Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Your Rights Online

Hector Xavier Monsegur, Aka Sabu, Dodges Sentencing Again 116

Posted by timothy
from the and-for-my-next-impression-jesse-owens dept.
hypnosec writes "Ex-LulzSec leader Hector Xavier Monsegur, aka Sabu, has been handed another sentencing delay, possibly because of his continued cooperation with the U.S. government that led to the arrest of several Lulzsec members. Sabu plead guilty to all counts of bank fraud and identity theft offenses, and was to receive up to 124 years of imprisonment — but was granted a six-month breather back in August 2012 after the U.S. government asked the District Attorney to consider adjournment of Monsegur's trial 'in light of the defendant's ongoing cooperation with the Government.' New reports indicate that Sabu has dodged sentencing for a second time, with no dates set for the next hearing."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hector Xavier Monsegur, Aka Sabu, Dodges Sentencing Again

Comments Filter:
  • by slick7 (1703596) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @04:01AM (#42994313)
    The government doesn't like competition.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 24, 2013 @04:41AM (#42994373)

      From what I understand LulzSec never stole anything. The government simply heard they were hacking, which is apparently worse than terrorism, murder, rape, or forced slavery. So they broke this man by threatening to put him in jail for the rest of his life (124 years is a life sentence).

      If he was smarter, he would have gotten a job as a banker and actually stole shit and destroyed people's lives. In that case he would be immune from prosecution.

      • "plead guilty to all counts of bank fraud and identity theft offences"

        It doesn't matter what you're guilty of, if you actually plead guilty. If they had me in court, threatening to imprison me for a hundred years of more, I wouldn't plead guilty. Argue the bastards down to something manageable (ie, less than a lifetime) or make them PROVE their charges. Don't agree to a plea bargain that effectively ends your life.

        • Re:Problem though (Score:5, Insightful)

          by rtfa-troll (1340807) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @06:46AM (#42994625)

          It's important to remember he "faces up to 124 years in prison"; not "he will get 124 yeas". Likely he has some plea bargain already agreed reducing that considerably. Presumably he has already got that agreed down to the level where the prosecutor will recommend 20 years or less and has some set of conditions which lead him to come lower.

          Leaving plea bargains completely with prosecutors (US prosecutors can decide exactly which crimes to prosecute for; US judges have strict sentencing guidelines which depend on that choice) is what converts the US criminal law system from a "justice system" into an enforcement system. In almost every other country the Judge is allowed to review everything. If an unreasonable guilty plea has been made he can ignore it or reduce the sentence completely. If the prosecutor has ignored certain crimes to get a settlement, the Judge can even sometimes reinstate those. This reduces proprietorial discretion from something around 1000% (Sabu is a supid git, but IMHO it's worth maximum 5 years even if you think crimes against stupidity should be strongly punished; probably really a few months) down to about 20-50%. This makes prosecutors think seriously about doing their job and not just going out for publicity. That's what went wrong with Aaron's case [wikipedia.org]. Imagine your friend with a newborn kid makes a small mistake (curiously wonder what that SQL string is in your bank login; check it before you realise what you are doing) and gets a shit like Ms Ortiz [wikipedia.org]. Imagine she begins to believe that the only way she's going to see her kid again before the kid grows up is if she says who taught her how to do that. Imagine it was you tried to teach her how to secure her web server.

          If you are a US voter, for the love of god (or whatever it is you worship) write off to your congressmen and explain why Aaron's case was wrong. Try to fix at least the computer legislation if not the system of plea bargains.

          • Re:Problem though (Score:5, Interesting)

            by shaitand (626655) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @01:21PM (#42996195) Journal
            It's sad because prosecutors are agents of the court not of the executive. The mentality associated with the job is that they are agents of the executive. The prosecutor is not an enforcement tool of a legislative his discretion means he has no obligation to prosecute under an unjust law. His success is not measured in how many people he managed to have punished. The success of the prosecutor is defined by the instances in which he prevents a miscarriage of justice by not bringing charges. The prosecutor essentially has the same nullification powers as a jury but on a larger scope.

            The system was built to stop unjust laws in their tracks. If congress passed a law limiting free speech for example. They lack the power to see anyone actually imprisoned. First that law must be enforced by the executive. The executive could block enforcement altogether but congress has granted itself micro "oversight" of the executives budget so it strong arm the executive into doing what it wants. So then the unjust law goes to more localized agents of the people with a smaller sphere of influence but who can be "checked" only by the people themselves. The prosecutor can nullify an unjust law in his jurisdiction. If he does not, the people are reserved the power to overrule government entirely but only on a case-by-case basis, as a jury. The jury interprets facts and the judge the law but the jury also has the obligation to judge the merit of application of the law and factor that into their decision.

            In this way the people in the form of their prosecutor and directly in the form of their juries were SUPPOSED to be proof against all three branches of government. The courts haven't decided that nullification powers don't exist but they have decided that they have no obligation to inform juries of them. In fact the judges have decided they can legally lie in instructions to the jury and will declare a mistrial if they discover a jury is aware of their nullification powers.

