Source is Sherman himself. I see him every day, he'll be going to jail on the 3rd of September. The above post was actually me, under my Fiance's account. I didn't check to see if she was logged in.
Haymaker (or Haymarket, I forget precisely), was a union meeting in the middle of boston where police shot at the unionizers after an agent provacateur threw a bomb (some eye witness accounts say that the shooting happened before the bomb was thrown) at police, and the unionizers (who expected the police to attack them, as most of them were hired police backed by corporations) shot back. Killed 19 police men I believe.
As for Italy. If you've seen the photo-stills, the kid picked up the fire-hydrant and threw it at the APC as he ran, because he saw the guy in the APC had a gun pointed at him. He was shot in the back and then ran over by the APC. It's interesting to note that the responsible parties in Genoa were trained in the U.S.
Associated Links: http://www.resist.org.uk/reports/archive/genoa/pol ice.html I would provide more links (and I will later.) But some fucking javascript error has just caused my mouse to go fucking haywire
And live rounds have been fired at protestors since Kent State. If you don't think a Rubber coated steel bullet is "live" you haven't seen photos of people with them embedded in their skulls.
And as for a better self-defense being well drilled non-violent protest: Yeah, that Iraq war never happened. Yeah, king got to finish his "Poor People's March". Speaking of King, both King and Gandhi said relatively the same thing on their particular issues: That it was the threat of armed insurrection that made their movements work. Also, Ghandi only used (and this is according to his own writings) non-violent means, because he adequately deduced that the Indians did not have adequate weapons to challenge the British on that front. The first thing he did after expelling the British, was arm the fuck out of the Indians.
And, finally, his instructions were not for use at protests (reguardless of what he had to sign in his plea bargain). There is a very real knowledge in the mind of revolutionaries that the use of violence when a movement does not have wide-based support, would be counter-revolutionary. He had a program on his site called RACUN. Which was Revolutionary Activist Communities Uprising in Numbers. It called for people taking back their communities, especially in inner-cities, arming themselves both with knowledge and the means of arms, and instituting programs like Copwatch. He never advocated killing anyone, he did advocate a right to defend yourself against systemized brutality.
We evidently havent toppled their biggest support government: Saudi Arabia is still standing. The taliban are being offered a place in the Afghani Government on the provision that they hand over Mullah Omar.
And we haven't really destroyed Al-queda, they have made more attacks, you assume we are their only, or even their biggest target. We aren't, traditionally most of their targets have been corrupt Muslim Regimes and their supporters, or suppressors of muslim movements and religion. We're a relatively new target, they'll get us again. Mostly however, they're counting on fallout from us over-reacting from their attacks and thus shooting ourselves in the foot, which our government seems to be doing nicely.
Which means that the enemy's reasons for fighting are *increasing*. The Taliban are still in power in parts of Afghanistan by the way, along with various fueding warlords, and they could regain power (indeed they have much popular support, compared to the Northern Alliance, they seem not-half-bad to many people) at any moment.
Thus, currently: Al Queda is winning, they've carried off a sucession of spectacular attacks (conventional terrorist attacks) since then. They'll learn how to deal with our new methods soon, and they'll recover from their structural losses soon.
Agree with the whole post, with some minor corrections. We have had non-christian presidents, we've just never had any who *admitted to being non-christian* (essentially a few of the first presidents were deists). We've also had at least 1 president that was a closeted homosexual.
I think Shouting Fire in a crowded theatre would mostly result in people running out the exits. Now shouting "nigger" at the Appollo is much more likely to cause imminent danger, but oddly, it's protected speech.
Re:seriously screwed up action
on
Linking Dangerously
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It is also possible to peacefully assemble, fully armed. As Military Marches do all the time. It is possible to have peacefull assembly while armed, in preparation for police brutality. This is the main point, and what raisethefist advocated.
If the police show up with guns and APC's to Abridge your formerly peaceable assembly (which now has to be cast in free-speech zones)I'd think that the police have allready decided that the assembly wasn't going to be peaceable, and that depending on the relative violence the police commit, bombs might be an understandable response. Read: Haymaker Market Police Riot.
Actually, from a tactical point of view, they were smart. It's interesting to note, that they didn't commit terrorism in how we usually define it. (The intentional targeting of civilians). They hit military and economic infrastructure, the civilians were "collateral damage" to use the favorite term of the news media and administration. Thus over-all, they used a great tactical plan. And considering we still haven't destroyed Al-Quaida, they seem to have got away with it too.
