Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Bitcoin Government The Courts United States

Ross Ulbricht Faces New Drug Charges 102

Posted by timothy
from the there's-laws-and-there's-laws dept.
Alleged Silk Road mastermind Ross Ulbricht now faces additional drug-related charges. Ars Technica gives a run-down on the run-down, and shows an array of driver's licenses that can't look good to a jury: According to a 17-page amended indictment filed late Thursday night, the government introduced one count of “narcotics trafficking,” of “distribution of narcotics by means of the Internet,” and of "conspiracy to traffic in fraudulent identification documents." Previously, Ulbricht was indicted in February 2014 on four formal criminal offenses: narcotics trafficking conspiracy, continuing criminal enterprise, computer hacking conspiracy, and money laundering conspiracy. Ulbricht pleaded not guilty to the previous charges, and he seems likely to plead not guilty to the new ones as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ross Ulbricht Faces New Drug Charges

Comments Filter:
  • Guilty (Score:3, Interesting)

    by digsbo (1292334) on Sunday August 24, 2014 @06:02PM (#47744095)
    Of facilitating voluntary transactions between consenting adults.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Of facilitating voluntary transactions between consenting adults.

      Consent cannot be given if one of the parties is mentally impaired and under duress due to the well-documented effects of drug addiction. It would be one thing if Silk Road had been only a marketplace for non-addictive substances like cannabis or hallucinogens, but in fact trade in heroin, cocaine and addictive painkillers was a major part of the site.

      That said, I think that a government policy of offering drug users medical treatment would b

      • by reub2000 (705806)

        That differs from the liquor store how?

      • According to the federal government, Cannabis and Hallucinogens are in fact addictive.
        http://www.justice.gov/dea/doc... [justice.gov]

        It's all lies to keep the war on drugs alive and well... but hey, when did the truth matter?

        • There may be legitimate reasons to restrict pot, but they're really unconvincing when you find that the people against pot lie about its effects. The problem with lying for an agenda is that, once people see through the lies, they tend to think that anything in support of that agenda is a lie.

      • Consent cannot be given if one of the parties is mentally impaired and under duress due to the well-documented effects of drug addiction. It would be one thing if Silk Road had been only a marketplace for non-addictive substances like cannabis or hallucinogens, but in fact trade in heroin, cocaine and addictive painkillers was a major part of the site.

        I think it would be a stronger argument that somebody isn't responsible for their own behavior while intoxicated. In fact, you'd have to pretty well establish that notion before you could even get to what you just said.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      And you know, of conspiring to commit murder. People seem to forget that part.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by digsbo (1292334)
        Last I heard, all our surviving presidents and most of Congress are walking around free, dude...
        • by digsbo (1292334)
          Of course, that's BS, because two wrongs don't make a right. But the new charge is the subject of the story, and that's really what I was getting at.
    • by Jahava (946858)

      Of facilitating voluntary transactions between consenting adults.

      The illegality of those transactions is the only reason they are massively profitable, and that is likely the only reason he engaged in them.

      Whether or not you agree with that illegality is irrelevant. By profiting from facilitation of illegal activity, Ulbricht leveraged an unfair market position to get ahead of the rest of the world. Anyone can break the law for disproportionate profit. He's That Guy, and if you live within the system (as most of us do), you need to support stamping him down. The alternat

      • It is totally relevant. By outlawing something harmless you create an artificial crime scene. Oh come on, there are STILL movies made about alcohol, the US and gangsters with "Chicago Typewriters". Off course any government who actually promotes crime can also use it to conveniently accuse anyone to be a criminal.
    • by khchung (462899)

      Of facilitating voluntary transactions between consenting adults.

      So you also think we shouldn't have laws against buying/selling organs by adults, selling yourself into slavery, and prostitution? All of them are voluntary transactions between consenting adults.

      • What's wrong with prostitution? Ugly person A wants sex. Hot person B wants money and will tolerate and/or even enjoy a willy inside them. Person A pays person B for sex. Both get what they want. Damn those evil people, how dare they offend God! Why...sex is ok, but only if somebody doesn't get paid damnit! (Except the god described in the old testament. He's cool with it so long as you burn incense and sacrifice a lamb or two in his name.)

        And I don't see anything wrong with selling your own organs either s

  • More litigants! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    So if I buy a cell phone at Walmart and the battery catches on fire I can sue Walmart too? How about the cashier at Walmart and all of the stock people? They all share responsibility!

  • by Tokolosh (1256448) on Sunday August 24, 2014 @06:10PM (#47744125)

    Is it just me, or is everyone against the War on Drugs at the same time opposed to the tobacco industry?

