FBI put Anonymous 'hacktivist' Jeremy Hammond on terrorism watchlist(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
FBI put Anonymous 'hacktivist' Jeremy Hammond on terrorism watchlist
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/02/fbi-anonymous-hacktivist-jeremy-hammond-terrorism-watchlist
171 comments
> When the Government successfully killed the US Citizen, using a military drone strike, in a Country the US was not authorized to use the Use of Force (under International Law)
Which international law address US use of force in Yemen?
Which international law address US use of force in Yemen?
>Which international law address US use of force in Yemen?
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is the general framework prohibiting the use of force between member States.[1] The UN Charter itself only provides for 2 exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force: a. Self-Defense and b. with prior authorization from the UN Security Council. However, much like the US Constitution, which has been interpreted and extended through legislation and through the Courts, the UN Charter has been interpreted through treaties, UN Resolutions, votes of the UN Security Council, case studies and customary law/international norms.
To put this in context, put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine a foreign national located in the US, who has been deemed a terrorist or equivalent by another country, and that country performs some kind of military/quasi-military/drone strike within the jurisdictional integrity of the US.
Separately, there is an entire second half to the analysis, so once the use of force is authorized (jus ad bellum), then we need to apply the actual laws of war (jus in bello). The easiest way to convey this is to say that the response must be proportionate to the act that authorized the use of force and otherwise use of certain weapons are prohibited, such as those that fail to distinguish between civilian and combatant (e.g. prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons). Looking at the facts of this particular case, it would appear problematic that before the CIA drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, the US botched at least a first attempt that resulted in the killing of 2 unintended targets.
[1] http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/principles.shtml
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is the general framework prohibiting the use of force between member States.[1] The UN Charter itself only provides for 2 exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force: a. Self-Defense and b. with prior authorization from the UN Security Council. However, much like the US Constitution, which has been interpreted and extended through legislation and through the Courts, the UN Charter has been interpreted through treaties, UN Resolutions, votes of the UN Security Council, case studies and customary law/international norms.
To put this in context, put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine a foreign national located in the US, who has been deemed a terrorist or equivalent by another country, and that country performs some kind of military/quasi-military/drone strike within the jurisdictional integrity of the US.
Separately, there is an entire second half to the analysis, so once the use of force is authorized (jus ad bellum), then we need to apply the actual laws of war (jus in bello). The easiest way to convey this is to say that the response must be proportionate to the act that authorized the use of force and otherwise use of certain weapons are prohibited, such as those that fail to distinguish between civilian and combatant (e.g. prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons). Looking at the facts of this particular case, it would appear problematic that before the CIA drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, the US botched at least a first attempt that resulted in the killing of 2 unintended targets.
[1] http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/principles.shtml
In your opinion, why does "a. Self-Defense" not apply when killing a member of an organization which has killed thousands inside the US?
Read Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The violation of international law results from the failure to "respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States." So again think of my hypothetical above, with the shoe on the other foot. If another country conducts a military strike in the US, and violates US sovereignty, the claim of self-defense must be against the US (i.e. the member State), not a claim of self-defense against an individual residing in the US.
Essentially, there would be no rule of law if Use of Force was authorized, under the self-defense, so long as one Country alleges a terrorist is residing in another Country. To be fair, under these specific set of facts, it may have been possible to make a case before the Security Council and have the Security Council authorize the Use of Force. However, that is the whole point the US circumvented the established law and acted unilaterally, when they could have gone to the UN presented their case and had a vote on the merits.
Essentially, there would be no rule of law if Use of Force was authorized, under the self-defense, so long as one Country alleges a terrorist is residing in another Country. To be fair, under these specific set of facts, it may have been possible to make a case before the Security Council and have the Security Council authorize the Use of Force. However, that is the whole point the US circumvented the established law and acted unilaterally, when they could have gone to the UN presented their case and had a vote on the merits.
Thanks -- I get it now. Not sure I agree with the conclusion due to Yemen's nominal assent to this, but I don't disagree at all with the principle.
As for the shoe on the other foot, that's an ongoing issue with the Polonium Tea incident being merely the latest.
As for the shoe on the other foot, that's an ongoing issue with the Polonium Tea incident being merely the latest.
And about killing hundreds of thousands of unrelated civilians?
So, Al-Quaeda allegedly killed 10.000 people.
US then kill about 9000 more of its own citizens to kill some million and a bit more abroad, and cause some everlasting civil wars, including some that made Al-Quaeda, affiliates, allies and splinter organizations stronger, not weaker.
So, Al-Quaeda allegedly killed 10.000 people.
US then kill about 9000 more of its own citizens to kill some million and a bit more abroad, and cause some everlasting civil wars, including some that made Al-Quaeda, affiliates, allies and splinter organizations stronger, not weaker.
Parent comment was specific that killing a member of AQ in a specific instance was unlawful under International Law. I was asking about that specific instance, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Clarify?
I don't see how either of the first two paragraphs are relevant to the campaign in Yemen. The US use of force there has been with the cooperation of the government of Yemen.
Member States may not collude to circumvent international law. Certainly Yemen and the US could have cooperated and presented their case in an attempt to obtain the authorization from the Security Council.
Oddly the US legal justification is not that their action complies with International Law, rather that International Law does not apply...instead the US' position is that "a conflict between a transnational non-state actor and a nation, occurring outside that nation's territory, is an armed conflict not of an international character." However, the US' legal position is rather short sighted, and just imagine how quickly such a legal paradigm would break down if any foreign nation ever attempted to bomb one of their own citizens residing in the US and then claimed such use of force was not of an international character; therefore, International Law is not applicable.
Oddly the US legal justification is not that their action complies with International Law, rather that International Law does not apply...instead the US' position is that "a conflict between a transnational non-state actor and a nation, occurring outside that nation's territory, is an armed conflict not of an international character." However, the US' legal position is rather short sighted, and just imagine how quickly such a legal paradigm would break down if any foreign nation ever attempted to bomb one of their own citizens residing in the US and then claimed such use of force was not of an international character; therefore, International Law is not applicable.
In another comment, you say the violation is a failure to "respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States".
In the case of the US operations in Yemen we are discussing, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Yemen have been respected, since the US had the permission and cooperation of the Yemen government. The territorial integrity and political independence of al-Qaeda in Yemen is certainly not being respected, but al-Qaeda is not a State.
In the case of the US operations in Yemen we are discussing, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Yemen have been respected, since the US had the permission and cooperation of the Yemen government. The territorial integrity and political independence of al-Qaeda in Yemen is certainly not being respected, but al-Qaeda is not a State.
>In the case of the US operations in Yemen we are discussing, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Yemen have been respected
Again Yemen's consent/cooperation is not the litmus test. For example US/Afganistan, the US had Afganisttan's cooperation to use force against the Taliban; nevertheless, the US went to and obtained authorization from the UN Secruity Council. This is/was a legal requirement, irrespective of the consent of Afganistan. The reason the US did the lawful thing Afganistan and not Yemen, is due to a poor (self-serving) legal interpretation, where the US does not consider what it did in Yemen of international character but the US could not make the same argument for Afganistan. Essentially the US claims (in a legal sense) it can kill its own citizens anywhere in the world without international law applying because US believes such action is domestic in nature. In other words the US is not making your argument, that they can use force wherever a foreign nation consents, the US' position is that the can use force anywhere in the world (with or without consent) so long as the force is used against its own citizens.
Again Yemen's consent/cooperation is not the litmus test. For example US/Afganistan, the US had Afganisttan's cooperation to use force against the Taliban; nevertheless, the US went to and obtained authorization from the UN Secruity Council. This is/was a legal requirement, irrespective of the consent of Afganistan. The reason the US did the lawful thing Afganistan and not Yemen, is due to a poor (self-serving) legal interpretation, where the US does not consider what it did in Yemen of international character but the US could not make the same argument for Afganistan. Essentially the US claims (in a legal sense) it can kill its own citizens anywhere in the world without international law applying because US believes such action is domestic in nature. In other words the US is not making your argument, that they can use force wherever a foreign nation consents, the US' position is that the can use force anywhere in the world (with or without consent) so long as the force is used against its own citizens.
AQAP is not a UN member. Yemen is at war with AQAP. Yemen allowed the US strikes. The US thus no more needs UN support to strike AQAP than it does to raid a Montana militia compound.
Unless I am mistaken the legal paradigm you seem to be suggesting is that one country can intervene in another country's domestic armed conflicts/civil wars so long as they are invited. Such a paradigm is exactly what the UN was established to prevent, unilateral military action. There are dozens of case studies from Africa in the past ~30 years alone, a given country breaks out into a civil war and the UN sends peace keepers or other countries send troops (typically always in cooperation with the established government) but they can not lawfully engage unless the UN has authorized the use of force or they act in self-defense.
>Yemen allowed the US strikes. The US thus no more needs UN support to strike AQAP than it does to raid a Montana militia compound.
Not even the US suggests this is the case, as you have expanded the use of force to non-citizens. The US' legal memo is very clear, the US believes they were allowed to Use Force in Yemen without UN authorization because the target was a US citizen making this a domestic issue. The US legal opinion was very narrow regarding use of force against a US citizen, anywhere in the World, but the legal opinion acknowledges if it was not a US citizen that International Law would apply.
>Yemen allowed the US strikes. The US thus no more needs UN support to strike AQAP than it does to raid a Montana militia compound.
Not even the US suggests this is the case, as you have expanded the use of force to non-citizens. The US' legal memo is very clear, the US believes they were allowed to Use Force in Yemen without UN authorization because the target was a US citizen making this a domestic issue. The US legal opinion was very narrow regarding use of force against a US citizen, anywhere in the World, but the legal opinion acknowledges if it was not a US citizen that International Law would apply.
The case where one country cooperates in a military effort with another country on that country's own soil is the opposite of a "unilateral military action". The word "unilateral" means one party.
>The word "unilateral" means one party.
Yes, doing something unilaterally also means it's done without the agreement or participation of other people it might affect. In this context any use of force outside self-defense or authorized by the UN is unilateral. Take for example, US going into Iraq, even though there was a "coalition of the willing" comprised of approximately 30 nations, generally the international community condemned the use of force as unilateral military action because it was not authorized by the UN.[1] While the UN retroactively authorized the use of force in Iraq, it is still viewed as unilateral in the eyes of the international community, where unilateral military action is defined as "non-Security Council authorized". [2]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateralism [2] http://interactioncouncil.org/justifiable-cases-military-int...