No, he's being charged with criticizing the system, and advocating self-defense against brutal government. The charge still revolves around a link to a website, which he didn't write (and he didn't link to, his webiste is an open forum), which had information on explosives about it. He's aslo not being charged with "Distributing Information on Explosives".
He's being charged with "Electronic distribution of information pertaining toward the use or manufacture of explosives and weapons of mass destruction with *intent*." (emphasis mine). Prior restraint law requires that the court show that a crime was committed or was imminently going to be committed, in order to show intent. The court statements themselves say that "No crime can be traced to the information provided on Mr. Austin's Website." I know, because I have read them. I'm a friend of Sherman.
Bull. And. Shit. I've got a copy of the the 600+ page act. It does take away rights, and is a stepping stone to bridge and define alot of other questionable legislation. It provides the police with more *federal* power. It allows a police officer to get a search warrant from any judge. This means that a police officer in new york could get a warrant from a judge in Texas, to investigate a crime in new york. He can do this infinite times, thus if he fails to get a warrant in both new york and texas, he can keep going to another state. Or just another judge. It allows roving wire-taps with no real oversight, it allows use of secret evidence, and gives the government the authority to deny rights to anyone declared an enemy combatant (which it can do rather arbitrarily), and prosecute anyone who provides any support to a terrorist group (which it can define arbitrarily: Case in Point, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elaam. A Group involved in Guerrilla Warfare with the government of Sri Lanka because they were cut out of representation in the government. They target military targets, with only as much blowback onto the civilian population as any war causes. They're on the list because of our diplomatic ties with the government of Sri Lanka.)
Among many other things.
Combine that with the Deutschland Security Act, and you have a very well reinforced Stasi.
It is interesting to note (something that isn't noted in the news articles) that Sherman is the first U.S. Citizen/Activist to be tried under the patriot act. This is a case to test the waters of the legislation, which means it will likely be used again, under even more flimsy circumstances.
A molotav cocktail can be made in relatively few minutes. And it might be pointed out that police come to protests looking for trouble, I mean...they come armed to the teeth, that's no way to encourage non-violent protest if you ask me. "Well show up in APC's, Riotgear, SWAT Teams, Helicopters, with guns and grenade launchers to show them that violence will not be tolerated, and that dissent must be properly channeled through official means."
Yeah...no police state there.
As an interesting note, the first step toward a police state is to remove the authority and ability for a population to defend and organize itself. Secondly is to take away said population's control over their area, then the final step is to effectively make dissent among said population a crime. The U.S. allready has the first 2 qualifiers, the 3rd is being rammed through as we speak.
There's Tons of Liberal Media Bias. If you don't believe me, just ask Bill O'Reilly, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Pat Buchanan, Monica Crowley, Ann Coulter, Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy, Joe Scarborough, Robert Novac, Bernard Goldberg, Brit Hume, John Stossel, William Kristol, Laura Ingraham, and John McLaughlin.
Revisionist history? The Major history lobbies are conservative. They remove anything that might look bad on a particular president or administration from history textbooks. And anything that might be construed as "un-patriotic". Don't talk to me about liberal bias in history books.
a little correction...the CIA did do it's job, it sent a warning to the president that hijackings were coming. The president it seems, ignored those warnings.
Which is odd, because at the G-8 convention in Genoa, they mounted anti-aircraft guns on the top of the building. Why? Because they were afraid someone might fly an airplane into the building.
Re:Republicans arent conservative, liberaterians a
on
Linking Dangerously
·
· Score: 1
Pffft. Impediment to progress? Both parties are. The government will fuck you over, doesn't matter if it's wearing the mask of republican, or democrat. Democrats sometimes support things like universal healthcare, whilst republicans support universal corporate welfare.
Might I remind everone that the Military is ran completely like an authoritarian socialist (state-capitalist) institution?
Is it? Mildly socialist governments like Netherlands have a much higher standard of living, and relatively equal freedoms to the U.S. Thus the term: Democratic Socialism (Bourgeoise socialism) Which in itself is a misnomer, because the nations have a mixed economy anyways.
Perhaps you are thinking of nations like the USSR and Cuba? Those nations are actually state-capitalist.
But reguardless, neither the left-wing politicians nor the right wing politicians want the government bigger than the other one wants it. The truth is, they both want it bigger, albiet in a few different ways. The differences between the two predominant parties are trivial, Clinton voted in the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act, Now Bush with the PATRIOT ACT (which hardly any democrats or republicans voted against).