            As a citizen this is your most important civil obligation. To protect the peers in your community and thereby to protect yourself.
          • by AK Marc (707885)
            My solution to that is making lies by the government employees illegal. What they do is lie about their chances in court "we have you dead to rights" and how much they realistically expect you to be sentenced to. I read a paper by someone at University of Chicago that discussed how plea bargaining is torture (not the torture of physical pain to get a wanted result, but punishing someone until they confessed). But the courts have repeatedly defended the right of police and prosecutors to lie and "badger"
          • From what I can see by reading her wikipedia entry (completely), she is a ruthless human being, made power-mad by her willingness and ability to apply the full force of power against people (who are aafter all human beings). She apparently missed the part in the Bible about letting GOD do the final judging. It is true she has taken on some powerful criminals, but she has also been slapped down for playing it fast and loose with the evidence, and had her activities curtailed by higher authority on occasion.
        • by houghi (78078)

          Sucks if you loose. And in reality they do not need to prove anything. They just need to convince the judge.
          And if it is a high profile case, they have it a lot easier.

        • by Velex (120469)
          Ok, Mr. internet tough guy. Whatever. This Hector guy is obviously just a pussy and has a dick a fraction the size of yours. We get it.
          • by elucido (870205)

            Ok, Mr. internet tough guy. Whatever. This Hector guy is obviously just a pussy and has a dick a fraction the size of yours. We get it.

            Lots of people are going to prison because of what he did. What he did originally was wrong and criminal and then what he did after the fact was even more wrong than what he originally did, just wrong to a different group of people.

      • by The Master Control P (655590) <ejkeever&nerdshack,com> on Sunday February 24, 2013 @06:12AM (#42994541)
        Copying large amounts of personal information from corps with bad security and posting it on the Intarwebs, while not stealing, isn't exactly legal. Now that being said, threatening a 124 year sentence for it is bullshit of the highest order.

        But that's the wonderful thing about the US criminal code, isn't it? It doesn't matter if you've actually done anything wrong or not - A DA or cop with a vendetta will find something to fuck you over with eventually because so many things have been criminalized that it's impossible to conduct a meaningful life without being a criminal any more. And all the time on Law & Order, the cops extort business owners into cooperating because "wouldn't it be awful if you had inspectors and tax auditors crawling up your ass forever?" and the district attorneys openly extort witnesses into cooperating by threatening to steal the rest of their lives, but it's a Good Thing because they're after Bad People.

        And if it goes too far, that's exactly how dictatorship works - it's not that you have to cooperate, but bad things might happen if you don't.
        • by Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @06:43AM (#42994615)

          The plea bargain system in particular is appalling. Either accept a lesser charge or we'll hit you with everything and nail you to the wall somehow. And indeed that is what is happening here.

          • by elucido (870205)

            The plea bargain system in particular is appalling. Either accept a lesser charge or we'll hit you with everything and nail you to the wall somehow. And indeed that is what is happening here.

            The real question is why was he willing to rat out his own side? Did he not know he could go to jail for a really long time?

            • by The Master Control P (655590) <ejkeever&nerdshack,com> on Sunday February 24, 2013 @02:48PM (#42996759)
              It's easy to talk a tough game about how "I'll take those motherfuckers down with me if they try to bust in" or how you'll never bow to the "sonuvabitch fascist corporate bootlicker prosecutors" in Internet chat rooms. Turns out the rate of following through when the motherfuckers show up with body armor, stun grenades and heavy rifles, or the sonuvabitch is actually in your face threatening to destroy your life, is rather a bit lower.

              See also: Enthusiasm for war from actual veterans who've served vs from chickenhawks in the Bush administration.
              • by elucido (870205)

                It's easy to talk a tough game about how "I'll take those motherfuckers down with me if they try to bust in" or how you'll never bow to the "sonuvabitch fascist corporate bootlicker prosecutors" in Internet chat rooms. Turns out the rate of following through when the motherfuckers show up with body armor, stun grenades and heavy rifles, or the sonuvabitch is actually in your face threatening to destroy your life, is rather a bit lower.

                See also: Enthusiasm for war from actual veterans who've served vs from chickenhawks in the Bush administration.

                And that is exactly what Sabu was doing. Talking like the toughest guy in the room to win a leadership position in a community he was snitching on. Stop making excuses for him. He is the definition of a chickenhawk and there is no excuse for what he did, none. If he wasn't prepared to go to prison he shouldn't have been trying to act like a leader in an online vigilante culture. If you're in a culture of vigilantism or political activism then you should expect your life to be destroyed eventually because th

          • by Lesrahpem (687242)

            The plea bargain system in particular is appalling. Either accept a lesser charge or we'll hit you with everything and nail you to the wall somehow. And indeed that is what is happening here.

