from the time-to-start-torrenting-on-a-gigabit-connection dept.
PC World reports on the story of an American teenager who has been sentenced to eleven years in jail and who will have his Internet use monitored by the government for the rest of his life.
His crime was to assume that his Constitutionally-protected Freedom of Speech included posting pro-ISIS messages on Twitter and other social media.
"Today's sentencing demonstrates that those who use social media as a tool to provide support and resources to ISIL will be identified and prosecuted with no less vigilance than those who travel to take up arms with ISIL," said U.S. Attorney Dana Boente...
[Ali Shukri Amin] created the Twitter account @AmreekiWitness in 2014, and used it to provide advice and encouragement to ISIS and its supporters, according to court documents. At one point the account had over 4,000 followers. He also helped other ISIS supporters who sought to travel to Syria to join the group, according to the Justice Department.
The question that Soylentils should ask is, "What groups do I belong to that someone in government might decide are 'terrorist', and am I at risk for speaking out?"
The Canadian government for instance has come within a hair of declaring prominent environmental groups to be terrorists.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @10:00AM
I a good little shit. I never speak out against the fucking authority. ALL GLORY TO THE OBAMA FOREVER AND ALWAYS
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @10:13AM
I never post the flame bait. I good little moronic comment poster.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by quadrox on Monday August 31 2015, @10:01AM
Come on really, as long as you never speak up for anything, you are not at risk. Just don't do something the people in power don't like and you'll be fine. Live your life on the income the company has decided is fair, go voting for one of the nice faces at elections every four years, and take care of your family. That's all that's expected of you.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @10:11AM
You forgot drinking beer, cheering your local sports teams, throwing backyard barbecues, and engaging in promiscuous sex within your income bracket. Every American must do these things.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @11:53AM
Those are optional.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FlyingSock on Monday August 31 2015, @11:01AM
Now that's depressing.
(Score: 2) by quadrox on Monday August 31 2015, @11:46AM
I agree, but unfortunately it's also true. At least it seems so from where I am standing. No wonder I am feeling slightly down...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by joshuajon on Monday August 31 2015, @03:10PM
Perhaps you simply need to increase consumption. Consumption is happiness, citizen!
(Score: 5, Informative) by Hairyfeet on Monday August 31 2015, @01:14PM
Uhhh...this kid did a hell of a lot more than talk, he helped ISIS recruits set up trips to Syria, set up tutorials on how to use Bitcoin to send money to support ISIS, and actively recruited for ISIS. I'm sorry but since ISIS has declared one of their goals is the destruction of the USA one could argue he is guilty of sedition. He certainly went waaaayyy over the line as far as it being merely free speech, and if you wanted to argue its free speech then I don't see how you could have putting out a contract to kill your spouse as illegal since just like this case they would merely be talking about it and providing material aid to get the task completed, not actually pulling the trigger themselves.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by https on Monday August 31 2015, @01:33PM
The USA's foreign policy has been 100% consistent for at least a century - "When we do it, it's freedom fighting, when you do it, it's terrorism."
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Hairyfeet on Monday August 31 2015, @10:17PM
If you want to argue that the CIA is a rogue out of control agency and needs to be put down like a rabid dog? I agree completely, but trying to use that as an excuse for what he did is a classic Tu quoque [wikipedia.org] logical fallacy, that because one person does something evil this somehow justifies somebody else doing something evil...it doesn't, and one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @04:26PM
> Uhhh...this kid did a hell of a lot more than talk, he helped ISIS recruits set up trips to Syria, set up tutorials on how to use Bitcoin to send money to support ISIS, and actively recruited for ISIS.
Only one of those things is more than talking and the reporting on the details of how he 'helped' his friend are pretty thin, seems like all he did was give the other kid the email addresses of people in Turkey. No actual material involved in the assistance.
> I don't see how you could have putting out a contract to kill your spouse as illegal since just like this case
You have a very unique definition of "just like."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @06:43PM
Every single one of those things sound like speech to me.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday August 31 2015, @01:54PM
Come on really, as long as you never speak up for anything, you are not at risk. Just don't do something the people in power don't like and you'll be fine. Live your life on the income the company has decided is fair, go voting for one of the nice faces at elections every four years, and take care of your family. That's all that's expected of you.
I do all that except I don't vote and I advocate for secession. I'm safe, right?
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @05:37PM
If your advocation for secession involves or eventually involves violence against the Union, you're a seditionist.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday August 31 2015, @07:30PM
I advocate for secession.
If your advocation for secession involves or eventually involves violence against the Union, you're a seditionist.
I'm a pacifist and non-violent. But of course obviously when people want to secede if anyone opposes them with force they are justified in responding with proportional force. Many laws on the books are unjust to enforce.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @10:51PM
and I advocate for secession.
