Raisethefist.com Raided 883
mfb and others wrote in about a raid on the operator of raisethefist.com last week. It was first reported on Indymedia.org here and here, followed by an LA Weekly article. By far the best news piece so far is this one from Newsbytes.
Because of his *opinions*? (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, this guy says that he was busted because the government didn't like his opinions, but in fact he had been cracking web sites and putting in that troop.cgi thing. Somehow that doesn't sound like an opinion to me. There's also the question of bomb-making information which is potentially thornier, but also isn't really opinion (at least, not opinion about globalization - opinion about bomb policy I suppose might be a bit more debateable).
This guy's a bit of a hypocrite (Score:4, Insightful)
In the interview, Austin acknowledged that he vandalized the Web sites and that he knew it was illegal to do so. But he defended the act by saying it was necessary to get his message out.
...
"If I go to jail, then I will go to jail not based on my actions, but based on what I think," he said.
No, you incredibly idiotic dipshit. You are going to be Bubba's bitch because you hacked government websites, and in fact admitted it. Please, don't try to defend him -- it's guys like this that give us a bad name and deserved to be ostracized from the community at large.
Overkill? (Score:3, Insightful)
"People can rant and rave on the Internet all they want, but when they cross the line of calling people to action to violently overthrow the Constitution of the United States, they have a problem," said McLaughlin.
So when just another lone hacker kid defaces five Web sites, it justifies "surrounding and raiding [the] house with machine guns, shotguns, bullet-proof vests." Being labeled a hacker (correctly, this time) is really getting to be as dangerous as being called a child molester.
The Gardener
Dumbass. (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the FBI, Austin allegedly defaced at least five commercial Web sites since 1999 using the nickname "Ucaun." On three of the sites, Austin left behind a hacking program named troop.cgi that was designed to attempt to log in to a computer operated by the U.S. Army, the FBI affidavit stated. In the interview, Austin acknowledged that he vandalized the Web sites and that he knew it was illegal to do so. But he defended the act by saying it was necessary to get his message out.
Okay, so this guy was an admitted website defacer who posted denial of service tools on victim websites and knew it was illegal but did it anyway.. That he was doing it for some "anticorporate revolution" doesn't matter one iota.
But what I really loved was his comment, later in the article:
"But how many of us are really willing to engage in such an intense form of warfare through bauds and wires? Who's got the balls? Who's willing to sacrifice everything?" said the page.
Who indeed? Let's start with this numbskull. I say throw the book at him.
Re:Because of his *opinions*? (Score:3, Insightful)
Dunno how this gets put on slashdot as "news for nerds, stuff that MATTERS".
Re:Seems ok (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it so happens that the founders of the US forgot to include "but not if it talks about violence" part when they were writing the First Amendment -- you know, the "free speech" one. Actually, it seems to me the were pretty violent guys themselves -- starting a war and all that.
And if that guy's site was the first one where the feds found the bomb-making informations on the 'net... [rolls his eyes]
Deserved to be busted, (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as the go ahead and press charges in a timely manner the gov has done the right thing in this case.
violently overthrow the Constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be correct. The United States of America is all for free speech. It's also a democracy, where you can elect a new government to install new laws if you disagree with the current state of affairs. Elected officials (who presumably represent a majority of the populace) will eventually populate the group responsible for interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court. Therefore, in a theoretical sense (before you start screaming about corporate america owning the politicians), the people do control the government.
By ignoring the political route and espousing the virtues of a violent overthrow, you have now entered the realm of "terrorist" or "freedom fighter." In a country where the freedom of speech is guaranteed in the very Constitution you want to do away with, you are more than likely to be considered a terrorist. And frankly, I would agree with that assessment.
Here's a suggestion: if you don't like the system and don't feel like changing the system, take your bombs and move to Columbia or the middle east.
common sense? (Score:2, Insightful)
Raise the fist (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dumbass. (Score:5, Insightful)
when you want to mount successful political opposition, you start by keeping your nose squeaky clean so that no one can defame your character when the real work of change begins. this kid obviously didn't get that.
-w
Re:Overkill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm the only one... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then again, I'm pretty much in agreement with his comments about the current climate for those of thus dislike the actions of the United States. I think we're going to be seeing a lot more of this as days pass.
digital does not make it right (Score:2, Insightful)
If i put up a web site that tells people how to make bombs and encourage everyone to kill everyone that disagrees with me, suddenly i am a poster boy for free speech?
Re:Overkill? (Score:3, Insightful)
What if it turned out the kind had schitzophrenic and was armed with those bombs that he was publishing? Yeah he probably wasn't, but how did the police know that? Its not like they violated any rights. They served a warrant and tried to do so in as safe a manner as possible.
Geeze.