They play popular myths to set you against one false ideology, and to be for another false ideology, so they can fleece you.
American politics are a racket.
Yes, because we know that disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly are just the first signs of the next Sirhan Sirhan. Big threat, being disorderly and being charged with an unconstitutional crime against freedom of assembly.
Actually he was not guilty as hell. To prove intent you have to exercise something called "Prior restraint". In otherwords, they'd have to show how his site directly caused something, in order to show intent.
He's being charged with linking to a website. It doesn't matter that the website had weapons on them. The jist of it is, he's being charged with *LINKING TO A WEBSITE*.
Sherman originally wanted to. But he's a 21 year old good kid, who's never been charged with any serious crime (although he has been shot once by a plastic bullet for filming a protest, still has a piece of it lodged in his knee, and he's been detained a few times for "Disorderly conduct" and "failure to disperse" at protests.), he's in love, and quite frankly, the thought of spending 20 years in prison scared the fuck out of him. He was originally only going to spend 4 months in prison, so he was like "Allright, big fucking deal."
The jist of Sherman's Site (It's crashed, and no longer up, but so far the FBI hasn't got ahold of it. They asked the host company for it, and he told them: "When you bring me a supeona, if there's anything still on it.") was this:
You have a right to protect yourself from police and government brutality.
To that extent, you have the right to arm yourself.
You have the right to revolution, violent or otherwise, if you are being oppressed.
You have the right to kill a police officer if they are killing your people, shooting at your protest groups (Haymaker, Kent State, Shay's Rebellion, etc.) Same with the Gestappo, or the Administration.
He provided links on how to arm yourself for self-defense against government brutality.
All over his site there were plasterings of "We advocate armed revolutionary self-defense."
He wasn't advocating making bombs to throw at peace rallies, he was advocating making bombs to throw if the police are shooting at you.
It's interesting to note, that during and immediately after the American revolution there was lots of talk about the people's right to overthrow despotic governments, etc. But immediately after Shay's Rebellion, and the creation of the Federal Army, all this talk was hushed over. Rather like the Bolshevists did a few centuries later.
Slashdot Mirror
Source is Sherman himself. I see him every day, he'll be going to jail on the 3rd of September. The above post was actually me, under my Fiance's account. I didn't check to see if she was logged in.
Haymaker (or Haymarket, I forget precisely), was a union meeting in the middle of boston where police shot at the unionizers after an agent provacateur threw a bomb (some eye witness accounts say that the shooting happened before the bomb was thrown) at police, and the unionizers (who expected the police to attack them, as most of them were hired police backed by corporations) shot back. Killed 19 police men I believe. As for Italy. If you've seen the photo-stills, the kid picked up the fire-hydrant and threw it at the APC as he ran, because he saw the guy in the APC had a gun pointed at him. He was shot in the back and then ran over by the APC. It's interesting to note that the responsible parties in Genoa were trained in the U.S. Associated Links: http://www.resist.org.uk/reports/archive/genoa/pol ice.html I would provide more links (and I will later.) But some fucking javascript error has just caused my mouse to go fucking haywire
And live rounds have been fired at protestors since Kent State. If you don't think a Rubber coated steel bullet is "live" you haven't seen photos of people with them embedded in their skulls.
And as for a better self-defense being well drilled non-violent protest: Yeah, that Iraq war never happened. Yeah, king got to finish his "Poor People's March". Speaking of King, both King and Gandhi said relatively the same thing on their particular issues: That it was the threat of armed insurrection that made their movements work. Also, Ghandi only used (and this is according to his own writings) non-violent means, because he adequately deduced that the Indians did not have adequate weapons to challenge the British on that front. The first thing he did after expelling the British, was arm the fuck out of the Indians.
And, finally, his instructions were not for use at protests (reguardless of what he had to sign in his plea bargain). There is a very real knowledge in the mind of revolutionaries that the use of violence when a movement does not have wide-based support, would be counter-revolutionary. He had a program on his site called RACUN. Which was Revolutionary Activist Communities Uprising in Numbers. It called for people taking back their communities, especially in inner-cities, arming themselves both with knowledge and the means of arms, and instituting programs like Copwatch. He never advocated killing anyone, he did advocate a right to defend yourself against systemized brutality.