See ya. Just remember that your state - whichever one it is - will lose all US federal dollars and your state will plunge into economic hardship almost immediately. Hope you like high taxes because that's what you'll get to try to stabilize your soon-to-be-worthless homemade currency.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by davester666 on Monday August 31 2015, @06:44PM
The only punishment he faces is the imprisonment. Everybody in the US except members of the gov't, NSA and DHS are already under 24/7/365 internet monitoring.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @10:24AM
Nobody wants to talk to me, you see, so I talk to myself instead. You there, Big Sister?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @10:34AM
I'm always here, self. Now shut up I'm singing karaoke in your head and I hope it's annoying.
Thank you for being a friend.
Travel down the road and back again.
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a confidant.
And if you threw a party,
invited everyone you knew.
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
and the card attached would say,
thank you for being a friend.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @10:41AM
oh god. Can't you sing something more recent?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @10:52AM
Sure I can!
Whenever you need me
I'm right there with you
Whenever there's something you wanna redo
The clock is ticking but not for me
I'm living in a different reality
Whenever, whatever, wherever
I'm right there with you
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @10:56AM
Did you just become Little Sister?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @10:58AM
Hahahaha! I'm a teenager again. Oh crap. I'm late for school. Arrrrgh. Growth spurt is making me hungry. What's for breakfast?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @11:02AM
Well let's see we have protein bars and Crystal Light.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 31 2015, @10:38AM
I'm against censorship - but I have zero sympathy for some shit who supports Daesh.
Of course, he didn't just voice an opinion on world events. He was providing support to an enemy.
"Amin created the Twitter account @AmreekiWitness in 2014, and used it to provide advice and encouragement to ISIS and its supporters, according to court documents. At one point the account had over 4,000 followers."
This part is almost funny.
"But one element that makes this case unique is the defendant's status as a minor, he said."
A considerable portion of Daesh's effective troops are minors, by our definition. If a person has the size and strength to pick up a rifle, he is cannon fodder. Some silly shit on our side of the big pond who offers aid and support to the enemy can rightfully be regarded as an adult.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @10:49AM
So you're a hypocrite who wants to belong to the crowd that's against censorship. But privately and publicly, you love censorship. You're perfectly happy to equate voicing an opinion with providing support to an enemy. Everyone knows talk is cheap and harmless in itself, but not to you, because you desperately want to silence words that you disagree with.
So to you I say, fuck you, and I look forward to reading more of your shit in the future.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 31 2015, @11:09AM
Your ignorance is overwhelming. I stated, quite clearly, that censorship is bad. Then, I pointed out, just as clearly, that it wasn't just censorship. The dumbass was convicted of crimes far greater than merely posting his opinion that Daesh is great and wonderful, or that he believes the United States to be the Great Satan. Aiding and abetting the enemy is treason. Treason is punishable by death, or such other punishment is deemed appropriate by the court - whether courts civil, or courts martial. Treason. Serious shit, man.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday August 31 2015, @11:41AM
Somewhere in the all hoopla, I missed the declaration of war.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hairyfeet on Monday August 31 2015, @01:46PM
According to the POTUS we have been at war with ISIS since Sept of 2014 [nbcnews.com] so there ya go.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @03:11PM
More like a police action, Obama's too chicken to go all out on those assholes otherwise it would already be over. Trump will take care of it, just wait and see.... Big Botta BOOM!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @07:37PM
Yep. As soon as he's done killing those dirty Mexicans.
(Score: 3, Informative) by curunir_wolf on Monday August 31 2015, @03:12PM
According to the POTUS we have been at war with ISIS since Sept of 2014 so there ya go.
But according to the Constitution, only Congress can declare war. Also, ISIS (ISIL, Islamic State, etc.) is NOT a country. It's group of freedom fighters trained and funded by the CIA.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday August 31 2015, @03:23PM
Please refer me to that part of the Constitution where the President is authorized to declare war. In the absence of such, this sounds like an Executive branch coup.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @04:27PM
Well, the War Powers act allows him to attack someone, and then send it to Congress for approval. And then if Congress doesn't actively say "no", it's considered fine and legal.
It's a neat way to avoid needing to ever cast a vote for war again.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday August 31 2015, @07:59PM
Let us not forget that Obama set the precedent for ignoring the WPA with Libya, which also smells like an Executive branch coup.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday August 31 2015, @09:23PM
There was a War On Terror a while back. It think it was declared somewhere between the War On Drugs and the War On Empty Slogans.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Monday August 31 2015, @11:50AM
To be fair, your original post was worded in such a way as to make it easy to interpret it as you hypocritically supporting censorship "in this case". There is only one short, ambiguous sentence that can be interpreted as indicating that you understood that the defendant did something beyond speech.