Response to terrorism (Score:2, Insightful)
"anyone actively disagreeing with policies of the U.S is now automatically rendered a 'terrorist' in the eyes of national security."
Perhaps that's so, but I'd venture to say that those disagreeing with the policies of the US and publishing information on how to make bombs are more likely to get noticed than those who simply disagree. They claim that "The sysop of this site does not endorse nor use any method of violence" but bomb-making and anti-government rhetoric on the same site are at the very least an implicit threat.
IANAL, so I can't speak to the legalities of it. But I know that if I were a FBI agent, I too would have wanted armor when I went in there.
Re:Because of his *opinions*? (Score:5, Insightful)
I could see his arguement. He's going to jail because of his opinion that it was ok to crack into other people's pages, deface them and try to attack army computers. Since he acted on his opinion and violated various laws, he's pretty much screwed. The guy clearly is out of touch with reality if he expects the police to knock on the door of an anti-government type and nicely ask, "I'm sorry, but could we have your computer?"
Regarding what I assume will be a 1st amendment type of defense. You can speak freely so long as you don't trample of the rights of others. When you facilitate and encourage the use of weapons to hurt people or property you are outside of 1st amend. protection. Likewise when you deface a website to get your message across, your efforts to communicate have come at the expense of someone else's right to do the same and so aren't protected.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Because of his *opinions*? (Score:2, Insightful)
Come back when they actually do something to him.
Re:Hey! Don't slashdot this site! (Score:1, Insightful)
A bit twisted. (Score:2, Insightful)
Regarding the FBI raid, they must be high on something themself. 2 officers with handguns and a solid kick on the door would probably have been more appropriate.
Guns are not safe wepons (Score:2, Insightful)
Its almost as if armed drug dealers run this country and try to control us with the things they do best. Anyone know if this years Afghan smack has made it to the US yet. I'll bet its gonna get real cheap soon.
$300 Needed (Score:2, Insightful)
a) someone cached their "anti-globalization" site and
b) is holding it for ransom.
A couple of other anachronism: the "founder"'s email address is food_should_be_free@yahoo.com. Assuming this is a position he believes in, he's not an anarchist, he's a communist. Anarchy believes in everyone getting their own food, through work or theft or whatever.
Additionally, he uses the extremely creative spelling of "litature" for "literature."
Re:Publish bomb instructions, go to jail (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you'd better be careful on that there slippery slope, because the next step is "how many of us really want 'that hacker kid' down the street having the knowledge of how to reset my router or how to access my bank's poorly-secured web site?" A lot of the things that people on this site know and converse about freely could be just as dangerous to the public as bomb-making instructions.
I'm not defending hacking or blowing up people with bombs, and I'm not entirely defending this kid either. I'm just saying that we need to differentiate between the knowledge of how to do something, the tools for doing something, and the actual doing of the thing. Responsibility should be laid against those who actually commit crimes, not all of those who know how to. Providing bomb-making information (which is available on any number of other sites) does not seem to be such a major crime.
Although hacking a DoD site definitely was a big mistake. On those grounds alone he should go down.
Re:Seems ok (Score:2, Insightful)
You know what - according to the Constitution it is:
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
it does matter (Score:5, Insightful)
There are lots of articles on Slash about different countries taking away their citizens' rights, based on the assumption that if some information's on the net it's far more dangerous than if it's simply in print.
This is a tech-savvy activist, using the internet as his tool to get his message out to the world. Bravo.
However he crossed the line a number of times by hacking other machines, using a pretty lame-ass excuse: "I had to get my message out!" Sure, Charlie, I have a feeling you're preaching to the converted.
I had an argument with a coworker last summer during the WTO conference (or was it G8? I can't remember). An anti-corporate web site was giving out information and software to stage a "virtual sit-in" to protest against companies involved. Basically, they were advocating a gigantic DDOS against a certain few companies, including Cisco, one of our clients.
He thought it was cool, I thought the entire thing was 100% lame: WTF do they hope to accomplish my not letting me do my work? Are they somehow more important than me? Does their "message" get out by DDOSing a few companies? No. They'd be better off by actually writing letter to the companies they hate, but of course, that takes actual time and effort. It takes little to download someone else's work (the DDOS programs) and run it, then go back to whatever you were doing, thinking you've accomplished some great blow for democracy.
I don't buy it one bit: it's lame, far too easy and cowardly.
So I propsed that on the date and time they went to put up their links page to all the DDOS software, we hit THEM first, in a pre-emptive strike, just to give 'em a taste of their own medicine and see how much they like. But we didn't. I would have had a good laugh though, I just didn't want to sink to their chickenshit level.
Ah well. I'm glad this guy got arrested for his hacking crimes, I just hope they don't pull a Mitnick and give him his fair chance. Doubt it.
