty sure telling them "fix your shit" is as good as it's going to get.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Speaking of Saudis... by Tenebrousedge · 2017-06-01 12:41 · Score: 1

If that's your answer to Islam, you're a moron. There are plenty of Muslims who are not jihadists, and the overall battle between the Muslim East and the Christian West has not only been over for two centuries, but it was won so completely that history books rarely even mention it.
But since you ask, my answer continues to be that we should make war on the Saudis. Failing that we should treat them like any other state that promotes terrorism. Failing that we could maybe give them fewer hundred-billion-dollar weapons deals. And failing all that maybe we could stop apologizing for people who do treat with jihadists. Or hey, maybe consider drawing a moral line somewhere instead of just a political one.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Re:Speaking of Saudis... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-01 22:54 · Score: 0

my answer to Islam is Coulter's. I'm a traditionalist Catholic.
No, you sound more like an Islamist. They also call for other religions to be destroyed leaving only Islam.
Actually, Islamists might accept other religions simply submitting themselves to Islam and pay the Jizya (though eventually everybody is expected to convert or die). You/Coulter are even more hardcore than they are.
Re:Speaking of Saudis... by david_thornley · 2017-06-02 03:41 · Score: 1

There's a difference between saying a particular sect is evil and should go away and saying that all other religions are evil and the proponents thereof should convert or die.
That said, I have a very low opinion of anyone who'd go for a religious crusade.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Speaking of Saudis... by meta-monkey · 2017-06-02 04:11 · Score: 1

I'll let your ad hominem go because you're a faggot.
So, you want to "make war on the Saudis." And then what? You defeat their government, and you now have 33 million muslims with no government. Oh and you're in possession of the holiest sites in all of Islam.
If you grant them "freedom" to choose their own government, they're going to choose another Islamic government because the people like Islamic government. They're muslims. They want muslim government. Also, people tend to get a little testy after they've been invaded and their lives completely disrupted by the destruction of their government, so there's a non-zero chance the new Islamic government is more hostile than the old Islamic government.
If you install your own despot to rule over them, well great you've replaced one despot with another, that the people like even less, and now you're responsible for all the atrocities that come with despotism. I'm assuming this a secular despot, so he's also violently suppressing the people's religion.
You could exterminate the people. But genocide is kind of "frowned upon."
If you want them to have "freedom" (with the constraint that they must not choose another Islamic government, and must choose some kind of peaceful coexistence with others), then you'd have to change their fundamental worldview, which means ridding them of Islam. So you'd kind of have to convert them from Islam to something else. Probably not going to be atheism because it's pretty damn difficult to replace something with nothing (and ultimately this isn't much different than the "secular despot" option above). Buddhism or some shit is pretty alien. Maybe another Abrahamic religion? I don't think they're going to go for Judaism. If only there were some well-established Abrahamic religion that puts a really big emphasis on peaceful coexistence with others, and features as its holy figure the 2nd holiest figure in Islam. If only if only...
"Make war." And then do what? What's the victory condition, and what's the path to get there, given the existence of 33 million inbred Muslims?

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Speaking of Saudis... by Tenebrousedge · 2017-06-03 02:06 · Score: 1

Why do you think I'd be opposed to another Islamic government? Haven't I been clear that my issue is with the jihadist extremists? Be as repressive as you like, just don't export terrorism.
But touching on those "holiest sites in Islam", it is worth noting that about 200 years ago those sites were invaded by the House of Saud, who proceeded to destroy the tombs of Mohammad's followers (as being too close to idolatry). You can imagine this move was not universally popular and is still not remembered fondly. Islam has a lot of internal drama about how progressive or modernist it is acceptable to be, and unfortunately the Western world in exploiting the region has made rather a bad impression.
As a highly relevant example, we can consider the modern history of Iran, whose citizens managed to elect a democratic and progressive leader just after WWII, when pro-US sentiment ran high. Quite sensibly, the first thing this person did was to nationalize their oil industry (which had been benevolently managed by BP). So the CIA staged a coup and installed a friendly dictator (because that's their thing). This sent a clear message about what democracy means to Americans.
Islam generally has some issues with modern concepts like democracy or nation-states (which IMO is pretty humorous), but that doesn't mean that there are no Islamic nation-states or democracies. People generally recognize that it's not the 13th Century any more, and that they need to adapt. Whether or not a given people adopt democracy is their issue, but we shouldn't talk like it's somehow impossible or even unexpected.