Yes, doing something unilaterally also means it's done without the agreement or participation of other people it might affect. In this context any use of force outside self-defense or authorized by the UN is unilateral. Take for example, US going into Iraq, even though there was a "coalition of the willing" comprised of approximately 30 nations, generally the international community condemned the use of force as unilateral military action because it was not authorized by the UN.[1] While the UN retroactively authorized the use of force in Iraq, it is still viewed as unilateral in the eyes of the international community, where unilateral military action is defined as "non-Security Council authorized". [2]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateralism [2] http://interactioncouncil.org/justifiable-cases-military-int...
The parties involved in the UN are member states. AQAP is not a member state. ISIS is not a member state. The KKK is not a member state. The Donetsk separatists are not a member state. None of these organizations can demand any kind of due process from the UN. The UN exclusively governs relationships between its members. The UN is by design not a "World Court" to which arbitrary parties can appeal.
The only two member states with standing in the AQAP conflict are Yemen and the US. Both members agree on the action. Similarly, the US doesn't need the permission of the UN Security Council to raid the compound of a Montana militia group.
The UN Security Council is simply not implicated in the conflict with AQAP in Yemen.
Should Yemen withdraw its permission for the US to use air resources to combat AQAP in Yemen, that would change.
We aren't discussing the US invasion of Iraq, nor is the premise of this discussion that the US has never skirted the UN; clearly they have, just as Russia did in the Ukraine, the UK did in the Falklands, Turkey did in Cypress, and so on. So it does your argument no good to point out that the US has in the past not respected the UN. That has no bearing on the situation in Yemen.
The only two member states with standing in the AQAP conflict are Yemen and the US. Both members agree on the action. Similarly, the US doesn't need the permission of the UN Security Council to raid the compound of a Montana militia group.
The UN Security Council is simply not implicated in the conflict with AQAP in Yemen.
Should Yemen withdraw its permission for the US to use air resources to combat AQAP in Yemen, that would change.
We aren't discussing the US invasion of Iraq, nor is the premise of this discussion that the US has never skirted the UN; clearly they have, just as Russia did in the Ukraine, the UK did in the Falklands, Turkey did in Cypress, and so on. So it does your argument no good to point out that the US has in the past not respected the UN. That has no bearing on the situation in Yemen.
| the US had Afganisttan's cooperation to use force against the Taliban
What?
What?
Well, not right at first, no. But they came around.
> 4. When the Government successfully killed the US Citizen, using a military drone strike, in a Country the US was not authorized to use the Use of Force (under International Law)...no one cared because the individual was Muslim and the Government assured us this was a guy with ties to Islamic terrorism.
It's pretty offensive to muslims to lead your characterization of al-Awlaki with the fact that he was Muslim, rather than the fact that he went to Yemen and took up arms against the United States while inciting violence against the country. U.S. Citizenship isn't a blanket immunity against U.S. military action. It's certain that the U.S. killed Americans who went and fought for the Nazis in Europe. Few people would challenge the validity of such actions. Does it become wrong because you make a list instead of doing it indiscriminately?
And ultimately, it's deeply counter-productive to try and lump people like Hammond together with people like al-Awlaki. Military action against foreign aggressors is a fundamental right of sovereign nations. People will not give it up. If you tell them that such actions must be subject to "law" all you'll accomplish is distorting and diluting the law to accommodate the sorts of actions that must be taken against foreign aggressors. The law should not try to insert itself into foreign military matters. It's not a fight it will win, and it will be the downfall of the law.
It's pretty offensive to muslims to lead your characterization of al-Awlaki with the fact that he was Muslim, rather than the fact that he went to Yemen and took up arms against the United States while inciting violence against the country. U.S. Citizenship isn't a blanket immunity against U.S. military action. It's certain that the U.S. killed Americans who went and fought for the Nazis in Europe. Few people would challenge the validity of such actions. Does it become wrong because you make a list instead of doing it indiscriminately?
And ultimately, it's deeply counter-productive to try and lump people like Hammond together with people like al-Awlaki. Military action against foreign aggressors is a fundamental right of sovereign nations. People will not give it up. If you tell them that such actions must be subject to "law" all you'll accomplish is distorting and diluting the law to accommodate the sorts of actions that must be taken against foreign aggressors. The law should not try to insert itself into foreign military matters. It's not a fight it will win, and it will be the downfall of the law.
> rather than the fact that he went to Yemen and took up arms against the United States while inciting violence against the country.
It is difficult to call it a fact since there was no trial, no due process, nor evidence cited by US government in the killing of its citizen. Perhaps there was secret evidence presented in secret to a secret court, but that's rather grim consolation.
Also the concept of law should absolutely insert itself into matters of foreign military matters. WWI and WWII were both horror shows, Western civilization rightly decided to do their best not to repeat the worst of the atrocities committed therein. You seem all to eager to return to a world where Western governments kill millions without consequence.
It is difficult to call it a fact since there was no trial, no due process, nor evidence cited by US government in the killing of its citizen. Perhaps there was secret evidence presented in secret to a secret court, but that's rather grim consolation.
Also the concept of law should absolutely insert itself into matters of foreign military matters. WWI and WWII were both horror shows, Western civilization rightly decided to do their best not to repeat the worst of the atrocities committed therein. You seem all to eager to return to a world where Western governments kill millions without consequence.
> It is difficult to call it a fact since there was no trial, no due process, nor evidence cited by US government in the killing of its citizen.
Trials, due process, evidence, these are domestic legal concepts. They don't apply to military actions on foreign soil.
> Also the concept of law should absolutely insert itself into matters of foreign military matters.
Rule of law depends on the institutional capital of the judiciary. The judiciary inserting itself into diplomatic and military matters costs institutional capital. The more the judiciary stays out of the foreign affairs of the military, the easier it is to keep the military out of the domestic affairs of the judiciary. And ultimately when you make politically necessary things illegal, you set the rule of law up for failure.
Trials, due process, evidence, these are domestic legal concepts. They don't apply to military actions on foreign soil.
> Also the concept of law should absolutely insert itself into matters of foreign military matters.
Rule of law depends on the institutional capital of the judiciary. The judiciary inserting itself into diplomatic and military matters costs institutional capital. The more the judiciary stays out of the foreign affairs of the military, the easier it is to keep the military out of the domestic affairs of the judiciary. And ultimately when you make politically necessary things illegal, you set the rule of law up for failure.
They don't apply to military actions on foreign soil.
Assassination by drone is (or should be) considered a political act, not a military one.
Assassination by drone is (or should be) considered a political act, not a military one.
All military acts are political.
> It's pretty offensive to muslims to lead your characterization of al-Awlaki with the fact that he was Muslim
It was maybe too blunt, but it may have been part of the point to say it this way, as if it were said by the Americans who "didn't care" once they heard it was "just some Muslim-sounding name" and the person was accused of terrorism. Maybe I'm too cynical, but it's not hard to imagine many Americans would forget any outrage they might have had, once they heard the name "al-Awlaki." (I am an American myself, if it matters.)
[Later edit]: To build on the original point, maybe we need to stop using distracting mitigating terms like "drone", "terrorism", "citizen", "country", maybe even "al-Qaeda" etc. There's enough to talk about when we pare it down to: the Executive Branch is unilaterally and secretly a) investigating, adjudicating, and executing, b) spying on everything by default, c) instituting less-drastic but still restrictive measures, such as no-fly lists and watchlists. Is simplifying it to that extreme too naive? Maybe, but I'd rather start there and work forward, than getting sidetracked early about which nationalities it's OK to kill, and precisely which organizations are so knee-jerk evil that the mere whiff of them justifies almost anything.
P.S. I didn't lead with this because my other thoughts are more productive, but maybe you slighted Yemen almost exactly the way you accuse the parent of slighting Islam. At least, I read a negative connotation when you write "he went to Yemen", as if that's already half the case for why he needs to be killed.
It was maybe too blunt, but it may have been part of the point to say it this way, as if it were said by the Americans who "didn't care" once they heard it was "just some Muslim-sounding name" and the person was accused of terrorism. Maybe I'm too cynical, but it's not hard to imagine many Americans would forget any outrage they might have had, once they heard the name "al-Awlaki." (I am an American myself, if it matters.)
[Later edit]: To build on the original point, maybe we need to stop using distracting mitigating terms like "drone", "terrorism", "citizen", "country", maybe even "al-Qaeda" etc. There's enough to talk about when we pare it down to: the Executive Branch is unilaterally and secretly a) investigating, adjudicating, and executing, b) spying on everything by default, c) instituting less-drastic but still restrictive measures, such as no-fly lists and watchlists. Is simplifying it to that extreme too naive? Maybe, but I'd rather start there and work forward, than getting sidetracked early about which nationalities it's OK to kill, and precisely which organizations are so knee-jerk evil that the mere whiff of them justifies almost anything.
P.S. I didn't lead with this because my other thoughts are more productive, but maybe you slighted Yemen almost exactly the way you accuse the parent of slighting Islam. At least, I read a negative connotation when you write "he went to Yemen", as if that's already half the case for why he needs to be killed.
> It's pretty offensive to muslims to lead your characterization of al-Awlaki with the fact that he was Muslim
It may very well be. But OP is not saying al-Awlaki was a muslim and therefore not worth bothing about raising a stink regarding constitutional issues, but rather that large swathes of population believe that.
Heck were are dealing with people who thought (and still think I bet) that Saddam Hussein was "al Qaeda".
> The law should not try to insert itself into foreign military matters.
All is well except for those pesky constitutional issues. If this was Russia or other countries which (I am guessing here), do not have the same rights in their Constitutions as US, there wouldn't be much to discuss.
So "foreign military matters" needs to be discussed a bit more. See, US is not at war with Pakistan. It is friendly with its government and allegedly is allowed by said Pakistani govt. to pick off people on the ground to kill using drones. So this needs to be talked about. Are we at war? Is "Global War On Terror" now an conventient cop-out to let us do this there without those Constitutional rights people getting into our business? What if those tribes in the mountains brought drones and started dropping anthrax boms or grenades on our cities, would we understand that as an equitable retribution and so on.
It may very well be. But OP is not saying al-Awlaki was a muslim and therefore not worth bothing about raising a stink regarding constitutional issues, but rather that large swathes of population believe that.
Heck were are dealing with people who thought (and still think I bet) that Saddam Hussein was "al Qaeda".
> The law should not try to insert itself into foreign military matters.
All is well except for those pesky constitutional issues. If this was Russia or other countries which (I am guessing here), do not have the same rights in their Constitutions as US, there wouldn't be much to discuss.