Re:Seems ok (Score:2, Insightful)
What this guy did was illegal, whatever you feel about the bomb recipe. You cannot do what he did and blame an oppresive government for noticing. What if your child blew himself or another family member up because they saw this cool bomb recipe on the web? Would you be so pro his first amendment rights then? Would you say he was innocent? How about if he was responsible for killing a family member through incitement, would you not want to see him hang?
I don't think that the government is perfect, far from it in fact. I think that the government tries to go too far in controling web content, but when it comes to something like this, I'm all for it. Be realistic.
Re:Because of his *opinions*? (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't execute someone either, just because he is guilty. Thats part of what the feds are for.
Re:Because of his *opinions*? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why are we even discussing this? (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy is no Sklyarov, arrested in the US for actions he performed legally elsewhere (sort of like legally visiting a prostitute in Nevada, and getting arrested for it in New York). What he did was illegal, he knew it, he admitted it.
End of story, to my mind.
Re:Jesus Christ (Score:4, Insightful)
The real question is Will he be treated different then any other web site vandle because of his views?
if not, then fine. but if he gets a stricter sentance because of his anti-government views, then we have a problem.
Re:violently overthrow the Constitution? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's those damn British who forced us to violently overthrow them. Had they not been so insistent on keeping us as a colony, the whole matter could have been settled peacefully.
Re:Because of his *opinions*? (Score:2, Insightful)
As far as I'm concerned, this bozo's defence is specious. He hacks web sites because that is the only way to get his message out. So, I can hack Micro$oft because I think Windows is junk? I can spray paint lime-green PT Cruisers because I think the color sucks? This boy need some serious wall-to-wall counseling by my old First Sergeant!
Re:how to make bombs (Score:2, Insightful)
Probably true, but that would mean among other things banning stuff like chemistry books, and my personal fave, the USMC Improvized Munitions Handbook, available courtesy of the government printing office. And I guess you'd have to be in the military for life, so you couldn't get discharged and tell anyone what you may have been taught.
Re:Because of his *opinions*? (Score:3, Insightful)
How, by going in with a lot of heavily armed agents? I grant you they probably didn't need all of the agents or half of the firepower they had -- but a show of force is almost guaranteed to prevent any resistance. From what we've been told via the news agencies and so forth, they didn't violate any of his rights or use excessive force -- they simply had a lot of heavily armed people there to arrest him or whatever.
One, it's probably SOP in a city like L.A. to go in with way more force than you need.
Two, they probably know that in the end that he'll probably end up with little more than a wrist-slap and they're trying to scare the crap out of him by peforming the raid.
From the response he gave, I think that's just what he needs -- to have the crap scared out of him and make him think.
I don't necessarily disagree with all of his opinions, but obviously he's overstepped his rights of free speech and so forth by committing criminal acts. And, if he wants to stand a chance of persuading anyone with an education beyond the third grade, he needs to learn to write and use a spell-checker. Jeez... He makes most of the Slashdot crowd look like literary giants...
OMG he is such a threat to us!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Meanwhile, REAL terrorists plot to REALLY blow shit up. And guess what - they don't fucking RUN anarchist web sites. They're smarter than that, and obviously smarter than US intelligence. OBL is on the loose. Omar is on the loose. Yeah, lock some fucking geek up, and take away his web presence. That makes me feel safer.
-Dean
Re:Seems ok (Score:2, Insightful)
First, no -- but I never claimed that. Second, it depends. You might want to keep in mind that the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect unpopular speech -- a web site devoted to making cookies doesn't really need consitutional protection.
The amendment no longer applies once you start affecting the rights of others
Not true in general. For example the free speech argument routinely trumps privacy rights for newsworthy events and/or people.
What this guy did was illegal, whatever you feel about the bomb recipe
I thought in the US the defendant was presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law. You might at least have put an "IMHO" in there.
What if your child blew himself or another family member up because they saw this cool bomb recipe on the web? Would you be so pro his first amendment rights then?
Well, yes, actually I would. I may personally go and throttle the bastard, but that wouldn't change my position on the First Amendment one bit.
I don't buy your "surrender your freedom to get some security" argument.
Be realistic
I am quite realistic. But we are not talking about what the government is likely to do or what you can expect to get away with. We are talking, basically about right and wrong. The connection between what's stupid to do and what's morally wrong is not always that simple.
Re:Because of his *opinions*? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your right to swing your fist ends at my face.
How can someone advocate violent overthrow of the government and expect the government to look the other way? There are better ways to affect change if you don't like the way things are going, and they're built into the Constitution! Being a punk myself, I used to hang out with a lot of anti-corporate anarchists and this has always been my main disagreement with them (second is the irony that the vast majority are smokers and thus enslaved to the tobacco industry, but that's a whole other issue).