Be more clear next time and people won't go off half-cocked.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @11:54AM
You're a dumb dumb.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @02:04PM
You may have intended to do that, but accidentally added some stuff about Twitter instead. Unless Twitter has some features that I'm not aware of (and if so, you didn't mention that he'd used any of those), Twitter is all speech.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday August 31 2015, @06:47PM
If all he does is speak, then all is well. If he took actions that directly harmed others, then that is different. What direct and harmful actions did he take? It looks like he merely spoke.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 31 2015, @06:54PM
He offered instructions for the purpose of manipulating bitcoin among other currencies, for the financial gain of Daesh. That is "aiding and abetting". If Mastercard began processing known Daesh account payments, then Mastercard would be guilty of the same thing. Offering intelligence that aids in bypassing blockades and sanctions amounts to the same thing.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday August 31 2015, @07:07PM
He offered instructions
That's speech.
That is "aiding and abetting".
Not only is that too broad to be useful (and hopefully not how courts interpret it), but it cannot override the first amendment. So "aiding and abetting" cannot apply to speech.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 31 2015, @07:52PM
Your personal judgement is obviously at odds with the court's judgement. Mine as well. Taking on the role of mentor amounts to a little more than speech. When that mentoring involves accumulating funds for the purpose of killing freinds and allies, it is most definitely more than mere speech.
Consider the crime of conspiracy. That is nothing more than speech, yet a conspiracy generally leads to illegal acts. That speech is punishable, separately from the crimes that result from the conspiracy.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday August 31 2015, @08:08PM
Taking on the role of mentor amounts to a little more than speech.
Not if you simply speak.
When that mentoring involves accumulating funds for the purpose of killing freinds and allies, it is most definitely more than mere speech.
Not if you simply provide a tutorial that shows others how to do so.
That is nothing more than speech
Then it would be unconstitutional to make it a crime.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 31 2015, @09:03PM
Let's try one more time. Providing intelligence to an enemy is treason. I can meet an agent from any nation on earth, and tell him, verbally, exactly where the Navy has it's ships deployed, including submarines, and I would expect to be executed if/when government found out about it. More so, if we are actively at war with that nation. Just speech - but it would be treason.
The courts long ago recognized that there are legitimate limitations on speech. Shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater has always been the prime example. There are limitattions. And, in this case, the convict under discussion has gone beyond the limits. Aiding and abetting Daesh crosses the line.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday August 31 2015, @10:31PM
Providing intelligence to an enemy is treason.
But the first amendment absolutely prohibits laws restricting speech. It doesn't matter if you or anyone else deems the speech "treason".
The courts long ago recognized that there are legitimate limitations on speech.
The courts are incorrect and aren't following the US constitution.
Shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater has always been the prime example.
The same case that was used to arrest war protestors. Interesting.
Regardless, the first amendment says no such thing. The courts were incorrect then and they're incorrect now. If the theater owner has a problem with someone shouting on his private property, he/she can kick them off. If other people panic in response to speech, that is their own doing and they're responsible for any damages they cause.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Monday August 31 2015, @11:00AM
I am against ISIS as well. But I'm definitely against putting minors in prison for posting their support for $whatever group. Where do you draw the line? I know people who donated for Julian Assange, for Chelsea Manning or for Edward Snowden. As far as I understand, these heroes of liberty are considered terrorists by the US government. So, does this mean if these acquaintances of mine ever travel to US, they should also be sentenced to more than one decade in prison? Or people ordering/wearing this shirt [zcache.com]? Or people helping spreading encryption?
Sorry, but as much as I dislike ISIS, I find this court-ruling (based on the little context I have) abysmal.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 31 2015, @11:16AM
"donated for Julian Assange, for Chelsea Manning or for Edward Snowden."
Why, oh WHY, do so many of you lump BRADLEY Manning with Assange and Snowden? Actually, Assange and Snowden don't belong on the same classification, but at least they are akin to each other in some ways. That Manning bitch is an outright traitor whose motivation was to "get back" at his fellow soldiers for various slights, real and imagined. Manning doesn't have the intelligence, the imagination, the humanity, or the empathy that either of the others has. Just a conniving little bitch who wanted to hurt people. It is right where it belongs - rotting in prison.
The T-shirt? I'd wear it. Can I get it in a dark color with a pocket? Tell you what - if I can get a nice blue pocket T, I'll post the receipt here for you to see that I put my money where my mouth is.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Monday August 31 2015, @11:31AM
Because as far as I know, Chelsea Manning wasn't convicted for her motives or attitude, but for her actions. And the actions were to publish information on war crimes. BTW: As far as I'm concerned you lower your credibility for this discussion by refusing to acknowledge her gender/name change.
Good for you, but doesn't help as long as you and others applaud rulings like the above one. The ruling is not against "people supporting groups, which are considered evil by a majority of the world population" but against "people supporting groups, which are considered evil by the US government." You are basically applauding a verdict which might fall back on you for wearing the shirt you want to buy now.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday August 31 2015, @12:07PM
Not everyone is aware of the sex change. I actually forgot until you mentioned it.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Hairyfeet on Monday August 31 2015, @01:59PM
I'll get hate for saying this but fuck it, truth is truth and to steal a line from Austin Powers "Its a man baby!".