            In addition to that, many people fail to realize that sentencing modifications made in a plea bargain are generally not binding. The prosecution can recommend whatever, but the actual sentence is entirely up to the judge.

          • by amiga3D (567632) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @02:30PM (#42996605)

            Worse is how they get people to testify against others by offering them time off their sentence. They can't offer you 100,000 dollars to testify against someone but they can say "testify that you saw him shoot the victim and we'll drop your sentence from life to 10 years." Hell I'd rather have the 10 versus life than a million dollars. It is buying testimony no matter what they say. If I'm on a jury all a bought testimony is good for is corroboration of viewable facts at best.

            • by elucido (870205)

              Worse is how they get people to testify against others by offering them time off their sentence. They can't offer you 100,000 dollars to testify against someone but they can say "testify that you saw him shoot the victim and we'll drop your sentence from life to 10 years." Hell I'd rather have the 10 versus life than a million dollars. It is buying testimony no matter what they say. If I'm on a jury all a bought testimony is good for is corroboration of viewable facts at best.

              It's worse than that even. Sometimes they get no years. Sometimes they are immune from prosecution. Sometimes the police don't just threaten them with years in prison but threaten to put them in really heinous prisons or in sections of the prison where they are likely to be abused.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by elucido (870205)

          Copying large amounts of personal information from corps with bad security and posting it on the Intarwebs, while not stealing, isn't exactly legal. Now that being said, threatening a 124 year sentence for it is bullshit of the highest order.

          But that's the wonderful thing about the US criminal code, isn't it? It doesn't matter if you've actually done anything wrong or not - A DA or cop with a vendetta will find something to fuck you over with eventually because so many things have been criminalized that it's impossible to conduct a meaningful life without being a criminal any more. And all the time on Law & Order, the cops extort business owners into cooperating because "wouldn't it be awful if you had inspectors and tax auditors crawling up your ass forever?" and the district attorneys openly extort witnesses into cooperating by threatening to steal the rest of their lives, but it's a Good Thing because they're after Bad People.

          And if it goes too far, that's exactly how dictatorship works - it's not that you have to cooperate, but bad things might happen if you don't.

          If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime. Turning snitch because you're afraid of life in prison still makes you a snitch.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 24, 2013 @09:32AM (#42995095)

            If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime.

            Exactly. It doesn't matter what that crime is - if you're not ready to accept a life sentence, you should be careful to obey every law. No speeding, which might be charged as attempted homicide by motor vehicle. No spitting on the sidewalk, which might be charged as distribution of a biological weapon for all the infectious agents.

            The problem with this case, and with the US justice system in general, is the complete absence of any sense of proportionality. Sabu faces life in prison, but a drunk driver can run down schoolkids and face (on average, across states) 20 years. Sabu faces 124 years in prison for posting credit card numbers on the internet, but running a sex-slave trade is only good for 15 years.

            So, by all means, obey all the laws. Make sure you're not one of the people committing three felonies a day. If you've pissed off someone in the prosecutor's office, breaking even one law can cost you your house, job, family, friends, and freedom. [simplejustice.us]

            • Exactly. It doesn't matter what that crime is - if you're not ready to accept a life sentence, you should be careful to obey every law. No speeding, which might be charged as attempted homicide by motor vehicle. No spitting on the sidewalk, which might be charged as distribution of a biological weapon for all the infectious agents.

              Damn, the ACs are out with good comments today. Just to strengthen his case, you may even know you are committing a crime. For example as we can learn from the "Don't talk to the police video" did you know possession of a lobster can be a crime [youtube.com]. In fact policemen may show that you are a criminal just because you were confused.

              • by anagama (611277)

                Three Felonies a Day:

                http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 [amazon.com]

                The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal

              • Exactly. It doesn't matter what that crime is - if you're not ready to accept a life sentence, you should be careful to obey every law. No speeding, which might be charged as attempted homicide by motor vehicle. No spitting on the sidewalk, which might be charged as distribution of a biological weapon for all the infectious agents.

                Damn, the ACs are out with good comments today. Just to strengthen his case, you may even know you are committing a crime. For example as we can learn from the "Don't talk to the police video" did you know possession of a lobster can be a crime [youtube.com]. In fact policemen may show that you are a criminal just because you were confused.

                Sabu claimed to be a vigilante hero. He claimed to be fighting for causes greater than himself. When shit hit the fan he was a complete fraud. There is no reason to ever respect Sabu in that context.

                If you're a vigilante you're going to go to prison. It's something all vigilantes must know. It might be for 124 years or for months, but you'll be convicted of something eventually and you'll go to prison. If you're not prepared to go to prison then don't be a vigilante, it's damn simple.

            • If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime.

              Exactly. It doesn't matter what that crime is - if you're not ready to accept a life sentence, you should be careful to obey every law. No speeding, which might be charged as attempted homicide by motor vehicle. No spitting on the sidewalk, which might be charged as distribution of a biological weapon for all the infectious agents.