Reading the Newsbytes article, I can't help but come to the conclusion that this kid is just another one of those moronic LA "Bring It All Down"(TM) punks, totally oblivious to the fact that The Man is the only thing keeping the skinheads from beating the crap out of him and stealing the oxblood 20-eye Doc Martins his mom bought him for his birthday.
Sorry, that turned into more of a rant than I thought it would.
Re:violently overthrow the Constitution? (Score:2, Insightful)
You missed the point. The kid was "crack[ed] down on
The Feds showed up at his door because he is percieved as a dangerous criminal. He is a criminal and will go to jail.
Re:This guy's a bit of a hypocrite (Score:2, Insightful)
It is at this point that the article should be removed from slashdot, and newsbytes, and the child in question should just go to jail.
I can see the free-speech angle that slashdot and newsbytes is trying to push here, but it just doesn't work for me.
Knowing how to make bombs: free speech
Telling other people: free speech
Breaking into and defacing websites: crime
Slashdot picking up and running with another dumb article that will create panic, flamebait, and lots of hits: priceless
Re:Slant-Six Flashback... (Score:2, Insightful)
Besides, how hard is it to take a 6" length of pipe, fill it with gunpowder and ball-berings, insert a fuse, and seal it? Did you learn nothing from Operation: Swordfish?
Re:violently overthrow the Constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
The president just recently created a system of military tribunals where you can be arrested, tried, convicted, and executed without even being told the crime you were charged with, without the prosecution having shown probable cause before arrest, without hearing any evidence presented against you, without the ability to cross-examine witnesses, without your choice of counsel, without the crime specifically calling for a death sentence, without a presumption of innocence, without "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or even "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof, without public scrutiny, and without a right of appeal.
This system makes a military court-martial look like a hippy love-in [hrw.org].
Now please re-read the Declaration of Independence [nara.gov] and tell me whether the guys that wrote it sound more like Bush or this punk "terrorist" kid.
The kid may have talked about overthrowing the constitution, but Bush has done it.
And if your response is that if you don't like it, you should change it by working your way up the corporate ladder until you are CEO of a large enough corporation so that you can buy yourself or a friend into office, spare me. Yeah, and if you don't like the U.S. government, why don't you go to some country the U.S. government is bombing or propping up some hellish dictator -- now that's a great idea!
Bush has made it perfectly clear -- you are either with him or against him. If you are against him, you are a terrorist and they intend to find you no matter what country you reside in. Clearly Bush is not quite that powerful, yet -- and one hopes that countries that care about human rights will be able to reign in some of his powers, but the point is that if you don't like the U.S. government you're only real options are to try to change it or keep your head down to avoid it's wrath.
And you won't change it by saving your pennies to work within the system -- with lobbyists, bribes, and the corporate media. The current system has evolved to make sure that we can't change it from within. At the same time, violence is only a successful tactic if you are already powerful -- if you are weak, it will only hasten your destruction (look at what happened to the U.S. militia movement after Oklahoma City). And advocating violence without the intention or the ability to carry it out is the height of stupidity.
The alternative is to organize where we have the most power (whether we realize it or not) -- with our coworkers or neighbors, in schools, professional associations, clubs, consumer groups, etc. And rather than organize for lofty meaningless phrases, organize for real gains that benefit us and those around us. Much of Bush's attack on Americans has taken the shape of less job security, longer hours, etc. at work. It is possible to resist these attacks, and it is much more effective if the resistance is organized and collective rather than disorganized and individual.
As passive voters and pleaders, we are powerless, but organized and actively fighting back where we have power can work -- that's how it has worked with every social improvement in the last 1000 years or so, at least.
No defense, and that guy's wacked. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, activists are not terrorists, and that kid's no activist. My brother-in-law is an activist {PETA} and his arguments are intelligent, well researched, more than reasonable, and effective. I haven't given up meat yet, but I've cut down on milk. Thus, someone is listening to him and he's effecting change. That is what activists do.
RTF is nothing more than a dumb ass kid preaching to the disenfranchised (yeah, like that's tough). He has no real concept of anarchy, no understanding of WHY the world works the way it works (no matter how screwed up it gets), and no reasonable solution. So in effect, he's running his position on poor instinct and bad judgement. He effects no change because all he's trying to do is scare people into either buying his position or dying in the chaos of upheaval. I guess it never occured to him that most of the rest of us couldn't give a rats ass about what he thinks ("getting the message out"... what a load. Your message is out, and it sounds like a big steaming pile of crap. Now you're going to try and play the victim card & blame it on the government? Where do you come from?).