Words have meaning folks, and I can declare I am 9 feet tall and purple but that won't change the fact that I'm 6 foot and white now will it? If they have a penis then common sense would dictate its a guy, if it has a vagina they are female...why are we supposed to pretend because they wake up one day and decide they want to switch teams but haven't had the surgery yet? If you took a pic of Manning naked from the waist down and mixed it in with a bunch of similar photos of men and women, which column would you put him in, guys right? After all that is the equipment that he has. Now once they have had the surgery that is a different matter but until that point we really do have to have some sort of baseline, otherwise we have what we did recently with two "black activists" that turned out to be as white as the driven snow yet because they "feel black" that entitled them to claim as black, and in one case get a free college education by claiming minority status.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday August 31 2015, @03:20PM
As far as I'm concerned, my most evil reaction would be to rate it off-topic (although I don't like the attitude some people have here to rate everything off-topic which doesn't match the topic of the initial submission. Discussions evolve, and as long as a reply is on topic in regard to the immediate parent post, I find it counter-productive to rate it off topic).
You seem to focus on biological gender and want the term to be understood in that sense. I can sympathize with that view, without giving up my conviction that from a social point of view people should be allowed live as the gender they feel most comfortable with. Like in Life of Brian [50webs.com] (look for "I want to be a woman.").
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday August 31 2015, @09:56PM
You know what happens when you refuse to accept that words have meanings? You get people declaring newborns are racist and colleges trying to replace him and her with zym and zer [youtube.com] because hey, don't want to not support diversity now do we?
If we lived in a sane world? I would agree with you but we do not live in a sane world so we really have to draw lines in the sand and refuse to let them just throw out the meanings of words because otherwise? the batshit brigade WILL abuse every inch that you give them on the subject.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @06:47PM
You know what happens when you refuse to accept that words have meanings?
You know what happens when you refuse to accept that language changes over time? You look like a god damn idiot.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 31 2015, @12:08PM
So, your position is that anyone who opposes government is good, and anyone who supports government is bad. How very discriminating. Discerning. Enlightened. Informed. How very fucking god-like. Government is bad, so anyone who acts to harm government is a saint, or maybe even a god.
Tell me - how would you characterize each of the three persons mentioned? Really, I'd love to hear how people like yourself actually view the individuals involved. Or do you view them as individuals? Maybe in your view, they are one homogenous blend of saint-hood.
In case you aren't aware of the fact, all courts consider motivations. In fact, many courts REQUIRE that some malicious intent be proven before a conviction. Depending on the state you are in, depending on the charges, you might get away with some pretty serious infractions of the law, if the prosecution cannot demonstrate malicious intent.
Whether that be so, or not, the sentencing phase of almost all trials examines motives, intent, extenuating circumstances, etc ad nauseum. But, unless you've been sleeping since the days of the Roman Empire, you know all of that. A person with evil intentions is almost always punished more harshly than a simple idiot who inadvertantly did wrong. There are laws on the books to protect some people who do wrong, such as the "Good Samaritan Laws" which protect inadequately trained people trying to save an injured person's life.
Manning publishing war crimes? FFS, I'm pretty tired of writing this same old shit: the most damning piece of "evidence" of war crimes, the deaths of the Reuters reporter and his camera man, are only "crimes" in the minds of the fruit loop left. According to all the evidence, according to the Geneva conventions, those deaths were a tragic mistake, but they were not, by any means, a crime.
As for your BTW, fuck that. You are only stating one thing with that - you sympathize and empathize with Manning because he's a fucked up, gender confused homosexual. And, of course, that goes hand in hand with your apparent position that anyone who opposes government, or "The Man", or "The establishment" is a saint. Manning did what he did because he's fucked up in the head, not because he had any laudable goals. He intended to hurt his fellow soldiers, he intended to harm our country, and he intended to embarrass the government and the army. Fucked up little cunt.
Snowden and Assange, on the other hand, intended no harm to anyone, or to anything. Their motives are to be admired, therefore, their actions are to be admired.
Manning isn't high enough on the ladder of ethics to lick the boots of either Snowden or Assange.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday August 31 2015, @12:45PM
You seem to have severe issues with logic. I do not automatically sympathize with everyone opposing government views, nor vice-versa. Nor do I sympathize with Manning. You are the one emphasizing your emotions by deliberately neglecting her gender change and bitching about her motivations. For me, this is a useless distraction entirely beside the point, which disqualifies you somewhat as a discussion partner, because you deliberately refuse to stick to the topic at hand, which is: Should people be allowed to publicly sympathize with others or not, even if those others are considered "evil" by the government?
The only assertion I made in regards to Chelsea Manning is that people should be allowed to sympathize with her. This does not mean that I do sympathize with her.
And while I acknowledge that there are some views which should be discouraged, I think this should not mainly happen by court decisions. I think, posting self-written opinions or encouragements [1], no matter which, should not be punished by live-shattering jail-sentences.