              The problem with this case, and with the US justice system in general, is the complete absence of any sense of proportionality. Sabu faces life in prison, but a drunk driver can run down schoolkids and face (on average, across states) 20 years. Sabu faces 124 years in prison for posting credit card numbers on the internet, but running a sex-slave trade is only good for 15 years.

              So, by all means, obey all the laws. Make sure you're not one of the people committing three felonies a day. If you've pissed off someone in the prosecutor's office, breaking even one law can cost you your house, job, family, friends, and freedom. [simplejustice.us]

              Hacktivist heroes tend to go to prison. Some of them go to prison for a long time. He chose the path he was on when he knew the risks. When you take on the most powerful interests in the world you can't turn snitch.

              Julian Assange shouldn't be surprised if he ends up in prison. Bradley Manning probably wasn't surprised to end up in prison. That is where you go when you get involved in vigilante action. But to claim to be a vigilante hero on one hand but then turn on other vigilante heroes out of fear of goin

          • If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime.

            The principle idea behind punishment proportional to the severity of the crime is that it gives criminals an incentive not to escalate:

            • Pickpocket someone - Have to pay penalty or a short visit to the prison (depending on how often caught)
            • Threaten someone to rob them - Potentially get into prison for few years
            • Kill someone to get their money - Go to prison for a very long time

            Raising the punishment for 'stealing' or for 'threatening' (depending on how one interprets LulzSec's actions) to the same or even hig

            • by Anonymous Coward

              i think the real problem is that each individual crime adds to the sentence and with computers if you steal a database with 1000 credit card numbers it often counts each stolen number as an individual crime and so suddenly 30 days in jail for stealing a credit card, now gets you 30,000 days.

              the problem appears to be that the criminal code can't handle computer crimes properly. The current laws seem to be like if you charged a bank robber for each account that they had to withdraw the money from in order to

              • by elucido (870205)

                i think the real problem is that each individual crime adds to the sentence and with computers if you steal a database with 1000 credit card numbers it often counts each stolen number as an individual crime and so suddenly 30 days in jail for stealing a credit card, now gets you 30,000 days.

                the problem appears to be that the criminal code can't handle computer crimes properly. The current laws seem to be like if you charged a bank robber for each account that they had to withdraw the money from in order to give him the big sack of money.

                it sounds like this person probably deserves jail, however not a life sentence.

                The life sentence is just a threat used to mentally break weak willed persons. Sometimes it works and people turn snitch and sometimes it doesn't work and people go to jail. Sabu should have gone to jail if whatever he was fighting for was truly just.

                The fact is, whatever he was fighting for was meaningless to him which is why he wasn't willing to go to jail for it.

            • If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime.

              The principle idea behind punishment proportional to the severity of the crime is that it gives criminals an incentive not to escalate:

              • Pickpocket someone - Have to pay penalty or a short visit to the prison (depending on how often caught)
              • Threaten someone to rob them - Potentially get into prison for few years
              • Kill someone to get their money - Go to prison for a very long time

              Raising the punishment for 'stealing' or for 'threatening' (depending on how one interprets LulzSec's actions) to the same or even higher level than killing means the next group of crackers will make sure to erase their tracks, even if it means killing a few people here or there. It's not going to make punishment worse for them but increases their chance to get away.
              And the US will finally have their home-grown terrorists it has always been waiting for.

              If you're a real vigilante then you have to be prepared for anything the prosecution can dish out. Life in prison, accusations of crimes you never committed, being set up or framed, or just serving the time based on the vigilante actions you did. The point I have to make is, if you're willing to break the law because it's so politically important then you should be willing to go to prison for the same reason. You should not fear prison if you're serious about it.

              And if you're not serious about it then you s

            • If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime.

              The principle idea behind punishment proportional to the severity of the crime is that it gives criminals an incentive not to escalate:

              • Pickpocket someone - Have to pay penalty or a short visit to the prison (depending on how often caught)
              • Threaten someone to rob them - Potentially get into prison for few years
              • Kill someone to get their money - Go to prison for a very long time

              Raising the punishment for 'stealing' or for 'threatening' (depending on how one interprets LulzSec's actions) to the same or even higher level than killing means the next group of crackers will make sure to erase their tracks, even if it means killing a few people here or there. It's not going to make punishment worse for them but increases their chance to get away.
              And the US will finally have their home-grown terrorists it has always been waiting for.

              He didn't just hack for political reasons. Lulzsec was targeting innocent users, gamers, etc and trying to destroy their lives and put their account info out there for really bad hackers to exploit.