Then, he's got the balls, audacidity or insanity to claim the agencies involved used a lot of hardware - no shit sherlock. You ran a website that advocated voilence, vandalism, and had BOMB making instructions on your site. Gangs are dangerous and have guns. You have politicol motivation, half a brain (1/2 more than most local gangs), and a dangerous message with instructions on how others can perform those acts too. Plus, you broke the LAW... you... IDIOT! You bet they're coming heavily armed.
And by the way, the definition of terrorism is, and I quote "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons". How 'bout that. You're a fledgling terrorist according to the very definition of the word. Good luck to him and for the FBI, keep up the good work.
If any of you feel any sympathy for this guy, you need to evaluate whether or not that's because you agree with him or just hate the feds, because that's one *'d up kid. And I'll bet the thousands of other sites that host the same kind of information (anarchists cookbook, etc.) don't advocate or act upon an idiological soapbox, which is why this kid was nabbed.
/rant. sorry.
Re:Because of his *opinions*? (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, from what i read in google's cache right after it went down, I think the guy's crazy.
On one page, he's got a headline that actually says the feds kill babies.
On another, he's got a page full of bomb making instructions.
Face it, you're either for killing people or against killing people. Throwing in political reasoning only makes you more similar to your adversary.
Legally, that just makes him a whacko. It's when you combine "whacko" with "attacks government websites" that you get "terrorist".
The guy's an idiot, frankly. He doesn't know what he's fighting for, and was stupid enough to get caught doing something illegal.
Re:violently overthrow the Constitution? (Score:3, Insightful)
>military tribunals where you
"you", in this sense, means "people captured while using weapons to actively oppose U.S. military forces"
>can be arrested, tried, convicted, and executed
>without even being told the crime you were
>charged with,
Where did you pull this out of? That's utter nonsense.
>without the prosecution having shown probable
>cause before arrest,
Uhh, most of us will accept that being captured while resisting the military goes well past probable cause . . .
>without hearing any evidence presented against
>you,
??? I think you're confusing these tribunals, which don't yet exist, with something else.
>without the ability to cross-examine witnesses,
I'd *really* need to see a source before believing this.
>without your choice of counsel,
Yes, there are likely to be limits on counsel, both due to the need for security clearances and local availability. However, the right to counsel *cannot* be completely eliminated, as this would contravene the Rights of Englishmen as recognized at Common Law and protected by the U.S. Constitution. At this level, it is not a question of the U.S. rule, but that to completely refuse access to counsel would violate natural law.
> without the crime
>specifically calling for a death sentence,
only by a very twisted interpretation. In the U.S. and other Common Law nations, statutes with prescribed penalties were not commonplace until *very* recently (20th century for the most part).
>without a presumption of innocence,
It's likely that the presumption will be reduced or gone, yes.
>without "beyond a shadow of a doubt"
Which, as far as I know, is not the law anywhere for anything.
o
>r even "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof,
Yes, the burden of proof is likely to be much lower, and a unanimous vote will probably not be required.
> without public scrutiny,
likely, yes. But there are practical matters getting that much public out there . . .
>and without a right of appeal.
Technically, yes. In reality, it is not politically possible that there will be no review.
These tribunals, if created and used, will be limited to those found in arms and captured while violating the Law of War. You are proposing to extend to them protections that exist in very few places outside the English speaking world.
Do I think that actually using these tribunals is a good idea? No, at least not at present, while our resources permit other responses.
Nonetheless, the picture being painted of them is grossly inaccurate. Look to how they were used in the past, and then pull *way* back to meet modern political reality.
hawk
Re:Lets not forget (Score:3, Insightful)
The right of the people to overthrow their government when it fails to meet their needs is written in the Declaration of Independence
and..
Its important not to forget the freedoms that make this country worth fighting for.
One of those important freedoms is the right to vote for who will represent us in the government. One of the most important causes of the American Revolution is that the American colonies had no representation in Parliament. We can't make that claim about the current American government.
As bad as our government might be, it is still composed of people who are chosen by a majority of Americans. Sure, we might be given some shitty options to choose from, and those of us who are intellectual might be outnumbered by the ignorant masses who fall in love with guys like George W. Bush, but the fact remains: The members of our government are there because a majority of the country chose them to be.
But who voted for all these militia groups and anarchist groups who want to violently overthrow the government? How many people want them to succeed? Which one should succeed, if any? How free would the country be if they succeeded? Would the leaders of these groups let the country vote on a new leader every few years? And what happens after the revolution, anyway? It's not like all the wannabe-revolutionary groups agree with each other, so there would just be more revolutions--and they'd all be justified, by your argument--as each group takes it's turn trying to establish its own ideology.
How free are people under that situation?