    • Re:Chokehold (Score:4, Interesting)

      by digsbo (1292334) on Sunday August 24, 2014 @06:29PM (#47744231)
      Nope. I'm opposed to the war on drugs, and I have no problem with Big Tobacco, so long as they do business honestly. In my opinion, as long as they don't lie, I don't even think they should be prevented from various advertising, or need to have safety warnings on their cancer sticks.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Canth7 (520476) *
        Exactly. Do I have a problem with Big Tobacco? Yes - because they lie about their products and refuse to disclose the ingredients cointained within their products. Otherwise, I have no problem with multinational companies that want to sell tobacco, cocaine or heroine.
        • by digsbo (1292334)
          Refusal to disclose is different from lying. It's the choice of the consumer to ingest when they have access to information that tells them "the producer is hiding something".
      • Yeah, as long as other people are allowed to physically remove a person smoking from their vicinity and they don't get any public funding for smoking disease related heath care.

        Other than that... they're selling a highly addictive substance that in normal use results in disease and premature death.

        • by Firethorn (177587)

          they don't get any public funding for smoking disease related heath care.

          It's actually cheaper to just pay out the healthcare than to drive it underground.

        • "Yeah, as long as other people are allowed to physically remove a person smoking from their vicinity..."

          What's the vicinity, chum? If I'm smoking a cigar outside and you walk up and lay a hand on me, there's problems.

        • don't get any public funding for smoking disease related heath care

          Why not? They paid a lot more of the tax that funds it compared to (say) sugar addicts with bad hearts, bacon lovers with clogged ateries, or skateboarders with broken bones. All of those health problems are "self inflicted" and entirely avoidable but for some reason nanny state arseholes like you have a vendetta against smokers, you insist they pay an excessive "sin tax" and then demand they be denied any benifits from that tax. Fuck you and the holier than thou horse you rode in on.

    • by Zaelath (2588189)

      It's just you.

    • Your friendly neighborhood drug dealer is at least more honest in not claiming that snorting will make you look young and sexy like a hunk or supermodel. I really can't understand why big tobacco isn't banned while most countries will send you to death or to jail for a very very long time if you're caught with even a few grams of the stuff.

    • Is it just me, or is everyone against the War on Drugs at the same time opposed to the tobacco industry?

      No. The New York Times editorial staff maintains a stance in favor of legalizing marijuana, but opposed to tobacco, including e-cigarettes.

      • by Tokolosh (1256448)

        Thanks for this input. Do they not understand that this leads to high taxes on cigarettes, leading to smuggling, leading to a chokehold death of a guy trying to make a living by selling them?

        Nevermind Ulbricht.

        • tbh not much of their argument seems coherent either way. I think it really comes down to the editors wanting to smoke pot, and not wanting to smoke cigarettes.
    • by MarkvW (1037596)

      I'm "against" the tobacco industry, but I'm not a tobacco prohibitionist. Same as to marijuana.

      On the other hand, I am against the methamphetamine industry and I am a methamphetamine prohibitionist.

      Other drugs require more thought and /. isn't worth that.

  • I certainly didn't do it.
    You probably didn't do it.
    That leaves only the overlords, themselves.
    It's all a set up, with a scapegoat, as usual. This wouldn't make a decent T.V. show,lacks imagination. Therefore I suspect government tomfoolery in all of this.

  • Define torture (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AK Marc (707885) on Sunday August 24, 2014 @06:18PM (#47744161)
    Torture is violence or the threat of violence to extract a result. Prison is violent, so threats of prison are threats of violence.

    Adding on more charges is to play the game of "we'll get you on something, so if you don't confess to this small list, we'll send you away to prison for a long time." That's threats of violence to get a result. So this is all a game of legal torture.

    Cause harm and threaten harm until you get a confession, regardless of the guilt of the people involved. That's the American Way.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Well if you define it that vaguely, I guess any sort of punishment at all is torture, and I am guilty of some kind of war crime if I ground my 13 year old daughter.

      • Yes. You're also guilty if you threaten to ground her.

        The government is also guilty because they've defined laws that pretty much say "If you kill someone on purpose and we can prove it beyond reasonable doubt, you're going to jail"

      • by AK Marc (707885)
        Then give me a definition of torture, so we can see what fits yours.

        The original definition, as it was used in the Inquisition, would include taking away her iPad if she didn't do what you wanted (like clean her room). Threatening to kill her if she didn't perform sex acts with you would be "torture"? Or would you dispute that one as well? Then let's "lessen" the punishment and act demanded, and see where you draw the line.

        But then, older definitions of slavery would still come close to applying t
  • by DrXym (126579)
    Someone will have to point me to the part of Austrian School of Economics and libertarianism which says it's okay to have competitors and rivals iced.
  • In the middle of the article there's a list of charges, and all refer to a "detectable amount of [drug]". That's a pretty low standard. For example, when you're handling cash you're probably trafficking a detectable amount of cocaine.

If you're not careful, you're going to catch something.

Working...