So "foreign military matters" needs to be discussed a bit more. See, US is not at war with Pakistan. It is friendly with its government and allegedly is allowed by said Pakistani govt. to pick off people on the ground to kill using drones. So this needs to be talked about. Are we at war? Is "Global War On Terror" now an conventient cop-out to let us do this there without those Constitutional rights people getting into our business? What if those tribes in the mountains brought drones and started dropping anthrax boms or grenades on our cities, would we understand that as an equitable retribution and so on.
[deleted]
> Does it become wrong because you make a list instead of doing it indiscriminately?
Yes, it indicates this is wrong. There's a profound difference between killing someone in the heat of battle versus the president reviewing kill lists every Tuesday. The latter suggests a lack of imminence. Add to that he's a citizen and that the battlefield is any place where "terror" is.
Arguably, al-Awlaki simply preached dissent. Granted, you can argue he was a traitor actively trying to harm the US. In that case, so is Hammond, and a lot of other people conveniently on official lists.
Just because you disagree, even vehemently, with al-Awlaki's message, does not mean that we should compromise our principles of due process. Larry Flynt wasn't an ideal poster boy for free speech advocates. But his justice affirmed the strength of the 1st Amendment and was a small step in erasing racial boundaries (he published interracial porn shortly before being tried on obscenity). So I think lumping al-Awlaki and Hammond together is very much productive.
Yes, it indicates this is wrong. There's a profound difference between killing someone in the heat of battle versus the president reviewing kill lists every Tuesday. The latter suggests a lack of imminence. Add to that he's a citizen and that the battlefield is any place where "terror" is.
Arguably, al-Awlaki simply preached dissent. Granted, you can argue he was a traitor actively trying to harm the US. In that case, so is Hammond, and a lot of other people conveniently on official lists.
Just because you disagree, even vehemently, with al-Awlaki's message, does not mean that we should compromise our principles of due process. Larry Flynt wasn't an ideal poster boy for free speech advocates. But his justice affirmed the strength of the 1st Amendment and was a small step in erasing racial boundaries (he published interracial porn shortly before being tried on obscenity). So I think lumping al-Awlaki and Hammond together is very much productive.
Arguably, al-Awlaki simply preached dissent. Granted, you can argue he was a traitor actively trying to harm the US.
This is a drastic oversimplification of what the USG believed about al-Awlaki. CT officials in the US believe al-Awlaki to have had direct roles in the "underwear bomber" passenger jet attack and an attempt to blow up two cargo jets with PETN. He was indisputably a counselor to Nidal Hasan, who murdered 13 people at Fort Hood.
In sum, the USG and UK believed al-Awlaki to have been Osama bin Laden without all the money, operating from a secure location in Yemen, recruiting random people from around the world to conduct horrible crimes in the name of AQAP.
It does a grave disservice to the tradition and, one supposed, the very concept of "dissent" to equate the coordination of murderous large-scale attacks on civilians with "dissent".
Sharing this belief with the USG does not require someone to believe that it was justifiable to assassinate him. But you can believe assassination to be wrong without glorifying its victims.
This is a drastic oversimplification of what the USG believed about al-Awlaki. CT officials in the US believe al-Awlaki to have had direct roles in the "underwear bomber" passenger jet attack and an attempt to blow up two cargo jets with PETN. He was indisputably a counselor to Nidal Hasan, who murdered 13 people at Fort Hood.
In sum, the USG and UK believed al-Awlaki to have been Osama bin Laden without all the money, operating from a secure location in Yemen, recruiting random people from around the world to conduct horrible crimes in the name of AQAP.
It does a grave disservice to the tradition and, one supposed, the very concept of "dissent" to equate the coordination of murderous large-scale attacks on civilians with "dissent".
Sharing this belief with the USG does not require someone to believe that it was justifiable to assassinate him. But you can believe assassination to be wrong without glorifying its victims.
Many of us might well believe what you and the USG say about the late Mr Alwaki(1) if it were, you know, established with evidence in a court of law according to due process and all that quaint old fashioned stuff. Until then arguably he didn't do a lot wrong because of this other quaint, old-fashioned thing called the presumption of innocence.
Do we want to abandon such things as quaint and old fashioned when we're dealing with the death penalty? I really, really, really hope not.
(1) About whom I have no opinion whatsoever.
Do we want to abandon such things as quaint and old fashioned when we're dealing with the death penalty? I really, really, really hope not.
(1) About whom I have no opinion whatsoever.
> Until then arguably he didn't do a lot wrong because of this other quaint, old-fashioned thing called the presumption of innocence. Do we want to abandon such things as quaint and old fashioned when we're dealing with the death penalty?
al-Awlaki wasn't a criminal and he wasn't given the death penalty. He put himself in a position of being a foreign military threat and was dealt with as a military threat. No country extends due process or the presumption of innocence to foreign military actions, and it's a tremendous conceit to suggest that the whole world's activities should be encompassed under U.S. criminal law.
al-Awlaki wasn't a criminal and he wasn't given the death penalty. He put himself in a position of being a foreign military threat and was dealt with as a military threat. No country extends due process or the presumption of innocence to foreign military actions, and it's a tremendous conceit to suggest that the whole world's activities should be encompassed under U.S. criminal law.
>>He put himself in a position of being a foreign military threat and was dealt with as a military threat. No country extends due process...
First, he was not a foreign military. He was a US citizen and non-state actor. That is the crux of the US legal opinion on the matter, the US says it can use force against its own citizens anywhere in the world and international law does not apply because if it is a citizen, non-state actor, then it is a domestic issue no matter where the individual is located. So legally, the US makes the distinction between a US citizen joining a foreign military (state actor) and a foreign terrorist organization (non-state actor).
However, to your point if it was a foreign military while due process may not apply laws of war apply, for example, it would not be murder to kill a foreign military actor on the battlefield but it is murder if you killed a captured enemy (POW). This is applicable even in this case, because after the first botched drone strike, his father sued the US and was trying to negotiate the surrender of his son, but the US couldn't even entertain a surrender because then the US would have had to acknowledge the existence of the kill list and the fact this guy was on it. In any other context, under the law, an enemy combatant would be permitted to surrender and at least avail themselves to certain rights, like the right not to be killed while a prisoner of war. I am not suggesting or stating emphatically he would have surrendered, but I don't doubt the Father's sincerity in his desire and intent to negotiate the surrender of his son.
First, he was not a foreign military. He was a US citizen and non-state actor. That is the crux of the US legal opinion on the matter, the US says it can use force against its own citizens anywhere in the world and international law does not apply because if it is a citizen, non-state actor, then it is a domestic issue no matter where the individual is located. So legally, the US makes the distinction between a US citizen joining a foreign military (state actor) and a foreign terrorist organization (non-state actor).
However, to your point if it was a foreign military while due process may not apply laws of war apply, for example, it would not be murder to kill a foreign military actor on the battlefield but it is murder if you killed a captured enemy (POW). This is applicable even in this case, because after the first botched drone strike, his father sued the US and was trying to negotiate the surrender of his son, but the US couldn't even entertain a surrender because then the US would have had to acknowledge the existence of the kill list and the fact this guy was on it. In any other context, under the law, an enemy combatant would be permitted to surrender and at least avail themselves to certain rights, like the right not to be killed while a prisoner of war. I am not suggesting or stating emphatically he would have surrendered, but I don't doubt the Father's sincerity in his desire and intent to negotiate the surrender of his son.
When he was killed, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was killed in the company of several high-level AQAP fighters. What's your best source for al-Awlaki's attempt to extract his son from Yemen?
As I am searching now for a legitimate source, I generally come up with Yemen's attempt to negotiate the surrender. [1] However, as far as the Father's attempt to negotiate, I can only come up with a CNN article. [2]
>"I will do my best to convince my son to do this (surrender), to come back but they are not giving me time, they want to kill my son. How can the American government kill one of their own citizens? This is a legal issue that needs to be answered," he said. "If they give me time I can have some contact with my son but the problem is they are not giving me time," he said.
I am sure the lawsuit would detail all attempts he made with the US to begin negotiations.
[1] https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e... [2]http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/01/10/yemen.al.awlaki.fa...
>"I will do my best to convince my son to do this (surrender), to come back but they are not giving me time, they want to kill my son. How can the American government kill one of their own citizens? This is a legal issue that needs to be answered," he said. "If they give me time I can have some contact with my son but the problem is they are not giving me time," he said.
I am sure the lawsuit would detail all attempts he made with the US to begin negotiations.
[1] https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e... [2]http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/01/10/yemen.al.awlaki.fa...
I think you're a little confused. The "father" and "son" you're referencing in that CNN article are Nasser al-Awlaki and his son Anwar, Anwar being the adult AQAP target of the drone strike.
The "father" and "son" I'm referencing are Anwar and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. Abdulrahman was Anwar's juvenile son, killed in a drone strike against senior AQAP militants some time after Anwar was killed. Nasser is his grandfather.
There is no evidence in here that Anwar al-Awlaki was attempting to extricate his juvenile son from the war zone he had taken him into.
The "father" and "son" I'm referencing are Anwar and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. Abdulrahman was Anwar's juvenile son, killed in a drone strike against senior AQAP militants some time after Anwar was killed. Nasser is his grandfather.
There is no evidence in here that Anwar al-Awlaki was attempting to extricate his juvenile son from the war zone he had taken him into.
It wasn't just the USG; the United Nations listed al-Awlaki as a terrorist in 2010, one year before he was killed: http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/AQList.htm. The UN isn't exactly known for being a hawk...
Thomas has already covered this quite well, but I'll briefly summarize again. al-Awlaki was actively at war against the USG. Killing him is roughly equivalent to killing US citizens who fight for other foreign governments. The drone strike was not carrying out a legal sentence, it was simply the use of force in a global conflict.
Thomas has already covered this quite well, but I'll briefly summarize again. al-Awlaki was actively at war against the USG. Killing him is roughly equivalent to killing US citizens who fight for other foreign governments. The drone strike was not carrying out a legal sentence, it was simply the use of force in a global conflict.
The UN is exactly known for being a court of law whose jurisdiction compels the USA to mete out sentencing with no right of appeal either.
If he was, why was it too hard to run the case? Why all this apologist stuff about an accusation being good enough for a death sentence - also carried out on his son while he sat in a cafe a week later. This is Stalinist reasoning, what is it doing in the USA?
If he was, why was it too hard to run the case? Why all this apologist stuff about an accusation being good enough for a death sentence - also carried out on his son while he sat in a cafe a week later. This is Stalinist reasoning, what is it doing in the USA?