Anyway, I'm not even going to touch on the craziness of expecting a government to say "Yeah, people have the right to overthrow us. Go ahead." ;)
Re:Because of his *opinions*? (Score:4, Insightful)
That is exactly my point. The kid advocates violence against the government, spreads his message through vandalism, and then whines about federal agents busting into his house with guns and confiscating the tools he used to commit said acts of vandalism. The fact that those tools were also used to host protected speach is totally irrelevant, and this whole thing about being silenced for his opinions is a strawman. He hacked and he got caught. It's that simple. He admits that he did it and that he knew it was illegal when he did it.
IMHO, his opinions only had 2 effects on the situation:
1. His web site drew attention to him, and probably helped link him to hacks he is being arrested for.
2. It raised the potential threat level in the eyes of those conducting the raid, thus the guns and armor. They had no way of knowing for certain that he wasn't better armed than they and ready to go out in a blaze of glory.
He got arrested for breaking the law. The fact that he broke the law in a misguided attempt to disseminate otherwise protected speech does not make this a Free Speech issue.
Its all relative... (Score:1, Insightful)
You only break a law if youre an individual
jon
Re:Bombmaking (Score:2, Insightful)
Because it isn't relevant. The identity of the victim of a crime isn't relevant as to whether or not a crime was commited. Suggesting that the identity of the victim justifies the crime is the same logic used by whackjobs who bomb abortion clinics and shoot people all the while claiming that they're doing God's work.
If an act is wrong, it's wrong no matter who you do it to. .
Right (Score:2, Insightful)
A pimple on the ass of humanity (Score:2, Insightful)
But no, this guy was actively trashing web sites, admits to doing so, and then whines that he won't go to jail for what he did, but for his opinions.
No, he'll go to jail because he's just another whiny-assed fucking criminal who got caught, and is trying to hide behind other issues that have nothing to do with his crime.
My opinion is his homepage should now be at lockthecelldoorandthrowawaythekey.com...its like 'ol Beretta said, "if ya can't do the time, don't do the crime".
Re:My thoughts (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm reasonably leftist/radical myself, certainly at american standards.
What you're one of those anarchists? No, you vote for a reformist "social democratic" party? No? you don't believe that the USA should rule the world? Oh well, then you're entitled to deliver a pronouncement on how "interesting" Sherman's ideas were. Obviously you know NOTHING about the LA anarchist scene and how effective RTF was at being an organizing center. RTF was mainly a messageboard with occasional article, like indymedia or /. itself.
Yeah Sherman was dumb to do the cracking etc., but the BIG STORY is that the FBI spokesperson says that he is going to be charged because of the information on BOMB-MAKING. This is apparently legal due to the newly introduced USA-PATRIOT Act. This is a big change in the laws of the land.
Re:Because of his *opinions*? (Score:2, Insightful)
Change is VERY difficult for the common man...Why? Money! That's why.
The political system only responds to those who have money. Think of it this way. You're a senator or congressman or pres/vp or state elected official. You need money to stay in your job - a job you really wanted, else you wouldn't have gone through the hassle to get in the first place. Now, to get money, you have to be a "good" investment. (An aside - these rules are more true for higher $ political races, and apply less and less as the job gets "smaller")
Now, Corp A or Very Rich Man B want to give you money - why? - because they want an investment vehicle. These "investors" will continue to invest only as long as you make a return for them. If they find someone who offers better returns, they'll invest elsewhere.
So, you only have so much time or influence. If you value your job, you'll maximize your return (campaign contributions) by maximizing the return on your biggest job security people (the people who donate the most money).
So in base, if you're not able to play with the big boys (big contributors) your chance of making a difference is very small. I would suggest that that only way you will, is if you are unopposed by a moneyied (sp) interest. If you are on the opposing side of an issue against a interest with money, and you don't have money, or nearly as much, just kiss it goodbye.
That's why this stance makes no sense. (I would also agree that the style of rebellion shown by the subject of the story is foolhardy too.) But I can sense the frustration both of myself and others who find that the premise that "you can change the system" is really a bunch of bunk. Monied interests can change the system. If millions of people are ready to stone their congressman, then they can change the system. Anything else from the public side short of that outrage will not!
Lastly,
You DO NOT have the right to break other laws and vandalize other peoples property in the name of your protected speech.
And what do you call the Boston Tea Party? These were the people who became the founding fathers of our nation (provided we're both US citizens) and they found vandalism an acceptable response. (It's interesting how we portray our fight against the Brits in such a noble light - we were a bunch of whiners who didn't want to pay, and rebelled against the Brit gvmt. Sure they were heavy handed and brutal, but can't you see that our government is the same to both it's citizens and those of other countries. It's also ironic how when we do it, it's protecting our interests, but when others do it, it's terrorism. Think the Shaw of Iran, Guatemela, School of the Americas etc.)