        • by znrt (2424692)

          so many things have been criminalized that it's impossible to conduct a meaningful life without being a criminal any more.

          couldn't resist:

          SCRUTINIZER'S POSTLUDE

          Eventually it was discovered
          That God
          Did not want us to be
          All the same
          This was
          BAD NEWS
          For the Governments of The World
          As it seemed contrary
          To the doctrine of
          Portion Controlled Servings
          Mankind must be made more uniformly
          If THE FUTURE
          Was going to work
          Various ways were sought
          To bind us all together
          But, alas SAMENESS was unenforceable
          It was about this time
          That someone
          Came up with the idea of TOTAL CRIMINALIZATION
          Based on the principle that
          If we were ALL crooks
          We could at last be uniform
          To some degree
          In the eyes of THE LAW
          Shrewdly our legislators calculated
          That most people were
          Too lazy to perform a
          REAL CRIME
          So new laws were manufactured
          Making it possible for anyone
          To violate them any time of the day or night,
          And
          Once we had all broken some kind of law
          We'd all be in the same big happy club
          Right up there with the President,
          The most exalted industrialists,
          And the clerical big shots
          Of all your favorite religions
          TOTAL CRIMINALIZATION
          Was the greatest idea of its time
          And was vastly popular
          Except with those people
          Who didn't want to be crooks or outlaws,
          So, of course, they had to be TRICKED INTO IT...
          Which is one of the reasons why
          Music
          Was eventually made
          Illegal

          FZ / Joe's Garage

        • Hey, folks. No one ever said that he was threatened with a 124 year sentence. He was certainly threatened with a long sentence, but that 124 years is just the press taking the list of charges filed, looking up the maximum sentence for each, and adding them. His lawyer certainly knew that, no matter what, a 124 year sentence was never a possibility and I seriously doubt the prosecutor ever even mentioned such a term.

          Among the things likely with no plea bargain at all is that the judge would have sentences f

      • While I agree a 124 year life sentence is excessive, hacking is still a crime and should be punished. Making false comparisons to terrorism, murder, rape, or forced slavery doesn't make hacking any less of a crime.

        It would be more appropriate to compare it with burglary, espionage, vandalism, conspiracy, or theft and appropriate for the justice system to treat it that way during sentencing. Of course in today's climate... they did.

      • by elucido (870205)

        From what I understand LulzSec never stole anything. The government simply heard they were hacking, which is apparently worse than terrorism, murder, rape, or forced slavery. So they broke this man by threatening to put him in jail for the rest of his life (124 years is a life sentence).

        If he was smarter, he would have gotten a job as a banker and actually stole shit and destroyed people's lives. In that case he would be immune from prosecution.

        If he were smart he wouldn't be involved with Lulzsec at all. Truly smart people don't get involved with shit like that for a reason.

  • It wasn't free (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eksith (2776419) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @04:39AM (#42994367) Homepage
    He has already been sentenced to a lifetime of cooperation with the feds in exchange for a pittance and an assurance he won't do hard time... or any time maybe. The courts are just a formality at this point; just to placate those calling for his and Anonymous' head.
    • Re:It wasn't free (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gl4ss (559668) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @06:55AM (#42994649) Homepage Journal

      which gets us to how courts don't do shit anymore.

      you're either guilty of something worth 124 years in the prison or you're not(obviously a sentence like that is _not_ what had been in mind for the activities he had done). justice shouldn't be a game for prosecutors to play with to get max score(max amount of people doing max amount of time).

    • He has already been sentenced to a lifetime of cooperation with the feds in exchange for a pittance and an assurance he won't do hard time... or any time maybe. The courts are just a formality at this point; just to placate those calling for his and Anonymous' head.

      There is no other word for someone like Sabu. Sabu is a snitch. It does not matter what excuse he used to snitch, he's a snitch. He turned on his own to avoid prison, there is nothing respectable or trustworthy about such a person. His word his shit and he has no honor or self respect.

      Whether you agree with the Antisec philosophy or not, whether you agree with the Lulzsec philosophy or not, Sabu represented and talked up a philosophy he didn't believe in. He encouraged others to break the law in a philosoph

      • by rtb61 (674572) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @09:07AM (#42995025) Homepage

        Even worse that slime sought and groomed minors to commit crimes for him and also to be the fall guys for the crimes he committed. The FBI also went on to seek and groom more minors into criminal activity with all the profound stupidity of those who see their promotions before any principles of justice.

        Right now the FBI and Hector Xavier Monsegur are stuck with each other. The FBI trying to excuse their joint criminal activity to the judges and now the FBI are stuck pushing a hugely reduced sentence for nothing, for all the joint criminal activity they finished with the same number of lulzsec members they started with and found 'Anonymous' not to be some giant hacking organisation with tens of thousands of members but just an idea. Yet the FBI are stuck with Hector Xavier Monsegur else they will not be able to recruit quislings and back stabbers in future.

        • by HornWumpus (783565) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @11:57AM (#42995779)

          Cops discard snitches when they are done with them, like used rubbers.

          Even the ones that get witness relocation end up working a schlub job in some shithole rust belt town. Hector doesn't have anybody trying to kill him so he will just be left to his own devices. I'm guessing another felony inside of a year. This time some state rap.

        • by elucido (870205)

          Even worse that slime sought and groomed minors to commit crimes for him and also to be the fall guys for the crimes he committed. The FBI also went on to seek and groom more minors into criminal activity with all the profound stupidity of those who see their promotions before any principles of justice.