Trials in absentia are unconstitutional in the US, and al-Awlaki was embedded with AQAP, a paramilitary force far outside the reach of the Yemeni government, with which it is at war.
The logic of the strike was that waiting for that situation to resolve itself would have the effect of giving al-Awlaki many more opportunities to coordinate attacks, that the pattern of al-Awlaki's involvement in attacks was one of escalating intensity, and that the attacks plots themselves were becoming more ambitious. At some point, the logic goes, he'll figure out how to coordinate a strike that actually succeeds in creating mass casualties.
There are a lot of very valid reasons to oppose drone strikes. For one thing, you might believe Obama to be a fundamentally reasonable person, and then remember how awful Bush II's national security staff was, and think about what crazy things the next President will do with the capabilities. You might, like me, also categorically reject the death penalty. And you might also be concerned with the idea of a "declaration of war" on a terrorist brand name which any idiot in the world can revive and slap on a black flag any time they want, thus ensuring that the war is never brought to an end. I know that's what I think.
What I don't think you can say is that in the al-Awlaki case the USG struck al-Awlaki down simply because he was a "dissenter". That's all.
The logic of the strike was that waiting for that situation to resolve itself would have the effect of giving al-Awlaki many more opportunities to coordinate attacks, that the pattern of al-Awlaki's involvement in attacks was one of escalating intensity, and that the attacks plots themselves were becoming more ambitious. At some point, the logic goes, he'll figure out how to coordinate a strike that actually succeeds in creating mass casualties.
There are a lot of very valid reasons to oppose drone strikes. For one thing, you might believe Obama to be a fundamentally reasonable person, and then remember how awful Bush II's national security staff was, and think about what crazy things the next President will do with the capabilities. You might, like me, also categorically reject the death penalty. And you might also be concerned with the idea of a "declaration of war" on a terrorist brand name which any idiot in the world can revive and slap on a black flag any time they want, thus ensuring that the war is never brought to an end. I know that's what I think.
What I don't think you can say is that in the al-Awlaki case the USG struck al-Awlaki down simply because he was a "dissenter". That's all.
What I do say is that a public servant should not have the right to declare someone worthy of death without any legal process and without any verifiable evidence. There are legal proceedings in absentia all the time. The protection of not having a trial in absentia, making it illegal, is so that the punishment is just. It is not a loop hole to say, "to hell with it let's just kill because law."
Is the evidence for literally all the claims above still "leaked to a newspaper by a public servant but officially neither confirmed nor denied"? Or are some public servants "on the record making the claim"? Is there anything testable and verifiable?
The claims may be entirely correct, I don't know and I don't actually care much. A claim is not evidence. I claim there are war criminals in the US government right now who should be extradited to the Hague, but so what if I claim that? It's of mild interest to some but has no baring on whether shooting them is legal, justified or something I should do anything but oppose.
Your closing comment:
"What I don't think you can say is that in the al-Awlaki case the USG struck al-Awlaki down simply because he was a "dissenter". That's all"
Strawman. Nobody claimed that in this conversation.
Is the evidence for literally all the claims above still "leaked to a newspaper by a public servant but officially neither confirmed nor denied"? Or are some public servants "on the record making the claim"? Is there anything testable and verifiable?
The claims may be entirely correct, I don't know and I don't actually care much. A claim is not evidence. I claim there are war criminals in the US government right now who should be extradited to the Hague, but so what if I claim that? It's of mild interest to some but has no baring on whether shooting them is legal, justified or something I should do anything but oppose.
Your closing comment:
"What I don't think you can say is that in the al-Awlaki case the USG struck al-Awlaki down simply because he was a "dissenter". That's all"
Strawman. Nobody claimed that in this conversation.
Does this mean you would have supported the right of Iraq to use drone strikes against the pentagon before Iraq capitulated? It certainly is a military target, so presumably that would be ok, after the invasion started? (I'm not asking if you'd be happy about it, but asking if you think it would be reasonable and fair according to international law).
Of course they had the right to do so. There's no law of war that I'm aware of that says you cannot attack command centers of the enemy.
Whether it was a case of dissent was exactly why it was controversial and why it sparked debate over free speech and due process rights. Sure, if you assume the government's official account to be true, it's a disservice to equate his actions with dissent. A trial would have determined whether he was merely advocating violence or whether he was plotting it. Since when does the presumption of innocence glorify anyone?
It doesn't. What's misleading is the suggestion that al-Awlaki was targeted as a "dissenter", as if the USG merely didn't like what he had to say.
The government's argument in court was that liability for his assassination is not an issue the court can decide. They specifically avoided countering the argument that you find to be misleading, the same argument made by the estate of al-Awlaki in court. The court agreed that it didn't need to address that issue and dismissed the case for other reasons.
You think we're debating something that we're not debating. I don't have a position on drone assassinations and am not arguing that they're legitimate. All I'm arguing is that in al-Awlaki's case, the USG didn't assassinate someone merely for "dissenting".
[deleted]
> It's certain that the U.S. killed Americans who went and fought for the Nazis in Europe.
Probably, but some Wikipedia browsing reveals several who were captured and _not_ killed. (Beware, list assembled hastily, along with usual disclaimers about it being from Wikipedia.)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Henry_Best - life in prison
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Peter_Burger - death, commuted to life in prison
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_John_Burgman - prison for 6 to 20 years
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Chandler - life, commuted after 16 years by JFK, on condition he immediately leave the US
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_Gillars - 10 to 30 years
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_James_Monti - 25 years
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_John_Dasch - death, commuted to 30 years
Some even had a death sentence commuted! I'm not informed or motivated enough to dig into the relative threat levels of these people vs. someone like al-Awlaki, how warfare has changed, al-Qaeda vs. Nazis, the circumstances of their capture, etc. I'll leave it at just noting that we've found a way to not-kill even an American SS officer (Monti), so maybe we can keep that up. Or at least, we can know not all American Nazis were killed "indiscriminately", nor when they were "on a list." (Although, in line with my previous post, I would hope this restraint would not be only because they are citizens.)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_convicted_of_t...
Probably, but some Wikipedia browsing reveals several who were captured and _not_ killed. (Beware, list assembled hastily, along with usual disclaimers about it being from Wikipedia.)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Henry_Best - life in prison
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Peter_Burger - death, commuted to life in prison
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_John_Burgman - prison for 6 to 20 years
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Chandler - life, commuted after 16 years by JFK, on condition he immediately leave the US
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_Gillars - 10 to 30 years
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_James_Monti - 25 years
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_John_Dasch - death, commuted to 30 years
Some even had a death sentence commuted! I'm not informed or motivated enough to dig into the relative threat levels of these people vs. someone like al-Awlaki, how warfare has changed, al-Qaeda vs. Nazis, the circumstances of their capture, etc. I'll leave it at just noting that we've found a way to not-kill even an American SS officer (Monti), so maybe we can keep that up. Or at least, we can know not all American Nazis were killed "indiscriminately", nor when they were "on a list." (Although, in line with my previous post, I would hope this restraint would not be only because they are citizens.)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_convicted_of_t...
Don't forget the nazi "terrorists" behind the rocket attacks on London that were recruited after the war, and helped get Mankind to the moon.
[deleted]
Don't worry about it, because you too can go volunteer for the Whitehouse and make America a better place one tech at a time.
Step 1: Create overreaching laws and sell them to the public with the word "terrorist".
Step 2: Evolve the definition of the world "terrorist" behind the scenes.
We are seeing similar word play in Canada as the word "terrorist" evolves into "radicalized". Of important utility to our government as they attempt to shift public perception of environmentalists over to "radical" or "extreme" due to the prominence of our oil industry. With success expect these sorts of labels to be slowly painted over our Native population in some old fashioned establishment racism.
Step 2: Evolve the definition of the world "terrorist" behind the scenes.
We are seeing similar word play in Canada as the word "terrorist" evolves into "radicalized". Of important utility to our government as they attempt to shift public perception of environmentalists over to "radical" or "extreme" due to the prominence of our oil industry. With success expect these sorts of labels to be slowly painted over our Native population in some old fashioned establishment racism.
Not just the naive population.
Lots of "freeman-on-the-land" types are being charged as terrorists. I had two that the CBC was chomping at the bit to sensationalize. Imagine their dismay when it was resolved administratively, without jail time.
For a good example of how they're attacking the Radicals, Google "Dean Clifford" sometime. In jail over a year, even though he keeps beating all his charges.
Lots of "freeman-on-the-land" types are being charged as terrorists. I had two that the CBC was chomping at the bit to sensationalize. Imagine their dismay when it was resolved administratively, without jail time.
For a good example of how they're attacking the Radicals, Google "Dean Clifford" sometime. In jail over a year, even though he keeps beating all his charges.
I have no problem at all assigning the label "terrorist" to people who do things like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Washington_firebo...).
I wasn't really referring to the ELF or related groups. I was referring to specifically Canadian examples of activits, often native with land right claims, protesting unsound industry.
You forgot secret step 1.5 - infiltrate legitimate groups and provoke them into committing violence, paving way for step 2.
Radical used to mean someone who thought the time for peaceful politics was over. How it means anyone who thinks anything you think is extreme... :(
I didn't say that was the origin of the word... ass.
Just... ass.
Just... ass.
> ... attempt to shift public perception of environmentalists ...
That might be a little tough, because eco-terrorism is already a thing - I remember the word being used as far back as the early 90s. So they would have to equate participation in the democratic process to burning down housing developments and research facilities, a tall order.
That might be a little tough, because eco-terrorism is already a thing - I remember the word being used as far back as the early 90s. So they would have to equate participation in the democratic process to burning down housing developments and research facilities, a tall order.
The problem is that, North of the 49th, "eco terrorism" simply means "anyone who dislikes the oil industry"
We are rapidly moving towards a world where political dissent equals terrorism. People that create movements that carry momentim, outside the traditional political corridors of power shall be watched and persecuted. Should the trend continue, do not be surprised when people start to go missing.
That and blowing up buildings, sure.
I don't think junto has an issue with the concept of terrorism encompassing the blowing up of buildings. And I think that you know that.
You're right. I chose a snarky way to disagree with their premise. I should have just contested it directly. Sorry.
A decade ago I knew Jeremy, a very little. Not enough to be particularly interesting even then, yet alone now, and I haven't spoken to him since he went to jail for the first time (I think around 2005).
I hugely admire his morals, and that he lives his life by them so completely. And I agree with a lot of them. But, at least from the vague impression I have based off old (and no-doubt memory-distorted) conversations with him, mainly on IRC, and on news reports in the last couple of years, I'm not too sure "possible terrorist" isn't a fitting label for him. He's always wanted to fight against big chunks of society.