Just some food for thought - obviously I won't get mod points for it!
Cheers!
Re:Because of his *opinions*? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, regardless of what Sherman expects, for the past half century the Supreme Court has routinely expected the government to do just that. The phrase that applies here is "clear and present danger".
The phrase first came about in 1919 from the Schenck v. United States case. But it didn't really have any teeth until 1957 and Yates v. United States, when the Court ruled that, to quote my old book on the law of public communications, "a conspiracy to advocate the overthrow of the government was too far removed from immediate danger to be punished."
The real precedent used nowadays is Brandenburg v. Ohio, (1969) in which the Court overturned the conviction of some KKK members for advocating "unlawful methods of industrial or political reform", then a crime under Ohio state law. To be constitutional, the Court said, a statute can only ban speech that "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such actions."
The Court backed this precedent up in 1973 with Hess v. Indiana, in which an antiwar demonstrator had been convicted for shouting "We'll take the fucking street later." The Court ruled that this "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time".
So, unless what Sherman put up on the Web was really both meant and likely to produce immediate illegal action, or the current Supreme Court is ready to overturn this precedent (very possible, given its obvious partisanship and corruption), he hasn't broken the law by advocating overthrowing the federal government.
I'm sure these rulings are on the Web somewhere but I'm too tired to karma whore any further just now.
Re: Misstatement of the law (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, and the Constitution does not provide for abolishing or changing the government. Arguably this can be done through amending the constitution, but I don't think that's what you were getting at. The stuff about casting off an existing government when it fails the people comes from the Declaration of Independence (where it was stolen from John Locke), which is not actually a part of the laws of the USA.
Re:Grammatical Anarchy (Score:1, Insightful)
It's interesting to note the massive differences between the reporting styles on the sites. Of course I understand that there's often a perception that the mainstream media is controlled and/or biased against antiglobalization movements and so on, but nonetheless they are regularly far more credible than the propaganda and hyperbole spread by the 'indymedia' style of journalism. Mainstream media tends to want to ask the hard questions to these people, but it doesn't help when they haven't got any good answers. Paranoia about every contra-opinion being from a "mole" planted by their opposition, as evidenced on the discussion board, really doesn't help. It's like those who would declare any not-anti-Microsoft opinion here a "trolling employee".
As an article from a supposedly legitimate media source, they could at least spellcheck the articles. I don't really find myself trusting sources that can't get a single correct sentence in their articles, nor those that simply publish word for word what has been submitted. (Slashdot clearly marks it as a brief submission and qualifies it with comment).
But now to start being a grammar Nazi, or perhaps a grammar Ally. And it probably is bad grammar to start a sentence with 'but' or 'and', but I concern myself with things that read badly, or incorrectly, rather than technically frowned upon. No doubt I will make a few typos and technically incorrect usages of grammar here that the true grammar Nazis will enjoy picking up on, should they ever see a post at 0.
- "sorounded the founder" - "surrounded". And they surrounded the house. Not surprising that they would bring some heavy weapons if they figured he might have a bomb.
- "The founder was currently asleep" - a very poor way to phrase things. 'The founder was asleep' covers it, currently throws up all sorts of confusion over the temporal situation.
- "woken up by a relative who said... [they] were currently up and down all of the streets" - badly explained given that we already know that he is in the house, which is surrounded. 'All of' is unnecessary and the whole 'up and down' bit is awkward. No apostrophy in "undercovers" (an unusual shortening of the name but passable).
- "with they're eyes focused on the premises" - "they're" is an obvious mistake. The whole image is pretty badly drawn as well; and presumably it is supposed to mean 'focused on HIS premises'.
- "Raisethefist.com founder aproached the door were 2 FBI agents demanded that he step outside" - an awkward use of present tense, missing 'the' at the start (appropriate in a play-by-play report which this half-heartedly attempts to be). "approached". "where".
- "Within seconds a swarm of FBI raided the house" - awkward form of shortening, leaving out the word 'agents'.
- "...around the house with a door baracade and additional weapons. "armed and ready"." - "barricade". The last bit follows on, needing neither a full stop before it (a comma or semicolon might be acceptable) and the quotes are not really necessary unless that was an order given at the time.
- "FBI and secret service entered the house, seizing all servers and political liturature." - the FBI is already supposed to be in there at this point. "literature".
- "Raisethefist.com was currently being ran within the founders room of the house, over a computer network." - this sentence is a crime against English. 'currently being ran' is terribly tense-confused ('being run' would be slightly awkward but okay), 'within' should probably be 'from' since the point of the website is to extent beyond the room, 'founders' needs a possessive apostrophe, and the comma is unnecessary (as indeed is the whole last section, unless this indymedia audience is completely computer illiterate).
- "The room was literarly ransacked" - "literally".