[1] By specifying "self-written opinions", I deliberately exclude copyright infringement, posting of cryptographic keys, uuencoded child-porn etc. These contents would have to be judged separately. Also state secrets or recipes for drugs or explosives are excluded from this statement - I think that knowledge should be free, but haven't made up my mind on these corner-cases yet.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 31 2015, @01:01PM
"I do not automatically sympathize with everyone opposing government views"
Alright - to be fair, maybe you don't. Maybe I'm projecting a little. Most times, I don't look at the moderation, but sometimes, I do. Funny pattern on many public forums - badmouth Manning, and the moderation goes to hell.
Gender change. Sorry, Manning will never be a woman. I don't care how many people claim otherwise, but it ain't happening.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday August 31 2015, @01:23PM
To be fair, in my initial post I did summarize them as "heroes of liberty", which also was beside the point and probably not fully informed on my side. I don't think I agree with your verdict on Manning, especially since you seem to try to make your point mainly by strong language and bringing up her gender-change, but naming them all as "heroes" was probably a wrong step into the discussion, and I won't spend the time and effort to confirm or refute my initial verdict on any of them.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 4, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday August 31 2015, @02:12PM
you sympathize and empathize with Manning because he's a fucked up, gender confused homosexual.
Manning did what he did because he's fucked up in the head, not because he had any laudable goals.
Your arguments would come through more clearly if there weren't uncertainty about whether you're just a bigot. On the one hand, you seem to have a somewhat reasoned argument that Manning is a different case from Assange or Snowden. Then you tear that argument's credibility to shreds by indicating that its foundation is some ridiculous belief that being transgendered or homosexual is a sign of mental illness.
So I have two questions. Do you believe that being transgendered is a form of homosexuality and that it indicates mental illness? Do you have any evidence that Manning is mentally ill other than her transition?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 31 2015, @02:46PM
The men and women who worked with Manning have very explicity stated that Manning was a discipline problem, and that much of that problem centered on his "gender confusion". That "gender confused" term comes across frequently in every discussion about Manning.
Gender confusion looks like mental illness to me, yes.
Manning's actions and motivations are an indication of mental instability. Let us suppose that Manning had uncovered a genuine war crime(s). Let us further suppose that Manning had exposed that war crime(s) and nothing else. In that case, Manning would have my support, just as Snowden does.
Let us suppose the same scenario, but Manning released much more than the evidence of those war crime(s). Manning would have my support, but less support than in the first scenario.
In fact, however, Manning stole everything he could get his hands on, and released all of it, in revenge for his perceived "persecution".
Let me be clear: that video entitled "collateral murder" contains zero evidence of a "war crime". That video is the centerpiece of the claims or war crimes. No person who has ever been even peripherally involved in combat action can see any criminal actions in that video. People who don't understand what they are looking at can be primed to believe it's a crime, but there is no crime. Tragic mistake, yes, crime, no.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday August 31 2015, @12:10PM
Because, you know, war crimes and such. I know US soldiers who were ordered to violate geneva conventions by executing captured prisoners AFTER they surrendered. Why? Because, you know, they just come back with more guys and more guns. Plus, there aren't any military prisons in foreign lands.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 31 2015, @12:19PM
Citations needed. No prisons? Obviously, you've forgotten all about this particular scandal - a genuine, documented war crime.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-prison-abuse-scandal-fast-facts/ [cnn.com]
I haven't even read that particular article, but it should be enough to refresh your memory. You know US soldiers who were ordered to execute prisoners? If that be true, then you are guilty of helping them to cover up war crimes. If you actually have knowledge of such things, I advise you to contact the nearest JAG office, and offer them whatever evidence you might possess.
In short, I call BULLSHIT!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @02:11PM
Nobody would fault him for fearing that if he did so, he'd be on his way to Fort Leavenworth with a defense lawyer instructed to not mention anything that might reduce his sentence.
These days, reporting a crime is punished harder than the crime.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Monday August 31 2015, @01:42PM
Military prisons for captured enemy (and law-breakers) are very common. Every little fob probably has one. It could just be a circle of concertina wire. You can call up your support and the detainee will be shuffled along until they reach a large facility. Biggest i saw as around 10,000 detainees. A place in middle of the desert and run by the USAF. They were tried by their own Judges based on information and evidence gathered during their capture. Some went free (time served), some stayed in there for seemingly forever, some went to a civilian prison (as close to their home as possible). The process was overseen by ICRC.
Just because my personal experiences are different than your second-hand experiences that doesn't mean that yours are wrong. But the motives (the "Why?") are indeed incorrect which makes the "What" very suspect.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @06:21PM
It is the speech we most disagree with that we must most vigorously defend, always, or else we do not believe in freedom of speech or, by extension, real freedom of thought. If freedom means anything, it means diversity; it means I recognize your right to choose differently from me, even though my conviction is firm and my arguments sound in opposing your choice. You piss on that freedom when you let your lack of sympathy for this man influence your vigilance in defending his rights, and have the gall to also claim to be against censorship at the same time.