As far as I know he's never committed or planned to commit any violent crime, but his personality and view of the world make me think that he'd be willing to if he thought there was a greater good to come from it. The first thing he was caught and locked up for was stealing 1000s of credit cards from a right-wing website and using them - if I remember correctly, to donate to a charity. Those people who suffered at the hands of his credit card fraud were people he didn't know, but was willing to justify it morally in that they had donated or purchased something from this right wing website. And yes it was a very right-wing site, it was very much within the norms of the American political spectrum, it's not like they were neo-nazis or the KKK.
Maybe I'm doing him a disservice, and maybe the FBI were just abusing terrorism laws to crack down on (relatively-)innocent hackers. But the truth is that if I were in their shoes, Jeremy Hammond would scare me as much as the next plane from Al-Queda.
(And while on the subject of surveillance... I created a fake account from Tor to write this. Can't imagine anyone would really care about my saying I knew him, hell I'm 99% sure he wouldn't even remember my name, but I'd rather not make that tie if it hasn't already been made.)
I hugely admire his morals, and that he lives his life by them so completely. And I agree with a lot of them. But, at least from the vague impression I have based off old (and no-doubt memory-distorted) conversations with him, mainly on IRC, and on news reports in the last couple of years, I'm not too sure "possible terrorist" isn't a fitting label for him. He's always wanted to fight against big chunks of society.
As far as I know he's never committed or planned to commit any violent crime, but his personality and view of the world make me think that he'd be willing to if he thought there was a greater good to come from it. The first thing he was caught and locked up for was stealing 1000s of credit cards from a right-wing website and using them - if I remember correctly, to donate to a charity. Those people who suffered at the hands of his credit card fraud were people he didn't know, but was willing to justify it morally in that they had donated or purchased something from this right wing website. And yes it was a very right-wing site, it was very much within the norms of the American political spectrum, it's not like they were neo-nazis or the KKK.
Maybe I'm doing him a disservice, and maybe the FBI were just abusing terrorism laws to crack down on (relatively-)innocent hackers. But the truth is that if I were in their shoes, Jeremy Hammond would scare me as much as the next plane from Al-Queda.
(And while on the subject of surveillance... I created a fake account from Tor to write this. Can't imagine anyone would really care about my saying I knew him, hell I'm 99% sure he wouldn't even remember my name, but I'd rather not make that tie if it hasn't already been made.)
As far as I know he's never committed or planned to commit any violent crime
Hammond was arrested for violently protesting a holocaust-denier at a German restaurant in suburban Chicago. He and his companions entered the place wearing masks, apparently threw paint, and then glassware; one person was injured.
He also also plead guilty to battery after he threw red paint at and then struck a police officer in a 2004 gay rights rally.
If your definition of violence includes property damage, he was also arrested for tearing down and burning a Chicago 2016 Olympic campaign banner.
The latter two incidents --- with the cops and the sign --- who gives a shit, I guess. After watching the Chicago NATO protests a few years back, I gained some sympathy for the police and what they face with "Black Bloc" "protestors", but those situations are generally so fucked up and fraught it's hard to confidently take a side; the overwhelming majority of protestors work in good faith.
But the first incident --- storming a restaurant and throwing glassware because they're hosting a private event for a holocaust-denier --- that's unequivocally violent and criminal. The corrective for bad speech is more speech, not violence.
Hammond was arrested for violently protesting a holocaust-denier at a German restaurant in suburban Chicago. He and his companions entered the place wearing masks, apparently threw paint, and then glassware; one person was injured.
He also also plead guilty to battery after he threw red paint at and then struck a police officer in a 2004 gay rights rally.
If your definition of violence includes property damage, he was also arrested for tearing down and burning a Chicago 2016 Olympic campaign banner.
The latter two incidents --- with the cops and the sign --- who gives a shit, I guess. After watching the Chicago NATO protests a few years back, I gained some sympathy for the police and what they face with "Black Bloc" "protestors", but those situations are generally so fucked up and fraught it's hard to confidently take a side; the overwhelming majority of protestors work in good faith.
But the first incident --- storming a restaurant and throwing glassware because they're hosting a private event for a holocaust-denier --- that's unequivocally violent and criminal. The corrective for bad speech is more speech, not violence.
Some fraction of those black bloc people are usually agent provocateurs. At least here in germany the far right and left is subverted by payed informants and undercover police to the extend that it wasn't feasible to prosecute the most prominent far right party because a significant fraction of their leadership had been police informants for years.
If by "agent provocateurs" you mean "assholes who are not good-faith protestors but instead seizing on the opportunity to revel in mayhem with the protection of a big crowd of people to disappear into", sure, I absolutely believe that's the case.
If by "agent provocateurs" you mean "the police sent people in as agents to incite violence", you've lost me.
In any case: none of that could possible apply to the Edelweiss restaurant incident with Hammond.
If by "agent provocateurs" you mean "the police sent people in as agents to incite violence", you've lost me.
In any case: none of that could possible apply to the Edelweiss restaurant incident with Hammond.
There's certainly room for interpretation, but when I look at stuff like:
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/05/terr-m21.html
from Norway, I'm not thinking: great way to support the right to peacefully assemble and protest.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/05/terr-m21.html
from Norway, I'm not thinking: great way to support the right to peacefully assemble and protest.
I dont (fully) want to be defensive about Hammond, after all in my original comment, I said that he strikes me as someone who would be OK turning violent if he thought justified.
But the examples you give are more like excited teenagers as terrorism. There's a big difference between planning an act of terrorism and planning to protest some little speech and a few of you turning slightly violent by throwing things.
You're right that my statement was probably technically inaccurate (although I don't know if there's evidence he was one of the ones who did anything more than "go there" regarding the holocaust denier, and the gay rights rally without knowing the details I'm just as inclined to assume police brutality as Hammond being violent). But in the context of my comment I was talking violence as relates to terrorism, not petty assaults.
But the examples you give are more like excited teenagers as terrorism. There's a big difference between planning an act of terrorism and planning to protest some little speech and a few of you turning slightly violent by throwing things.
You're right that my statement was probably technically inaccurate (although I don't know if there's evidence he was one of the ones who did anything more than "go there" regarding the holocaust denier, and the gay rights rally without knowing the details I'm just as inclined to assume police brutality as Hammond being violent). But in the context of my comment I was talking violence as relates to terrorism, not petty assaults.
Sorry, you're one of several people on this thread who think I'm saying Hammond was a terrorist, which suggests that I didn't write very clearly. I don't think Hammond is a terrorist. I certainly don't think groups like Anonymous are terrorists, either. And I think the designation of anarchist groups as terrorists is hyperbolic.
Sorry we're both being unclear I guess - I didn't read into your comments that you have that view, I was just explaining that within my comment I was talking about terrorism as the context for violence, and thus ignoring petty acts like the ones you mentioned.
> (And while on the subject of surveillance... I created a fake account from Tor to write this.
You know, I just watched "citizenfour" -- and one thing stuck with me: when explaining X/Keyscore targeting, Snowden mentions that you can use anything that uniquely identifies you, like an email address or a phone number... or even a password.
Granted HN is served over SSL, so that shouldn't be an issue... but you know -- if you're being overly paranoid, make sure you're paranoid enough that it actually helps ;-)
You know, I just watched "citizenfour" -- and one thing stuck with me: when explaining X/Keyscore targeting, Snowden mentions that you can use anything that uniquely identifies you, like an email address or a phone number... or even a password.
Granted HN is served over SSL, so that shouldn't be an issue... but you know -- if you're being overly paranoid, make sure you're paranoid enough that it actually helps ;-)
I dont quite follow your point - youre worried that I might have used my real email address when creating this HN account, or used the same password as a different HN account?
The same (or similar) password as any other online account you have. In theory that should be safe(r) than using the same email (obvious to most people as a key for joining data). As I said, I just saw that mentioned by Snowden in Citizenfour -- and it stuck with me, as yet another thing that could be used to track a user across accounts.
You should be very cautious about ever making long posts in any way tying yourself to people on terrorist watchlists... People generally tend to reuse specific phrases. It is entirely possible to figure out who you are just from having a good chunk of text you have written get correlated to other things you have written.
Example distinct portions of your text you may be reusing "yet alone now", "(I think", "I hugely", "The first". Independently they seem meaningless but taken together they are a loose fingerprint.
Example distinct portions of your text you may be reusing "yet alone now", "(I think", "I hugely", "The first". Independently they seem meaningless but taken together they are a loose fingerprint.
Already aware of that and found myself writing differently to how I normally would... though don't know nearly enough about the subject to know how much conscious changes would make.
(In this case it's pretty irrelevant, fairly sure I could post "I used to know Jeremy Hammond" on my Google+ profile and it not matter. In fact, I'm pretty sure if the FBI ever cared enough about the no-doubt lengthy list of people he's come into contact with over his lifetime then my name is probably already on a list. I didn't want to tie my public name to him anyway, but probably wouldn't have been paranoid enough to move to Tor if I didnt already have it open for some shopping.)
(In this case it's pretty irrelevant, fairly sure I could post "I used to know Jeremy Hammond" on my Google+ profile and it not matter. In fact, I'm pretty sure if the FBI ever cared enough about the no-doubt lengthy list of people he's come into contact with over his lifetime then my name is probably already on a list. I didn't want to tie my public name to him anyway, but probably wouldn't have been paranoid enough to move to Tor if I didnt already have it open for some shopping.)
3 of my friends all lost their jobs and were interrogated by the FBI before they came and questioned me. Just because it "seems safe" doesn't mean being associated with the wrong people can get you into trouble.
I wonder why we use the term "terrorism", as opposed to paramilitary organization, which I think is a more relevant construct. Terrorism defines a group based on its methods which are supposed to deliver fear or some kind of mass hysteria to the public.
A paramilitary organization may or may not use tactics of terror, and even if they do, their tactics may be a small part of why they are harmful and relevant.
Under this construct, we can talk about cartels, IS/ISIL, Al Qaeda, IRA, and so on.
And you know how in every large forum, when someone talks about the definition of terrorism, inevitably states also get pulled into the discussion, such as the actions of the US / Russia / China? That's because terrorism is an over-inclusive lens of discussion or perception, which means it requires "discretion" to use the term. It genuinely is wishy-washy.
A paramilitary organization may or may not use tactics of terror, and even if they do, their tactics may be a small part of why they are harmful and relevant.