- "and all equipment, disks, cd's
- "has been under extensive government monitering" - "monitoring".
- "At times, Raisethefist.com has recieved over 100 hits from the U.S Department of Defense in a single day." - awkward use of 'at times... in a single day'. "received".
- "The FBI, police department, NSA (and who else) continuesly monitered the site on a daily basis." - "who else" makes no sense; is it a question ("who else would, but the NSA?") or a vague sense of a continuing list ("and various others")? "continuously monitored". "On a daily basis" is awkward if they are continuously monitoring.
- "Even government's... continuesly" - no apostrophe. Same spelling mistake.
- "vioces" - typo presumably
- "successfull" - got slightly carried away with the double letters there.
- "completly" - typo.
- "happend" - happened.
- "alot" - not a real word.
- "litature" - again.
- "they're excuse" - ugh.
- "Apparently, they're excuse for shutting it down was the 'militancy' portrayed on the site. This is not true. This was an excuse." - as was just said. It was their excuse for shutting it down. How can that not be true? It MAY not have been their REASON for wanting to doing it (but legally it probably was, or needs to be). The excuse (getting off grammar here) seems to be that it hasn't happened to many other controversial sites which are monitored (or monitered...). But there's far more sites with unfavourable (yet not 'militant') opinions that also aren't shut down. And it's hard to justify running a massive arms-laden FBI raid on someone who just said that the government was a bit crap, really.
At this point it starts drifting off into a slightly self-important, victimised, scaremongering speech, and it seems to be able to survive most of the length of these short sentences without too many mistakes creeping in.
- "havn't" - haven't. "monitering" - monitoring. "progresive" - progressive. "automaticly" - automatically.
"Based on what i've been told, i'll most likely be in jail, so most of my focus will be towards getting an attorney." - nothing really to say here (apart from the casual capitalisation) but I just find this an amusing final paragraph.
I find it interesting the change in definitions. (Score:2, Insightful)
Time to put bomb making instructions on my own web site too. I figure a reprint of the GPO's own pamphlet on how to remove stumps by using the 6 to 1 by weight ratio of amonium nitrate and diesel fuel would be sufficient. Or is that ratio by volume? Hmmm, time for a test on a stump or two out on the back 40.
Government is the one monopoly everyone should fear, and fight against every infringement of their rights.
Bob-
The Hacker Crackdown by Bruce Sterling (Score:2, Insightful)
A particularly relevant paragraph from chapter 3 reads:
In addition to having allegedly broken some pretty straighforward computer misuse laws this guy was advocating violence against the state. I think that going in with guns drawn was a perfectly reasonable approach.
Paul.
Re:Because of his *opinions*? (Score:3, Insightful)
Precisely correct. Groups like SWAT teams don't want anyone, themselves or the suspects, to get shot. Now suppose they said "hmmm, there's just one guy, and he probably has a pistol, so we'll just send in one guy with a pistol". Ok, now perhaps the guy decides to surrender, but perhaps not. I mean it's just him against one cop. However when 20 guys in body armour with assult weapons come charging in any thoughts of being a hero tend to evaporate. In the end, noone gets hurt.
Re:Think they were well armed enough? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, all evidence shows it does the exact opposite, which is why the cops do it. TAke a hypothetical situation:
The police go to arrest someone like this, who has clearly expressed his displeasure for the government. Now this guy happens to have a few buddies over to have some drinks and talk shop. They have guns, as they are like to do. Now try to think about the following cases form the punk's perspective:
1) They send in two cops to try and arrest the kid. They knock on teh door and say "open up, police". Now the punks look, and see only two cops, and decide they aren't going to jail, and can take them. So one opens the door, and teh other two open fire. Stupid, yes, but something that seems do able.
2) The cops decide to go in Tommy Lee Jones style (like they did) send a heavily armed team fo 20+ people and bust in with no warning. Now the punks can see that they are cearly outnumbered and out gunned. Between teh shock and the odds, it seems wise to surrender, so they do.
Or how about another scenario:
I own a gun and while it's main purpose is target shooting, I wouldn't hesitate to use it in self defense. Now suppose someone desides to break into my house:
1) A single guy, as is common, is breaking in. He breaks down my door and comes in with a gun. I hear this, grab my gun and go to confront him. Just what would transpire would depend on many thigns, but I would confront him. 1 on 1, espically in surrounding I'm farmiliar with, is something I'll go for.
2) A whole group of 10 guys with automatic weapons break in. I see this, I'll drop my weapon and surrender. Why? Simple, resistance is futile. Even in on my home turn, there is no way I'm taking out 10 guys by myself, epsically if they have better weapons than me.
The cops have the same idea, they want to come in strong enough that people just decide to give up and noone gets hurt.