then you'd have to change their fundamental worldview, which means ridding them of Islam. So you'd kind of have to convert them from Islam to something else. Probably not going to be atheism because it's pretty damn difficult to replace something with nothing (and ultimately this isn't much different than the "secular despot" option above). Buddhism or some shit is pretty alien. Maybe another Abrahamic religion? I don't think they're going to go for Judaism. If only there were some well-established Abrahamic religion that puts a really big emphasis on peaceful coexistence with others, and features as its holy figure the 2nd holiest figure in Islam. If only if only...
Wow, you know nothing about Judiasm, Buddhism, Islam, or the history of the Middle East. It's been said that until recently it made more sense to talk about Judeo-Islamic culture than Judeo-Christian culture, for one. For two, Buddhism was the popular religion of the region before Islam was established, and although the initial Arab conquests established Islam was the majority religion, the various Islamic empires were extremely tolerant of other religions, and there was a bit of cross-pollination at times. You may recall a few years ago some Wahhabists destroyed a pair of large stone buddhas in Afghanistan; there are similar monuments throughout the region. Which is not to say that there are a lot of Buddhists in the Middle East, but it's hardly alien. Finally, while Jesus is mentioned quite a bit in the Qoran, his actual teachings are not, so "second holiest" is a bit of a stretch, and it's not necessarily a selling point for conversions.
That's pretty irrelevant though, because Islam is not a problem to be fixed. I mean, as a religion/political system it has all kinds of issues, but that's for them to worry about. It is not "Muslim bad!", it's jihadism and Wahhabism that are the issues, and really again only insofar as it tends to spill over into other countries. I don't mind Muslims killing other Muslims due to religious conflicts; I expect them to be doing that for centuries. If that's their idea of jihad they can even keep it. I just draw the line at "God says we all have to kill all nonbelievers".

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Re:Speaking of Saudis... by meta-monkey · 2017-06-03 03:05 · Score: 1

You may recall a few years ago some Wahhabists destroyed a pair of large stone buddhas in Afghanistan;
Is Afghanistan Saudi Arabia?

I don't mind Muslims killing other Muslims due to religious conflicts
So what's the problem with selling shitty outdated weapons to Saudi Arabia so they can blow up muslims in Yemen?

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Speaking of Saudis... by Tenebrousedge · 2017-06-03 04:06 · Score: 1

Is Afghanistan Saudi Arabia?
No, one is the country in the Middle East with the largest Buddhist population and the other is Afghanistan.

So what's the problem with selling shitty outdated weapons to Saudi Arabia so they can blow up muslims in Yemen?
We shouldn't be doing business with jihadists. How do you not see a problem with that? How on Earth can you possibly carry blind partisanship to the point of supporting literal terrorists? What makes this better than doing business with Nazis? The hell is wrong with you?

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Re:Speaking of Saudis... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-06 05:32 · Score: 0

So what's the problem with selling shitty outdated weapons to Saudi Arabia so they can blow up muslims in Yemen?
Because it perpetuates American imperial hegemony. It violates the idea that America should just mind its own business, not bossing other countries around.
Didn't you say you don't want that?

No one communicates with their dealer on line. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-01 05:14 · Score: 0

Fucking retarded life with those charging you committing worse crimes and jury unaware judges that are dont care.
5 years more than enough for anything that no one has been murdered.

Complete hipocrisy... by HughMayle · 2017-06-01 11:44 · Score: 1

The big banks launder money all the time and usually if caught only get sanctioned or fined an affordable (for them) amount. Nobody goes to jail. This is just capitalism trying to clamp down on an increasingly popular alternative way of doing business. Links: https://www.int-comp.com/ict-v... http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/2... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... http://rense.com/general28/mon...

Slashdot Mirror

Silk Road Founder Loses Appeal and Will Serve Life (yahoo.com)

145 comments