          Right now the FBI and Hector Xavier Monsegur are stuck with each other. The FBI trying to excuse their joint criminal activity to the judges and now the FBI are stuck pushing a hugely reduced sentence for nothing, for all the joint criminal activity they finished with the same number of lulzsec members they started with and found 'Anonymous' not to be some giant hacking organisation with tens of thousands of members but just an idea. Yet the FBI are stuck with Hector Xavier Monsegur else they will not be able to recruit quislings and back stabbers in future.

          That is the problem I have with him and his ilk. He went and groomed young people into doing stuff for him so he could build a case on them to protect himself. He's complete scum and no one can deny that. All this comparing him to Aaron Swartz and trying to make it seem like the prosecutor was scum in this case? The prosecutor was doing their job as a prosecutor, but Sabu was not doing his job as a vigiilante. I respect the prosecutor more than I respect the vigilante snitch Sabu.

  • by Rogerborg (306625) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @04:42AM (#42994377) Homepage
    I'll most likely jail you in the morning.
  • Mal: You called the Feds.
    Jayne: I got pinched!
    Mal: Which is what happens when you call the Feds.

    Not now, but when his case is heard at least.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 24, 2013 @05:11AM (#42994435)

    The system “works” by getting people who may or may not be guilty to “cooperate”. If you “cooperate” it means your helping to convict other people who may or may not be guilty. The way they get you to “cooperate” is by intimidation. They pile on every conceivable charge and you can't feasibly defend against everything financially. The reason only rich people get off is because they can afford to fight (pay a good lawyer for a near indefinite period of time).

    • by Anonymous Coward

      It doesn't matter if the other people did the crime. What matters is that you give testimony to that effect. People who are or may be linked to the crime or another crime should not be able to give testimony on behalf of the prosecution.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        And, just like torture, the torturer gets whatever information the one being tortured thinks they want to hear.

        However, the USA has long since decided that this is not a problem.

        • by elucido (870205)

          And, just like torture, the torturer gets whatever information the one being tortured thinks they want to hear.

          However, the USA has long since decided that this is not a problem.

          Sabu wasn't just confessing or just giving information. He was actively entrapping people and baiting people into crimes so he could give them heads.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        It doesn't matter if the other people did the crime. What matters is that you give testimony to that effect. People who are or may be linked to the crime or another crime should not be able to give testimony on behalf of the prosecution.

        Statistics actually bear this out, the vast majority of people who turns states evidence (and even more so the people who do so from within jail to attempt to get leniency) lie their asses off.

        You can't make a deal if you don't know anything important, so by and large people looking to get out of doing time, just make shit up.

    • by elucido (870205) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @08:42AM (#42994929)

      If they want to get you they'll find something on you until they get you. The point is this, if you're a political activist then you gotta plan on getting got. Plan ahead of time on going to prison or don't be any kind of political activist. MLK knew he was going to be arrested a lot and knew he was going to be killed. So did most others.

      So why are the current generation of so called hacktivists populated by these coward snitches like Sabu who start out talking all brave and tough but then get questioned by men in uniform and suddenly they turn completely against their crew and their side? Either you're with Antisec or you're not. The posers are the problem. Sabu was like the agent provocateur who would encourage people to commit crimes so the authorities could have something on them and pressure some of them into becoming traitors.

      • by tburkhol (121842)

        If they want to get you they'll find something on you until they get you. The point is this, if you're a political activist then you gotta plan on getting got. Plan ahead of time on going to prison or don't be any kind of political activist. MLK knew he was going to be arrested a lot and knew he was going to be killed. So did most others.

        So why are the current generation of so called hacktivists populated by these coward snitches like Sabu who start out talking all brave and tough but then get questioned by men in uniform and suddenly they turn completely against their crew and their side?

        There have been betrayers and spies within every politically active group back to the Magna Carta. They're part of the reason MLK and John Lewis had to plan on going to jail (note: jail, not prison). It's shockingly difficult to stand up to the threats/pressure/mental anguish that Power is able to apply, and very few people are able to play Prisoner's Dilemma rationally when faced with actual, real-world penalties. Hate Sabu all you want, but don't pretend that you wouldn't sell out AnonFag342 in exchang

        • by elucido (870205)

          There have been betrayers and spies within every politically active group back to the Magna Carta. They're part of the reason MLK and John Lewis had to plan on going to jail (note: jail, not prison). It's shockingly difficult to stand up to the threats/pressure/mental anguish that Power is able to apply, and very few people are able to play Prisoner's Dilemma rationally when faced with actual, real-world penalties. Hate Sabu all you want, but don't pretend that you wouldn't sell out AnonFag342 in exchange for the chance to be present at your kid's graduation or wedding, unless you've had to make that choice.