Under this construct, we can talk about cartels, IS/ISIL, Al Qaeda, IRA, and so on.
And you know how in every large forum, when someone talks about the definition of terrorism, inevitably states also get pulled into the discussion, such as the actions of the US / Russia / China? That's because terrorism is an over-inclusive lens of discussion or perception, which means it requires "discretion" to use the term. It genuinely is wishy-washy.
Most domestic terrorist groups the FBI tracks don't really fit the definition of "paramilitary organizations".
Terrorism describes the strategy of pinpoint deployment of outlandish violence to coerce policy by generating fear. That's one strategy used by paramilitary organizations, but so is "seize and hold territory" or "persistently disrupt supply lines". Islamist terrorists don't target JFK airport in the hopes of disrupting our military supply lines. They do it to provoke the US public by creating fear.
Having said that: I'm not sure what coherent public policy objective is served by singling out "terrorism" from other violent crimes. At the level of law enforcement, criminal violence if criminal violence whether it be in the service of a bank robbery or a radical animal rights protest.
Terrorism describes the strategy of pinpoint deployment of outlandish violence to coerce policy by generating fear. That's one strategy used by paramilitary organizations, but so is "seize and hold territory" or "persistently disrupt supply lines". Islamist terrorists don't target JFK airport in the hopes of disrupting our military supply lines. They do it to provoke the US public by creating fear.
Having said that: I'm not sure what coherent public policy objective is served by singling out "terrorism" from other violent crimes. At the level of law enforcement, criminal violence if criminal violence whether it be in the service of a bank robbery or a radical animal rights protest.
But I think it's actually a good thing that some domestic terrorist groups don't fit the definition of paramilitary organization. To make our construct useful in public policy, we should be able to propose broad treatment across all members of a construct and be able to predict consistent outcome. We should be interested in developing useful tools for policy talk, and being able to make grounded generalizations is super useful.
I don't think the Unabomber or Anonymous fits in the same policy discussion as IS or Al Qaeda, because I think these problems suggest very divergent courses of policy. Every time we have to make caveats to our category, every time we must exercise discretion in interpretation, we will find our construct proportionally less robust.
Imagine a government rule which authorizes military action against IS, cartels, or Al Qaeda, including assassinations and characterized by an absence of legal process. Whether or not I agree with this rule, I can accept that it is sensible and potentially productive to at least talk about. I can accept that these groups have common characteristics which behave consistently following military or civilian interventions, thus permitting policy generalizations. I can also see that there is an intuitive connection between the solution and the problem.
What is hard to accept is that Unabomber and Anonymous should be on that same table for discussion, because what the overinclusion of these groups do is move the line of justification to remove legal process a little closer to home, and a little more into the realm of capricious discretion. It's hard to accept that some domestic terrorists are anything like an organization that has revenue streams, human resource management, infrastructure, administration, a paramilitary force, and so on, and so it's hard to connect the solution to the problem.
Of course, behind all of this is the assumption that terrorist organizations are so mighty that they have graduated beyond the class of criminal and into sub-state actor, and that ordinary civilian instruments are totally inadequate, and that military solutions are the only effective solutions.
I don't think the Unabomber or Anonymous fits in the same policy discussion as IS or Al Qaeda, because I think these problems suggest very divergent courses of policy. Every time we have to make caveats to our category, every time we must exercise discretion in interpretation, we will find our construct proportionally less robust.
Imagine a government rule which authorizes military action against IS, cartels, or Al Qaeda, including assassinations and characterized by an absence of legal process. Whether or not I agree with this rule, I can accept that it is sensible and potentially productive to at least talk about. I can accept that these groups have common characteristics which behave consistently following military or civilian interventions, thus permitting policy generalizations. I can also see that there is an intuitive connection between the solution and the problem.
What is hard to accept is that Unabomber and Anonymous should be on that same table for discussion, because what the overinclusion of these groups do is move the line of justification to remove legal process a little closer to home, and a little more into the realm of capricious discretion. It's hard to accept that some domestic terrorists are anything like an organization that has revenue streams, human resource management, infrastructure, administration, a paramilitary force, and so on, and so it's hard to connect the solution to the problem.
Of course, behind all of this is the assumption that terrorist organizations are so mighty that they have graduated beyond the class of criminal and into sub-state actor, and that ordinary civilian instruments are totally inadequate, and that military solutions are the only effective solutions.
You hold that Islamist terrorists must necessarily have the (vaguely defined by you) motive of "provoking the US", when most Islamist attackers on the U.S. have consistently cited a particular political motive? [1] And yes, it would have been great if the U.S. government had treated "terrorism" as the law enforcement issue it is rather than starting convenient[2] wars. I recommend President of the CCR Michael Ratner's 2004 book "Guantanamo: What the World Should Know" for early treatment of the things being discussed in the comments here.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/24/boston-...
[2] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/18/david-f...
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/24/boston-...
[2] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/18/david-f...
Because "paramilitary" has a strict legal definition[0] in addition the commonly used informal definition of "organized armed group that's not a government sanctioned military power". The California State Military Reserve[1], for example, is a paramilitary organization under that legal definition. About two dozen states have similar paramilitary state defense forces[2], all of which are distinct from both federal military units and the state's own National Guard units.
[0] https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule4
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Military_Reser...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force
[0] https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule4
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Military_Reser...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force
The thing is, there's no formal, "prove it" review, by a jury, grand jury or judge. It's just some dude in the FBI who doesn't like someone, and decides to fuck with them. They're supposed to be an investigating agency, but now they just skip ahead to punishment.
Some guy fucking with you, is what our government has descended to.
Some guy fucking with you, is what our government has descended to.
The Daily Dot broke this story and provided the actual documents, the meat of which is:
First, this looks like boilerplate text. If so, "DO NOT ADVISE..." means, in general, "do not advise anyone on a terrorist watchlist that they are on the watchlist". That text would make sense if, for instance, this is what an LEO sees on their MDT screen when they look up someone's identity. Counterterrorist workers want to collect information from LEOs, so they need to flag people to get reports --- but they don't want that to come at the expense of tipping off terrorism subjects that they're under investigation. That's a warning that might make a lot of public policy sense when the FBI is tracking Abdul Kadir and his plot to blow up JFK, but not as much sense for Jeremy Hammond.
The all-caps text and awkward structure of the prose sort of suggests that's what this is: the stuff that shows up on the cop's MDT screen when they run someone's identity and they've been flagged.
Second, each of the three paragraphs in this notice to LEOs directs the officer not to detain the subject based on the notice. Presumably that's because doing so can generate evidence that will then be excluded at trial, because merely being on a watchlist does not provide the police with probable cause to search or arrest.
Finally, people should remember that while our immediate association to the word "terrorism" is 9/11 and Islamist militants, the FBI tracks a pretty broad range of domestic terrorist groups --- including parts of the militia movement, radical animal rights groups, white supremacist groups, and "anarchist extremists", a category they surely didn't make up for Hammond, but which Hammond could easily have fallen into.
(In case it needs saying, while it may once have been the case in the '60s and '70s that there were radical anarchist groups that merited special tracking at a national level, I do not think the "anarchist extremists" of 2015 --- even the ones who try to scare the horses the mounted police are riding at the NATO protests --- qualify as "terrorists". The separatist militia movement, though? I'm glad we're calling them what they are.)
DO NOT ADVISE THIS INDIVIDUAL THAT THEY MAY BE ON A TERRORIST WATCHLIST.
CONTACT THE TERRORIST SCREENING CENTER AT [REDACTED] DURING THIS ENCOUNTER.
IF THIS WOULD EXTEND THE SCOPE OR DURATION OF THE ENCOUNTER, CONTACT THE TSC
IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER. IF YOU ARE A BORDER PATROL OFFICER, IMMEDIATELY
CALL THE NTC.
ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN SUFFICIENT IDENTIFYING INFORMATION DURING THE ENCOUNTER,
WITHOUT OTHERWISE EXTENDING THE SCOPE OR DURATION OF THE ENCOUNTER, TO ASSIST THE
TSC IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE NAME OR IDENTIFIER(S) YOU QUERIED BELONGS
TO AN INDIVIDUAL IDENTIFIED AS HAVING POSSIBLE TIES WITH TERRORISM.
DO NOT DETAIN OR ARREST THIS INDIVIDUAL UNLESS THERE IS EVIDENCE OF A VIOLATION OF
FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL STATUTE(S).
First, this looks like boilerplate text. If so, "DO NOT ADVISE..." means, in general, "do not advise anyone on a terrorist watchlist that they are on the watchlist". That text would make sense if, for instance, this is what an LEO sees on their MDT screen when they look up someone's identity. Counterterrorist workers want to collect information from LEOs, so they need to flag people to get reports --- but they don't want that to come at the expense of tipping off terrorism subjects that they're under investigation. That's a warning that might make a lot of public policy sense when the FBI is tracking Abdul Kadir and his plot to blow up JFK, but not as much sense for Jeremy Hammond.
The all-caps text and awkward structure of the prose sort of suggests that's what this is: the stuff that shows up on the cop's MDT screen when they run someone's identity and they've been flagged.
Second, each of the three paragraphs in this notice to LEOs directs the officer not to detain the subject based on the notice. Presumably that's because doing so can generate evidence that will then be excluded at trial, because merely being on a watchlist does not provide the police with probable cause to search or arrest.
Finally, people should remember that while our immediate association to the word "terrorism" is 9/11 and Islamist militants, the FBI tracks a pretty broad range of domestic terrorist groups --- including parts of the militia movement, radical animal rights groups, white supremacist groups, and "anarchist extremists", a category they surely didn't make up for Hammond, but which Hammond could easily have fallen into.
(In case it needs saying, while it may once have been the case in the '60s and '70s that there were radical anarchist groups that merited special tracking at a national level, I do not think the "anarchist extremists" of 2015 --- even the ones who try to scare the horses the mounted police are riding at the NATO protests --- qualify as "terrorists". The separatist militia movement, though? I'm glad we're calling them what they are.)
I'd also add that the "REDACTED" bit makes it look arbitrarily suspicious. The FBI terrorist screening center isn't a secret thing. They've got contact info on the FBI site which I can confirm rings to a phone inside the building.
Or, at least it did, before they moved from Reston to Vienna.
Or, at least it did, before they moved from Reston to Vienna.
Sure, but I assume it's the DOJ that redacted that bit :)
torthrowaway123:
> A decade ago I knew Jeremy, a very little. Not enough to be particularly interesting even then, yet alone now, and I haven't spoken to him since he went to jail for the first time (I think around 2005).