Deviate from your principles when they come under pressure and prove yourself to have none.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RedBear on Monday August 31 2015, @10:53AM
I would like to jump all over this as a slippery slope and violation of the 1st Amendment protections, but he was also providing material aid and comfort to a designated enemy of the state in the form of money and whatever he did to help a Virginia resident to travel to Syria to join ISIS.
That sort of thing is not covered by the 1st Amendment. I guarantee he isn't getting an 11 year sentence for speech.
So without evidence let's not pretend that he was convicted of using verboten words. Really the only troubling thing is that the court apparently has the power to require that this person, who is currently just 17 so still technically a minor, should have his electronic communications monitored for life. However, I don't believe that sort of condition is actually anything new. At least, not the monitoring or being banned from all electronic communication, although the latter is rapidly coming to be viewed in various nations for consideration as a possible human rights violation. Conviction of all sorts of crimes from wire fraud to pedophilia frequently comes with such conditions. We've given the courts a lot of latitude in the area of sentencing.
Yes, yes, it is quite troubling how all governments continue to want to declare any group they don't like to be "terrorists". But we need a much clearer-cut violation of 1st Amendment rights, or a clear misappropriation of the "terrorist" label for some non-violent group, before we can all march to Washington about it and expect to get any common support. Let me know when the government actually does declare something as nebulous as "environmentalists" a terrorist group.
I'm sure someone will educate me if I'm missing some important aspect of this case.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Monday August 31 2015, @11:13AM
Probably the most import aspect is his wealth. Ford and GM supported Hitler: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm [washingtonpost.com] Also IBM: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edwin-black/ibm-holocaust_b_1301691.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Of course, the Company's arguments are that we weren't at war with Hitler when they profited from/supported his regime, but then, we aren't at war with ISIS either as far as I'm aware. Secondly, while ISIS is a crummy shitty group, it can't hold a candle to Hitler. It is interesting that if you are rich enough, you can support even greater evil and instead of punishment, enjoy great profit. Perhaps times have changed, but I suspect not, considering how the executives at USBC who laundered billions for terrorists and drug dealers got some pretty inconsequential punishment:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213 [rollingstone.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hairyfeet on Monday August 31 2015, @02:15PM
Sigh....how much longer is this bullshit gonna be sold to us as truth? The key words with Ford and IBM are German Subsidiaries which just FYI every single business and factory in German territory? Supported the NSDAP war effort whether they liked it or not because that is how fascism works the corps are beholden to and controlled by the state. the Ford plant in Germany had no more say on whether they made engines for the German military than the Czech plants had in cranking out the 38(t) and Hetzer tanks, the same goes for IBM of Germany. In WWII Germany if it could be of some use to the military it was used for the war effort, wants of the company be damned.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3, Informative) by pe1rxq on Monday August 31 2015, @02:45PM
Before the US declared war the german Ford plants were under full control of the Ford Motor Company and were using slave labor.
And Henry Ford was a well known anti-semite.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday August 31 2015, @03:22PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday August 31 2015, @09:49PM
Well duh, the war only started in 1939 for the Brits for the USA Germany wasn't an enemy until Dec 08 1941 when Hitler declared war on the USA
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday August 31 2015, @03:22PM
Secondly, while ISIS is a crummy shitty group, it can't hold a candle to Hitler.
Well, for one thing, they both were/are on a program of genocide. So I don't think the comparison is too far off.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday August 31 2015, @03:30PM
My post was not meant as a comparison between the groups because they aren't comparable, not even by a longshot. That's Godwin territory.
My point was that at a certain level of wealth and power, you can support whoever the fuck you want and rather than suffer consequences, profit.
My point is that we don't live in a country where all citizens are governed by the rule of law, we live in a country where a small group rules the masses are ruled by law, and use those laws against people in ways they are immune.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday August 31 2015, @03:32PM
damn, in a hurry:
My point is that we don't live in a country where all citizens are governed by the rule of law, we live in a country where where the masses are ruled by law, by those few who are above the law.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RedBear on Monday August 31 2015, @12:06PM
It should also be pointed out that "monitoring" and "censorship" are two different things. Once he gets out of the pokey and is no longer on probation, this individual will no doubt be allowed to exercise his 1st Amendment rights to say whatever he wants to whomever he wants, as long as he doesn't attempt to directly contact or materially support known terrorists again. Which all in all should not be a particularly onerous task. While on probation there will no doubt be additional restrictions in his release conditions, but after that he should be fine as long as he just steers clear of designated terrorist groups.
Meanwhile, we must all continue to watch our government like hawks to make sure they don't inappropriately expand what gets labeled "terrorist". If we do our jobs he'll wind up with plenty of freedom of speech, even though many might argue he won't deserve it.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday August 31 2015, @03:27PM
this individual will no doubt be allowed to exercise his 1st Amendment rights to say whatever he wants to whomever he wants, as long as he doesn't attempt to directly contact or materially support known terrorists again
but after that he should be fine as long as he just steers clear of designated terrorist groups.