We evidently havent toppled their biggest support government: Saudi Arabia is still standing. The taliban are being offered a place in the Afghani Government on the provision that they hand over Mullah Omar. And we haven't really destroyed Al-queda, they have made more attacks, you assume we are their only, or even their biggest target. We aren't, traditionally most of their targets have been corrupt Muslim Regimes and their supporters, or suppressors of muslim movements and religion. We're a relatively new target, they'll get us again. Mostly however, they're counting on fallout from us over-reacting from their attacks and thus shooting ourselves in the foot, which our government seems to be doing nicely. Which means that the enemy's reasons for fighting are *increasing*. The Taliban are still in power in parts of Afghanistan by the way, along with various fueding warlords, and they could regain power (indeed they have much popular support, compared to the Northern Alliance, they seem not-half-bad to many people) at any moment. Thus, currently: Al Queda is winning, they've carried off a sucession of spectacular attacks (conventional terrorist attacks) since then. They'll learn how to deal with our new methods soon, and they'll recover from their structural losses soon.
Agree with the whole post, with some minor corrections. We have had non-christian presidents, we've just never had any who *admitted to being non-christian* (essentially a few of the first presidents were deists). We've also had at least 1 president that was a closeted homosexual.
I think Shouting Fire in a crowded theatre would mostly result in people running out the exits. Now shouting "nigger" at the Appollo is much more likely to cause imminent danger, but oddly, it's protected speech.
It is also possible to peacefully assemble, fully armed. As Military Marches do all the time. It is possible to have peacefull assembly while armed, in preparation for police brutality. This is the main point, and what raisethefist advocated.
If the police show up with guns and APC's to Abridge your formerly peaceable assembly (which now has to be cast in free-speech zones)I'd think that the police have allready decided that the assembly wasn't going to be peaceable, and that depending on the relative violence the police commit, bombs might be an understandable response. Read: Haymaker Market Police Riot.
Actually, from a tactical point of view, they were smart. It's interesting to note, that they didn't commit terrorism in how we usually define it. (The intentional targeting of civilians). They hit military and economic infrastructure, the civilians were "collateral damage" to use the favorite term of the news media and administration. Thus over-all, they used a great tactical plan. And considering we still haven't destroyed Al-Quaida, they seem to have got away with it too.
No, he's being charged with criticizing the system, and advocating self-defense against brutal government. The charge still revolves around a link to a website, which he didn't write (and he didn't link to, his webiste is an open forum), which had information on explosives about it. He's aslo not being charged with "Distributing Information on Explosives". He's being charged with "Electronic distribution of information pertaining toward the use or manufacture of explosives and weapons of mass destruction with *intent*." (emphasis mine). Prior restraint law requires that the court show that a crime was committed or was imminently going to be committed, in order to show intent. The court statements themselves say that "No crime can be traced to the information provided on Mr. Austin's Website." I know, because I have read them. I'm a friend of Sherman.
If Hitler was on the $20 bill, how would the Jews feel?
Bull. And. Shit. I've got a copy of the the 600+ page act. It does take away rights, and is a stepping stone to bridge and define alot of other questionable legislation. It provides the police with more *federal* power. It allows a police officer to get a search warrant from any judge. This means that a police officer in new york could get a warrant from a judge in Texas, to investigate a crime in new york. He can do this infinite times, thus if he fails to get a warrant in both new york and texas, he can keep going to another state. Or just another judge. It allows roving wire-taps with no real oversight, it allows use of secret evidence, and gives the government the authority to deny rights to anyone declared an enemy combatant (which it can do rather arbitrarily), and prosecute anyone who provides any support to a terrorist group (which it can define arbitrarily: Case in Point, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elaam. A Group involved in Guerrilla Warfare with the government of Sri Lanka because they were cut out of representation in the government. They target military targets, with only as much blowback onto the civilian population as any war causes. They're on the list because of our diplomatic ties with the government of Sri Lanka.) Among many other things. Combine that with the Deutschland Security Act, and you have a very well reinforced Stasi. It is interesting to note (something that isn't noted in the news articles) that Sherman is the first U.S. Citizen/Activist to be tried under the patriot act. This is a case to test the waters of the legislation, which means it will likely be used again, under even more flimsy circumstances.
You're not the only one.