          I haven't sold anyone out. I simply refuse to involve myself with people who offer life in prison as part of the friendship. Sabu knew who and what he was involved with. He chose to get involved with what he got involved with. He pretended that he was dedicated and fully committed to what he claimed to be with. He's a fraud, a traitor, and a snitch. Don't pretend to believe in a cause you won't go to prison for. If you're not pretending then you'll be prepared to face the consequences. So when you say somet

  • ... he even hacked justice!

  • by harlows_monkeys (106428) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @05:33AM (#42994479) Homepage

    The sentences reported in press releases when someone is indicted are derived by adding up for each charge the maximum sentence that it is possible for anyone to get for that charge, and then that total is reported. That is nowhere near what the person actually faces in almost every case. There are three things under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that greatly reduce the sentence they actually face.

    First, the maximum sentence for a given count is only possible for the most severe instances of that kind of violation.

    Second, priory convictions are taken into account. To get the maximum sentence, you have to pretty much be a career criminal.

    Finally, felonies are divided into groups. If you are charged with multiple felonies from the same group for the same underlying acts, you will only be sentenced for one of the felonies in the group.

    The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are non-binding, so it is possible for a judge to sentence someone to more than the guidelines call for, but such sentences are almost always reduced on appeal to something in accord with the Guidelines. I've not seen anything in the Sabu case that would make it an exception to this.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      So what you're saying is.

      Don't worry about excessive penalties, because they're never used, unless they are used, or they're even gone beyond, but it won't happen, unless it does, but it probably wont.

      • Things in the legal world are not cut and dry. They need flexibility to deal with people who commit the same crimes but under different circumstances, and it's impossible to write all those circumstances into law.

        Ex: how would you sentence:
        1) someone who committed a premeditated murder because they were crazy
        2) someone who committed a premeditated murder because they knew the target was going to kill their family
        3) someone who committed a premeditated murder because they were paid to do it
        4) someone who com

    • Well in reality he was facing 320 years but guidelines brought down the sentence.

    • by nickserv (1974794)

      It's not about what the judges choose to do or what the sentencing guidelines say. It's about prosecutorial intimidation e.g. "you're going away for the rest of your life or you cooperate" which occurs way before a judge ever gets a chance to rule on sentencing.

      This is why the vast majority of cases are closed with a nolo contendo (no contest) plea bargain and never even make it to trial. There is very little justice left in the US (in)justice system for the average citizen without vast resources to defend

      • by elucido (870205)

        It's not about what the judges choose to do or what the sentencing guidelines say. It's about prosecutorial intimidation e.g. "you're going away for the rest of your life or you cooperate" which occurs way before a judge ever gets a chance to rule on sentencing.

        This is why the vast majority of cases are closed with a nolo contendo (no contest) plea bargain and never even make it to trial. There is very little justice left in the US (in)justice system for the average citizen without vast resources to defend themselves.

        The problem is once he cooperated then according to game theory it becomes a situation where everyone else involved has to now cooperate or all the time would be piled on them instead. The first person to cooperate changes the game for everyone else. Sabu cooperating changed the options for everyone else who now has to worry that Sabu could have toward authorities that they did way more than they actually did. At the same time some people might be completely framed by Sabu and now they either cooperate or g

    • When he arrives at prison he will have a target on his back. He will have no friends and will have to be put in the protective custody section of the prison. In that section of the prison he will again have no friends because most of the people there are snitches or sex offenders. People who don't believe in anything, people who can't be trusted.

      If you're willing to break the law for some cause, whether it be Antisec, Lulzsec or whatever the hell else you claim to do it for, then you have to be prepared to

    • ...and what was the horrible thing he did, again?  That he's even facing federal charges at all?
    • by Rogerborg (306625)
      Sure, he'd have been out in 40, 50 years tops. What a pussy, to cut a deal over that.
  • http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3068789&cid=41106927 [slashdot.org]

    Last time, I said as long as he helps he won't go down....

  • "If he was smarter, he would have gotten a job as a banker and actually stole shit and destroyed people's lives. In that case he would be immune from prosecution."
    Well said AC and I could not agree with you more!

    I don't like rats but also cannot condone criminal activity if that indeed happened. I don't know the full truth about that and suspect that very few people ever will.

    However, here's another prime example of how the US maximizes it's leverage by amassing as many charges and counts as possible to int

    • by houghi (78078)

      I'm a man without a country and that weighs heavy on my mind. It sucks to not be able to feel proud of where I come from anymore

      Where you came from is your past. Where you came from is your family. You can still be proud of that.
      A country (or a nation, if you like) means nothing. It is just a political line on a map.
      You can not be proud of things where you have no influence. You can be satisfied or even happy that they are there, but you can not be proud of them.

      When people ask me what my nationality is, I

      • by nickserv (1974794)

        I'm a man without a country and that weighs heavy on my mind. It sucks to not be able to feel proud of where I come from anymore

        Where you came from is your past. Where you came from is your family. You can still be proud of that.
        A country (or a nation, if you like) means nothing. It is just a political line on a map.
        You can not be proud of things where you have no influence. You can be satisfied or even happy that they are there, but you can not be proud of them.