> (And while on the subject of surveillance... I created a fake account from Tor to write this. Can't imagine anyone would really care about my saying I knew him, hell I'm 99% sure he wouldn't even remember my name, but I'd rather not make that tie if it hasn't already been made.)
I think this illustrates the real concern a lot of people may have over this story than the hair-splitting semantics about defining the word "terrorist".
How do we know who's labeled a terrorist and who isn't?
What if we're associated with someone on a terror watch list without knowing this?
What if you're on a watch list and don't know it?
What recourse do any of us have?
> A decade ago I knew Jeremy, a very little. Not enough to be particularly interesting even then, yet alone now, and I haven't spoken to him since he went to jail for the first time (I think around 2005).
> (And while on the subject of surveillance... I created a fake account from Tor to write this. Can't imagine anyone would really care about my saying I knew him, hell I'm 99% sure he wouldn't even remember my name, but I'd rather not make that tie if it hasn't already been made.)
I think this illustrates the real concern a lot of people may have over this story than the hair-splitting semantics about defining the word "terrorist".
How do we know who's labeled a terrorist and who isn't?
What if we're associated with someone on a terror watch list without knowing this?
What if you're on a watch list and don't know it?
What recourse do any of us have?
You don't, and can't. The purpose of having watchlists is so counterterrorist investigators can quietly monitor the movements of people they think will organize terrorist attacks. Notifying the people on the list defeats that purpose: it ensures that none of the people it's watching will incriminate themselves, or lead counterterrorist investigations to the other members of the plot.
That doesn't mean the lists aren't fraught or regularly abused. For instance, you surely cross a line from "legitimate investigative tool" to "tool of oppression" when the watchlist ensures you get an extra hour of screening at the TSA checkpoint.
That doesn't mean the lists aren't fraught or regularly abused. For instance, you surely cross a line from "legitimate investigative tool" to "tool of oppression" when the watchlist ensures you get an extra hour of screening at the TSA checkpoint.
> You don't, and can't. The purpose of having watchlists is so counterterrorist investigators can quietly monitor the movements of people they think will organize terrorist attacks. Notifying the people on the list defeats that purpose: it ensures that none of the people it's watching will incriminate themselves, or lead counterterrorist investigations to the other members of the plot.
Fair enough.
> That doesn't mean the lists aren't fraught or regularly abused. For instance, you surely cross a line from "legitimate investigative tool" to "tool of oppression" when the watchlist ensures you get an extra hour of screening at the TSA checkpoint.
At this point, I want to say, "What can be done about this abuse?!" but I don't really have any answers. The best we can hope for is some form of independent oversight from someone who can remain some degree of objectively neutral (which is to say, not buddy-buddy with law enforcement), but who also can be trusted not to leak stuff to the press.
I dunno, does anyone have better ideas? This is way outside of my comfort zone.
Fair enough.
> That doesn't mean the lists aren't fraught or regularly abused. For instance, you surely cross a line from "legitimate investigative tool" to "tool of oppression" when the watchlist ensures you get an extra hour of screening at the TSA checkpoint.
At this point, I want to say, "What can be done about this abuse?!" but I don't really have any answers. The best we can hope for is some form of independent oversight from someone who can remain some degree of objectively neutral (which is to say, not buddy-buddy with law enforcement), but who also can be trusted not to leak stuff to the press.
I dunno, does anyone have better ideas? This is way outside of my comfort zone.
These are all good questions. I'm sure some agent of the government will respond very conclusively shortly.
I think they'd rather get their JTRIG shills to downvote me than to risk the public gaining a sense of clarity in how they operate.
Oh the Irony since the United States of America was founded by Terrorists.
This is definitely message- board- clever, but I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean. Stipulate that the United States was founded by terrorists. Now what? What's the implication of that fact on public policy today?
He's probably just trying to point out that the founders would likely be on terrorist watch lists today.
If you actually believe the founders to have been terrorists, what's interesting about that?
You know, I found this list of google hits interesting in light of this sub-thread. Now obviously, I should probably have substituted "Britain" for "United Kingdom"... but still -- who's under the rule of which over-reaching global power these days?:
https://www.google.no/search?q=american+war+freedom+united+kingdomIt means if you'd oppose yourself at some point in history then your ideology is contradictory and invalid.
Living in the southern portion of the USA, I get some mean looks when I wish people "Happy Treason Day" on July 4th.
I heard a brit saying "happy colonial betrayal day" :-)
Care to elaborate? ...not that it's relevant to this discussion.
The United States was founded by a group of revolutionaries attacking the British state.
We all know that, but did they engage in terrorism? It's a pretty specific definition, simple rebelling against any authority in any manor does not qualify one as a "terrorist".
Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
I'm pretty certain American revolutionaries used violence and intimidation against British soldiers and British property in the pursuit of political aims.
Do you disagree?
I'm pretty certain American revolutionaries used violence and intimidation against British soldiers and British property in the pursuit of political aims.
Do you disagree?
"violence and intimidation against British soldiers"
Read that line again - I don't consider actions (leading to or during a full scale conflict) against opposing soldiers as terrorism in the "modern sense" of the word.
Yes war is terror, terrorizing and many invading armies throughout history have used "terror" as part of their strategy.
I feel as though we are drifting too far from useful discussion - I will disengage with respect.
Read that line again - I don't consider actions (leading to or during a full scale conflict) against opposing soldiers as terrorism in the "modern sense" of the word.
Yes war is terror, terrorizing and many invading armies throughout history have used "terror" as part of their strategy.
I feel as though we are drifting too far from useful discussion - I will disengage with respect.
The Boston tea party saw a government official burned with hot tar, then humiliated by being covered in feathers.
All while burning down a harbor.
All while burning down a harbor.
I think you missed the part where, if you're fighting for, say the independence of Iraq from an invading force, you're likely to end up on a "terrorist" watch-list, even if you only ever used to fire artillery on invading soldiers.
> It's a pretty specific definition
Please elaborate. I have not heard this specific definition.
Please elaborate. I have not heard this specific definition.
I think he's trying to imply that the current definition of terrorist according to the us gov would put the founding fathers as a match based on what they did.
Weak assertion (IMHO) based on a heavy amount of snark.
peterwwillis(6)
Has someone told the FBI about Berlin? They might want to put the whole city on the list just to be sure considering possible co-conspirators. Probably add Hamburg too.
Jeremy was involved in a number of actual attacks together with other "members" of Anonymous.
It may not seem like terrorism in the typical sense you think, but disrupting computer systems randomly and maliciously is a type of terrorism.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider this particular individual a type of terrorist based on his actions. ( see other comments about his additional violent actions and suggestions )
If you think you can go around doing whatever you want with computers, and not have the government add you to a number of lists, then you are in some serious denial.
An alternative example: I don't hack random people, nor do I advocate violence, but I recently purchased some aluminum powder and red iron oxide off the internet. If I was added to the watchlist just for purchasing those substances, then -that- would be much more ridiculous.
It may not seem like terrorism in the typical sense you think, but disrupting computer systems randomly and maliciously is a type of terrorism.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider this particular individual a type of terrorist based on his actions. ( see other comments about his additional violent actions and suggestions )
If you think you can go around doing whatever you want with computers, and not have the government add you to a number of lists, then you are in some serious denial.
An alternative example: I don't hack random people, nor do I advocate violence, but I recently purchased some aluminum powder and red iron oxide off the internet. If I was added to the watchlist just for purchasing those substances, then -that- would be much more ridiculous.
>disrupting computer systems randomly and maliciously is a type of terrorism
So hacking is equivalent to murdering people via bombs? Are protests that disrupt traffic also terrorism?
So hacking is equivalent to murdering people via bombs? Are protests that disrupt traffic also terrorism?
> So hacking is equivalent to murdering people via bombs?
Depending on what was hacked. Anonymous on occasion challenged the notion of "activism" and indirectly endangered human lives. The mastercard hack would have been quiet scary for people whose, on the day, lives depended on their card.
Does that make them terrorists? No. It does place them into the exact gray area that they decided to act in, they are neither activist nor terrorist: rather something in-between.
Does that justify putting Jeremy on the watchlist? Just like his actions, it's a gray area, there is no good answer.
There is no right or wrong here, nor does there have to be. Anonymous's actions were often ignorant and dangerous: don't make yourself the same by blindly defending everything that they did. These are difficult questions, spend more time thinking about them before trying to answer them.
Depending on what was hacked. Anonymous on occasion challenged the notion of "activism" and indirectly endangered human lives. The mastercard hack would have been quiet scary for people whose, on the day, lives depended on their card.
Does that make them terrorists? No. It does place them into the exact gray area that they decided to act in, they are neither activist nor terrorist: rather something in-between.
Does that justify putting Jeremy on the watchlist? Just like his actions, it's a gray area, there is no good answer.
There is no right or wrong here, nor does there have to be. Anonymous's actions were often ignorant and dangerous: don't make yourself the same by blindly defending everything that they did. These are difficult questions, spend more time thinking about them before trying to answer them.
You don't need to actually murder someone to be considered a terrorist, nor to actually effectually cause people to die. If you advise and encourage others to do so, to a strong degree, then you are just the leader of the terrorists rather than the foot person who actually blows himself up.
This person has no respect for government, and maliciously and repeatedly breaks laws put in place to protect the citizens.
Terrorism literally means to cause terror. People get pretty terrified when people steal and abuse all of their information.
Also, hacking can and does cause death. Consider what happens if you hack into the computers at a drugstore and change the prescriptions to give people the wrong drugs. Terrorism?
This person has no respect for government, and maliciously and repeatedly breaks laws put in place to protect the citizens.
Terrorism literally means to cause terror. People get pretty terrified when people steal and abuse all of their information.
Also, hacking can and does cause death. Consider what happens if you hack into the computers at a drugstore and change the prescriptions to give people the wrong drugs. Terrorism?
[deleted]
I find your argument discerning, even terrifying. You are therefore a terrorist, right?
Sure, hacking could be used to kill civilians with the objective of causing mass terror to advance a political agenda. But until Mr. Hammond either attempts, incites or announces plans to take action with the objective of killing people, he is not a terrorist. If the term "terrorist" has any sensible definition other than "people who oppose us politically and who we don't like, and maybe do random criminal actions that are covered under more normal laws".
If he only causes economic harm, I could be convinced that he can still be guilty of: destruction of property, computer fraud and perhaps sabotage. But terrorism?
If he only causes economic harm, I could be convinced that he can still be guilty of: destruction of property, computer fraud and perhaps sabotage. But terrorism?