A molotav cocktail can be made in relatively few minutes. And it might be pointed out that police come to protests looking for trouble, I mean...they come armed to the teeth, that's no way to encourage non-violent protest if you ask me. "Well show up in APC's, Riotgear, SWAT Teams, Helicopters, with guns and grenade launchers to show them that violence will not be tolerated, and that dissent must be properly channeled through official means." Yeah...no police state there. As an interesting note, the first step toward a police state is to remove the authority and ability for a population to defend and organize itself. Secondly is to take away said population's control over their area, then the final step is to effectively make dissent among said population a crime. The U.S. allready has the first 2 qualifiers, the 3rd is being rammed through as we speak.
There's Tons of Liberal Media Bias. If you don't believe me, just ask Bill O'Reilly, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Pat Buchanan, Monica Crowley, Ann Coulter, Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy, Joe Scarborough, Robert Novac, Bernard Goldberg, Brit Hume, John Stossel, William Kristol, Laura Ingraham, and John McLaughlin.
Revisionist history? The Major history lobbies are conservative. They remove anything that might look bad on a particular president or administration from history textbooks. And anything that might be construed as "un-patriotic". Don't talk to me about liberal bias in history books.
It's also interesting to point out that it's unconstitutional to require that you provide Identification in order to travel by air.
a little correction...the CIA did do it's job, it sent a warning to the president that hijackings were coming. The president it seems, ignored those warnings. Which is odd, because at the G-8 convention in Genoa, they mounted anti-aircraft guns on the top of the building. Why? Because they were afraid someone might fly an airplane into the building.
Pffft. Impediment to progress? Both parties are. The government will fuck you over, doesn't matter if it's wearing the mask of republican, or democrat. Democrats sometimes support things like universal healthcare, whilst republicans support universal corporate welfare. Might I remind everone that the Military is ran completely like an authoritarian socialist (state-capitalist) institution?
Is it? Mildly socialist governments like Netherlands have a much higher standard of living, and relatively equal freedoms to the U.S. Thus the term: Democratic Socialism (Bourgeoise socialism) Which in itself is a misnomer, because the nations have a mixed economy anyways. Perhaps you are thinking of nations like the USSR and Cuba? Those nations are actually state-capitalist. But reguardless, neither the left-wing politicians nor the right wing politicians want the government bigger than the other one wants it. The truth is, they both want it bigger, albiet in a few different ways. The differences between the two predominant parties are trivial, Clinton voted in the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act, Now Bush with the PATRIOT ACT (which hardly any democrats or republicans voted against). They play popular myths to set you against one false ideology, and to be for another false ideology, so they can fleece you. American politics are a racket.
Yes, because we know that disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly are just the first signs of the next Sirhan Sirhan. Big threat, being disorderly and being charged with an unconstitutional crime against freedom of assembly.
Actually he was not guilty as hell. To prove intent you have to exercise something called "Prior restraint". In otherwords, they'd have to show how his site directly caused something, in order to show intent.
He's being charged with linking to a website. It doesn't matter that the website had weapons on them. The jist of it is, he's being charged with *LINKING TO A WEBSITE*.
Sherman originally wanted to. But he's a 21 year old good kid, who's never been charged with any serious crime (although he has been shot once by a plastic bullet for filming a protest, still has a piece of it lodged in his knee, and he's been detained a few times for "Disorderly conduct" and "failure to disperse" at protests.), he's in love, and quite frankly, the thought of spending 20 years in prison scared the fuck out of him. He was originally only going to spend 4 months in prison, so he was like "Allright, big fucking deal."
The jist of Sherman's Site (It's crashed, and no longer up, but so far the FBI hasn't got ahold of it. They asked the host company for it, and he told them: "When you bring me a supeona, if there's anything still on it.") was this: You have a right to protect yourself from police and government brutality. To that extent, you have the right to arm yourself. You have the right to revolution, violent or otherwise, if you are being oppressed. You have the right to kill a police officer if they are killing your people, shooting at your protest groups (Haymaker, Kent State, Shay's Rebellion, etc.) Same with the Gestappo, or the Administration. He provided links on how to arm yourself for self-defense against government brutality. All over his site there were plasterings of "We advocate armed revolutionary self-defense." He wasn't advocating making bombs to throw at peace rallies, he was advocating making bombs to throw if the police are shooting at you.
It's interesting to note, that during and immediately after the American revolution there was lots of talk about the people's right to overthrow despotic governments, etc. But immediately after Shay's Rebellion, and the creation of the Federal Army, all this talk was hushed over. Rather like the Bolshevists did a few centuries later.