Your post backs down from its own argument. Can he talk about anyone he wants, or must he steer clear of certain groups? Those two things are mutually exclusive.
"No doubt?" Ha. I doubt.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday August 31 2015, @05:44PM
so he can support whomever he wants, just so long as whomever he wants is on a list of people and groups pre-approved by the government? totally not censorship at all.
(Score: 5, Funny) by basicbasicbasic on Monday August 31 2015, @11:00AM
So... the same as everybody else, then?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gravis on Monday August 31 2015, @11:10AM
His crime was a hell of a lot more than just talking, it was quite literally treason. DAESH is an enemy of the USA and he was aiding them. that name of aiding the enemy is not "Constitutionally-protected Freedom of Speech," it's treason! How dumb do you have to be to conflate the issue of free speech with treason?!
The question that Soylentils should ask is, "What groups do I belong to that someone in government might decide are 'terrorist', and am I at risk for speaking out?"
If you belong to anything like DAESH then you a fucking retard.
The Canadian government for instance has come within a hair of declaring prominent environmental groups to be terrorists.
Candylandians have their own issues obviously but DAESH isn't trying to plant trees anywhere.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday August 31 2015, @11:34AM
These groups are part of a civil war in a foreign country. I think they suck, like the Taliban before, but mostly because they are religious retards hell bent on destroying what doesn't belong to them -- the heritage of human history:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150414-why-islamic-state-destroyed-assyrian-palace-nimrud-iraq-video-isis-isil-archaeology/ [nationalgeographic.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan [wikipedia.org]
That aside, providing material support to terrorists and receiving punishment for it, is definitely something that depends on who is doing the supporting. For example, Congressman Peter King was a big IRA supporter -- rather than jail time, he gets to be a Congressman.
http://crooksandliars.com/scarce/peter-kings-ira-ties [crooksandliars.com]
I think it boils down to whether you are a nobody, and thus subject to the law in its harshest extent, or a somebody, and thus virtually immune from prosecution. It's a way for wealth to protect itself, especially by encouraging all of us other nobodies to accept the situation because in any specific instance, the nobody who gets the book thrown at him is a dick. With our focus turned on the nobodies of the world, our rulers can go about their business of doing much more and much worse, totally unmolested.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @12:08PM
His crime was a hell of a lot more than just talking...
just like dubya, then?
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @02:16PM
You're not the first person to claim this, and all of you fail to specify HOW he was aiding them, other than by SPEECH.
How nice that "aiding" is such a non-specific word, that can easily cover speech, and still allow you to say "but his crime was a lot more than speech, he was AIDING", without ever saying that he did anything other than speech.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday August 31 2015, @11:17AM
His activities were a mix. In addition to just generally saying supportive things on Twitter, he also provided actual physical help to at least one person trying to support or join ISIS (he took the guy to the airport), and he apparently provided very specific instructions to people on how to support ISIS financially. So there is actually some basis for a criminal prosecution. That said, two points:
- Eleven years is a ridiculously harsh sentence. The guy is 17, just finishing high school, and has no criminal record. Locking him up until he is 28 basically destroys the rest of his life: no college, no job skills. If anything, he ought to get a suspended sentence, with a guarantee to wipe it off his record if he behaves for X years. Sentences in the US are generally absurd - this is a prime example.
- The government prosecutors are flooding the press with this case, and deliberately hyping his use of social media. This appears to be a deliberate effort to discourage speech the government doesn't like. So, while the case may not be a first amendment issue itself, the government is deliberately abusing it to discourage free speech.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1) by AlphaSnail on Monday August 31 2015, @01:48PM
- I'd imagine part of the thinking of an 11 year sentence is he will have no means to continue communicating with any other ISIL supporters at least not with any useful information for what could be the duration of the fighting. In war people are shot and bombed to protect the military forces, he got off lucky.
- The government are asshats with their own agenda. That said if one other young muslim thinking how simple it would be to support the 'cause' through the internet while trying to garner sympathy and support sees how it isn't that simple and freedom of speech still exposes you to your 'enemy' as well then many will not stick their necks out. In this case for everyone's sake that seems like a good thing to me, telling you what I think about someone is one thing, telling you how you can more effectively evade and kill someone, knowing the listener is going to act on it is hardly just conversation, you are a conspirator at that point. Show me them arresting bloggers whom haven't given support or information just sympathetic postings of events around ISIL and I will believe they are curbing free speech.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday August 31 2015, @06:51PM
he also provided actual physical help to at least one person trying to support or join ISIS (he took the guy to the airport)
This is not speech, but he still took no directly harmful actions himself.
and he apparently provided very specific instructions to people on how to support ISIS financially.
This is mere speech and therefore irrelevant.
(Score: 2) by albert on Monday August 31 2015, @08:25PM
The dude is a fan of Daesh. We should punish him in a way that he agrees with, no? Let's see, the options include...