You are out of your mind. You are equating pennies of damage done by Anonymous with terrorism, which involves killing people for instilling fear and reaching unpopular political goals.
Terrorism seems to be uniformly violent, but it is not always murderous. Extreme property damage is a tool of terrorism as well. But hacking is virtually never violent, and Stratfor wasn't an exception to that.
We may be jumping to conclusions when we suggest that Hammond's inclusion on a watchlist means that the FBI views Anonymous as a terrorist group. What he did with Anonymous is surely what got their attention, but his other affiliations seem like a more likely grounds for being added to a list of people to flag.
We may be jumping to conclusions when we suggest that Hammond's inclusion on a watchlist means that the FBI views Anonymous as a terrorist group. What he did with Anonymous is surely what got their attention, but his other affiliations seem like a more likely grounds for being added to a list of people to flag.
[deleted]
Throwing paint on some old racist's books (at a book signing) and knocking their dinner to the floor is terrorism? Sure, it's worse to throw paint/ink than a pie at them, but it's not terrorism. Maybe nuisance-ism.
They didn't just throw paint. Someone left in an ambulance. And what does "old racist" have to do with anything? People who attack women getting abortions believe they're acting to prevent actual murders. We don't consider the substance of their positions when we rightfully send them to prison for doing that. You don't get to bust up a restaurant and attack a senior citizen because you don't like what he has to say. The antidote to bad speech is more speech, not violence.
>Someone left in an ambulance.
And you think that was by design. A guy said "Hey, I think I'll go ruin their books and their dinner, and then I'll maim one of them half to death pour encourager les autres? No, someone fell on broken dinnerware and received a cut(s).
>We don't consider the substance of their positions when we rightfully send them to prison for doing that.
We do, according to you. That's exactly what we're doing when we maintain terrorist watch lists of people who have committed no crimes, or when the crimes are as minor as this dinner crashing, or the Olympic flag burning. In the dinner crashing, tellingly, Hammond was found guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced to four days in jail.
>The antidote to bad speech is more speech, not violence.
I'm not making a unqualified defense of Hammond's behavior. I'm saying that it isn't terrorism.
And you think that was by design. A guy said "Hey, I think I'll go ruin their books and their dinner, and then I'll maim one of them half to death pour encourager les autres? No, someone fell on broken dinnerware and received a cut(s).
>We don't consider the substance of their positions when we rightfully send them to prison for doing that.
We do, according to you. That's exactly what we're doing when we maintain terrorist watch lists of people who have committed no crimes, or when the crimes are as minor as this dinner crashing, or the Olympic flag burning. In the dinner crashing, tellingly, Hammond was found guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced to four days in jail.
>The antidote to bad speech is more speech, not violence.
I'm not making a unqualified defense of Hammond's behavior. I'm saying that it isn't terrorism.
I don't think it's terrorism either. Just because we don't agree about everything doesn't mean we disagree about everything. I responded to a comment upthread that suggested Hammond was nonviolent. Hammond is not nonviolent.
On this particular subthread, I'm pointing out that Hammond's inclusion in a watchlist doesn't necessarily mean that Anonymous is a terrorist group (obviously, I don't think it is). He had other affiliations that freaked the USG out. As I've said elsewhere on the thread, this being 2015 and not 1970, I don't think the USG has a reasonable fear that "anarchist extremists" are terrorist groups.
On this particular subthread, I'm pointing out that Hammond's inclusion in a watchlist doesn't necessarily mean that Anonymous is a terrorist group (obviously, I don't think it is). He had other affiliations that freaked the USG out. As I've said elsewhere on the thread, this being 2015 and not 1970, I don't think the USG has a reasonable fear that "anarchist extremists" are terrorist groups.
Assault is assault. There's a law that covers it. It doesn't consider whether the victim is someone you like or not. It doesn't consider whether the perpetrator is someone you like or not. Secret terrorist lists are a genuine WTF for common assault which occurs and is dealt with many thousand times a week in the justice system.
Are you paid to advance such obvious crap? Are you posting against what you believe to try and stir up action? Are you trying to curry favour and get government contracts? It just doesn't make a lot of sense play the apologist so badly.
Are you paid to advance such obvious crap? Are you posting against what you believe to try and stir up action? Are you trying to curry favour and get government contracts? It just doesn't make a lot of sense play the apologist so badly.
You haven't even read the thread. You don't know what you're responding to. You're just so angry that there are people that don't take your side in discussions that you'll accuse people of being shills, which says far more about you than it does about me.
It's a justification of putting someone on a terrorist list through an accusation of assault.
You put a lot of work into responding to these threads, I am asking why.
-- edit re-read the thread for a third time. What fnordfnordfnord has said is clearly entirely justified.
You put a lot of work into responding to these threads, I am asking why.
-- edit re-read the thread for a third time. What fnordfnordfnord has said is clearly entirely justified.
You found me out. It's a wonder it took so long. But you, Internet rando, you at last have discovered my shameful affiliation.
I read the thread.
fnordfnordfnord is clearly correct.
Justifying putting someone on a terrorist list by the accusation of an assault happening is just ridiculous, which is precisely what you did.
But you haven't answered why you spend so much time sprouting this kind of utter rubbish on all these threads. How many posts did you make on this topic alone?
What is your motive. You just want to spend hours defending the USG with obvious garbage like this out of patriotic duty? Is that it? What is it?
Keep on downvoting, it doesn't change the content.
fnordfnordfnord is clearly correct.
Justifying putting someone on a terrorist list by the accusation of an assault happening is just ridiculous, which is precisely what you did.
But you haven't answered why you spend so much time sprouting this kind of utter rubbish on all these threads. How many posts did you make on this topic alone?
What is your motive. You just want to spend hours defending the USG with obvious garbage like this out of patriotic duty? Is that it? What is it?
Keep on downvoting, it doesn't change the content.
> You are out of your mind.
This comment would be better without that first sentence. Personal attacks are not ok on Hacker News, regardless of how wrong someone may be.
This comment would be better without that first sentence. Personal attacks are not ok on Hacker News, regardless of how wrong someone may be.
This accurately describes many commenters in this thread and threads like it. Based on OP's description the US government is a terrorist organization.
Denial of service attacks can be very expensive in terms of monetary damage. That is the weakest form of behavior that Anonymous engages in. This is hardly "pennies of damage".
Consider how angry you are reacting to me; then consider how angry you would be if someone zeroed out your bank account by hacking. Do you still think people who engage in malicious hacking should be allowed to do what they do without being added to some lists of people who should be dealt with?
Consider how angry you are reacting to me; then consider how angry you would be if someone zeroed out your bank account by hacking. Do you still think people who engage in malicious hacking should be allowed to do what they do without being added to some lists of people who should be dealt with?
Criminals should be dealt with through our criminal justice system, including the presumption of innocence. If someone wiped out my life savings, I would be upset and want them to be prosecuted, but we don't need to call them a terrorist to do that.
What is different from what just said versus the following?
"Terrorists should be dealt with through our criminal justice system, including the presumption of innocence. If someone is a terrorist, I would be upset and want them to be prosecuted, but we don't need to call them names to do that."
All you are really doing is stating that criminals are not terrorists. The entire thread is arguing that the person in question is not a terrorist.
The thing everyone is ignoring here is that what you call someone is irrelevant. I could call you a terrorist, and it won't matter at all. It's just my personal statement and opinion. All that matter is the consequences.
What are the actual consequences of being added to the "terrorist watch list?" What I've always thought is that it means you cannot fly. Is there some other consequence?
"Terrorists should be dealt with through our criminal justice system, including the presumption of innocence. If someone is a terrorist, I would be upset and want them to be prosecuted, but we don't need to call them names to do that."
All you are really doing is stating that criminals are not terrorists. The entire thread is arguing that the person in question is not a terrorist.
The thing everyone is ignoring here is that what you call someone is irrelevant. I could call you a terrorist, and it won't matter at all. It's just my personal statement and opinion. All that matter is the consequences.
What are the actual consequences of being added to the "terrorist watch list?" What I've always thought is that it means you cannot fly. Is there some other consequence?
In War soldiers do not get the same benefits as civilians accused of a crime and we keep insisting we are at war with "terror". While I think that in most cases terrorists should be treated like any other murderer, classifying someone as a "terrorist" has very real effects on what rights they have. In the extreme example we have intentionally killed American citizens without trial or any sort of imminent threat (one of whom had not done anything significant) and justified it because they were "terrorists".
It seems just as likely that Hammond was put on a watchlist over his affiliation with the extremist fringe of the Occupy movement than anything else.
> If you think you can go around doing whatever you want with computers
But the the government is entitled to do whatever it wants with computers why?
> If I was added to the watchlist just for purchasing those substances, then -that- would be much more ridiculous.
Maybe that's already the case. We don't even know how many lists of this nature exist let alone why people are put on them.
But the the government is entitled to do whatever it wants with computers why?
> If I was added to the watchlist just for purchasing those substances, then -that- would be much more ridiculous.
Maybe that's already the case. We don't even know how many lists of this nature exist let alone why people are put on them.
1. US Gov. passes Executive Order permitting: a) the Depart. of State to identify individuals/organizations as "terrorist/terrorist organizations"; b) the CIA to put individuals (including citizens) on targeted kills lists; c) the FBI to put people on a Terrorist Watchlist;
2. There is no oversight to the process and the Government is not required to disclose who is on the list(s) or even the criteria to get on the list;
3. When the first (known) CIA targeted killing of a US citizen failed and the US Gov. was sued, the Court dismissed the case finding the Courts can not perform a Constitutional review, because such an Executive Order falls squarely within the Political Question Doctrine;
4. When the Government successfully killed the US Citizen, using a military drone strike, in a Country the US was not authorized to use the Use of Force (under International Law)...no one cared because the individual was Muslim and the Government assured us this was a guy with ties to Islamic terrorism. In fact, you can see in this article the such an attitude permeates all the way to the EFF, where one of EFF's Senior Staff Attorneys says he wouldn't have issue if Hammond had ties to Al-Qaida or Islamic State, but this is solely concerning to them because it is likely Anonymous;
5. Now the US Gov. has again extended their new found powers and now people are split...but what is really alarming is the people who think, well this guy was a piece of shit, so the Gov. got it right...no harm no foul.
This is not end of the World, sky is falling commentary, but wake up. It is never OK for any Government to have secret lists of any kind much less kill lists...and it is even more telling that the US Gov. refuses to disclose the lists (in full, certainly some lists are public) or the criteria/process.