        You're quite right about that and thank you for reminding me.

        The answer that they give is always that it does not matter, so why ask the question in the first place?

        My answer would be that it does matter but, I wish it didn't.

        In my experience I have only been able to form close friendships with other expat Americans that share a similar belief system and set of values as me. That has not been for lack of trying either. I have acquaintances and colleagues from all over the world and, despite being quite well traveled when I arrived, being around them has taught me more than I ever imagined about how little I k

    • How can you prepared Sabu to Aaron Swartz? Sabu is more comparable to Albert Gonzalez from the Shadowcrew. He was turned into a snitch too http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/magazine/14Hacker-t.html [nytimes.com]

      It's really simple, if you believe in something enough to break the law in protest then you have to be prepared to take on the ultimate consequence of life in prison should that be the consequence. There should be no setting people up, no snitching on other who are on your side. If you're fighting for a cause you

      • He did it because he fucking grew up and realized the adventurism was about to start having consequences.

        Only a very, very few get to graduate up into being a Stalin or a Lenin. All the other 'revolutionaries' get killed, or imprisoned, or plowed under, or they fucking grow up.

        • by elucido (870205)

          He did it because he fucking grew up and realized the adventurism was about to start having consequences.

          Only a very, very few get to graduate up into being a Stalin or a Lenin. All the other 'revolutionaries' get killed, or imprisoned, or plowed under, or they fucking grow up.

          Exactly my point. So why did he take so long to grew up when the rest of us grew up already and don't have to face 124 years in prison and turn snitch in order to grow up?

      • by nickserv (1974794)

        I'm not comparing the actions of Sabu with Swartz and I know far less about the details of the Sabu case than I do about Swartz. I was only pointing out that the heavy handed treatment from the prosecution was pretty much the same in both cases.

        Who knows, had Sabu and Swartz not been intimidated by the prosecution telling them they were going to throw them away for the rest of their lives they might have chosen different courses of action than becoming a snitch and suicide. The system sucks and until that i

        • by elucido (870205)

          I'm not comparing the actions of Sabu with Swartz and I know far less about the details of the Sabu case than I do about Swartz. I was only pointing out that the heavy handed treatment from the prosecution was pretty much the same in both cases.

          Who knows, had Sabu and Swartz not been intimidated by the prosecution telling them they were going to throw them away for the rest of their lives they might have chosen different courses of action than becoming a snitch and suicide. The system sucks and until that is fixed it's hard to blame people for their actions when they are being mentally tortured by draconian prosecution tactics without any real recourse to defend themselves. This sort of thing never happens to people who have millions to defend themselves with and that simply is not equal justice under the law.

          I agree with you on Swartz because Swartz did the sort of stuff that any of us could have done and been charged with. He wasn't some sort of malicious black hat. Also Swartz ultimately killed himself but you're right they probably were trying to get him to turn into an informant which explains why they charged him with everything they could. So on that token I agree the system is corrupt but it's been corrupt for a long time now so why are we acting surprised it's corrupt? The war on drugs has put hundreds

  • The past tense of plead is pled or pleaded (both are acceptable). The word "plead" (unlike "lead") only has one pronunciation.

    • by elucido (870205)

      'nuff said

      It's basically confirmed and carved onto his forehead now. He's a rat. He snitched to avoid doing time. And he didn't just snitch, he actively helped to entrap his comrades which means he either never really believed in what he was preaching, or he simply doesn't value the lives of the others who risked their futures for that agenda. It's disgusting really to do that.

      If you're going to believe in something then you have to be prepared to go to prison for that. If you're not prepared to go to prison then you

  • People should be able to sue the DA for frivolous charges. Between this guy and Aaron Schwartz it is pretty clear that the DA/cops have so issue with just making up bullshit charges to harass and scare people. I would even go so far as to call it extortion in some cases. There should be consequences for doing this.

  • but was granted a six-month breather back in August 2012 after the U.S. government asked the District Attorney to consider adjournment of Monsegur's trial 'in light of the defendant's ongoing cooperation with the Government.

    Remember kids, you too can win six months of freedom at a time by selling your friends and your soul!

    Uncle Sam wants you! To report terrorists that don't support $current_leading_party !
  • Really...? You have real threats out there like APT1, and the most useful thing you can think to do is threaten 124 years of prison to try and shake out folks who are doxing, and ddosing??? US Gov: You're doing it wrong.
  • All humans are born self serving, narcissistic, assholes but some eventually grow out of it. A country is just an ideology with virtual borders and regardless of political ideology that fuels the government, eventually, it will fail due to corruption and human rights abuse. Well, people fight back.

    Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro(filthy rich) were and 1 still is a pure Capitalist con artist who duped millions into a feudal system(pure capitalism) aka communism and socialism(far from the real socialist systems)

An inclined plane is a slope up. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"

Working...