* burning in a cage
* drowning in a cage
* tossing off a tall building
* stoning
* crucifiction
* head sliced off (the mildest option)
* RPG while restrained in a car
I'm all for respecting his values. Let's do it!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:15AM
> (he took the guy to the airport),
Even that isn't clear. The reporting has been that he was one of three people -- the the guy flying out and another guy who has not been charged with anything -- who "drove with him to the airport." I haven't been able to find reporting from a trustworthy source that says this kid did the driving or that was even his car.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @11:44AM
This just isn't true, isn't it, Appalbarry. Your submission even noted:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @02:23PM
So did I. I told them that the train was cancelled, and they would have to take the bus.
That if, if it turns out that those people were ISIS supporters or even going to Syria. They may have been regular travelers asking for directions.
There's a lot of talk about how his crimes consisted of 1) speech, and 2) some generic term like "help" or "aid", that can easily cover speech, without anyone ever needing to point to a specific crime other than speech.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Monday August 31 2015, @12:34PM
I'm not really concerned about him or the sentence. I just wonder about that lifetime of extra surveillance. How will that work?
"... who will have his Internet use monitored by the government for the rest of his life."
How exactly will that work? I mean on a practical level. Will the Secret Service, the NSA, the FBI or whomever just tail this guy forever and around the clock? OK so they could install some little blackbox (hardware or software) in his house that copies all he does electronically. That doesn't solve the whole problem tho.
Will they relocate him to some hut in the middle of nowhere for a life of no electricity?
His job prospects would seem to be kinda fucked. He has to find a job without computerization or that are willing to have all the companies communications monitored.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday August 31 2015, @05:18PM
His job prospects would seem to be kinda fucked. He has to find a job without computerization or that are willing to have all the companies communications monitored.
Perhaps he can travel to the Middle East and get a job with ISIS. They are apparently hiring.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Monday August 31 2015, @05:24PM
Perhaps he can travel to the Middle East and get a job with ISIS. They are apparently hiring.
Indeed. I hear he could make a killing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @02:12PM
This is what happens when you stop beating your kids. Why send him to jail when a good whopping might do the job?
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Monday August 31 2015, @02:20PM
The HARPER Government. The narcissistic Canadian prime minister forced the rebranding of a non-partisan title** to use his personal name. He meant it only to be used to reflect actions the Conservatives approve of, but thankfully it goes both ways, and any negative news can and must be properly attached to the "Harper Government".
** (or at worst, it would refer to the party currently in power at the time, e.g. in the past it would be informally called "the Conservative government" or "the Liberal government"... note the small-G in government)
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday August 31 2015, @02:27PM
A friend of mine wrote an essay called open letter of conditional surrender in the war on terror [strike-the-root.com] eight years ago. I suppose he could be branded a terrorist and this could be "aid and comfort" in some people's minds, since he doesn't at all support the leaders of the U.S. government/Empire. And I suppose I could be taken with guilt by association. This looks like a freedom we had that has vanished in just the last eight years.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1) by NullPtr on Monday August 31 2015, @03:29PM
We're all having our internet monitored for the rest of our lives, and don't kid yourself otherwise.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Monday August 31 2015, @03:50PM
I think in Harper's mind (current Canadian prime minister), anyone that doesn't support him must be a terrorist. He's the George W. of Canada and he took the message "with us or against us" quite to the extreme. For example, any government scientist cannot talk to media anymore except with prior approval of the topics from Harper's minders. Basically, if any journalist wants clarification on something, they are much more likely to get it from US scientists than from Canadian government scientists. Canadian science under Harper has been reduced to "yes man" where results are filtered to fit policy, not policy to fit results.
Right now there is an federal election going on, and all Harper has been doing is trying to scare Canadians that ISIL will get us and that if he wasn't running massive deficits himself (Canada had a large surplus and was paying down debt before Harper's spend his way to largest deficits in Canadian history), our economy would have deficits like Greece. If that doesn't make sense, well, then you see how his views of environmentalists being like ISIS makes sense too.
(Score: 2) by srobert on Monday August 31 2015, @04:26PM
If things keep going the way they have been since the Reagan years, I'd imagine that the fact that I was once a member of a couple of labor unions, including the Teamsters, will get me branded as a terrorist by the middle of this century. The history of the American Labor movement is being revised all the time. I think there some right wingers who would like to hang me from a tall tree for pointing out that, Ronald Reagan was the only member of a labor union ever elected President.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Monday August 31 2015, @06:19PM
It's terrible what the court system has come to. However, all is not lost for this fellow. First, Internet monitoring means he's going to be on federal supervised release for the rest of his life. Well, you can petition the court to have that discharged. Once the fellow has done his time in prison (and assuming he isn't even more radicalized by the experience) and has several years of decent behavior after his release, he can petition to get it discharged. He may not succeed the first time and it may take several tries but it will happen eventually.
Incidentally, when you petition the court for this kind of thing, you are entitled to an attorney at government expense.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.