Sherman Austin

[imnotanaddict]

Distribution of information related to explosives is not illegal.. What's illegal is the INTENT part. They have to prove you have intent to use the information to cause further crime of violence .. and how do they prove intent? I think Bush made it clear when he said "you're either with me or against me".

Austin admitted posting links about bombs to enable people to build and use them during demonstrations against interstate and foreign trade. He told FBI agents he wanted the Web site to teach people about police brutality.

He just shot himself in the foot when he made that statement. " to enable people
to build and use". What could he have been thinking to make an admission of guilt like that?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+17 August 2003 - 03:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss @ 17 August 2003 - 03:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Jpaul
He posted terrorist material.

Do you think the people at amazon should be arrested under terrorist legislation as well? As was pointed out they sell similar material that has already been used by a terrorist cult in Japan.

From what I&#39;ve read (not just this article) the Gvt was just looking for any excuse to put him away. Most likely due to the masses of info on police brutality as opposed to some stupid outdated Cookbook material that would be of little or no use to any self respecting terrorist.

One things for certain.. this use of terrorist legislation hasnt made 1 iota of difference to the terrorists but it has removed a particularly troublesome political thorn. [/b][/quote]
As ever you take one line - in this case 4 words and then comment on that. Context is an important thing - though I realise you chose to ignore it as technique, as opposed to ignorance on your part.

The actual point was that he posted terrorist material and subsequently pled guilty to the offence which he was accused of.

He did this in order to try to get a lesser sentence, in the best traditions of anarchists (I think not).

So the judge sent him to prison - good.

[evilbagpuss]

@JPaul

Amazon has sold &#39;terrorist&#39; material. They sell it openly on their site which is as good as a confession yes?

So again I must ask you. Do you think amazon should be prosecuted under the same legislation?

Its a point of principle and the context you speak of is irrelevant as selling it openly is more than a confession its being &#39;caught&#39; red handed, and as has already been stated, their material has already been used by terrorists.

The principle is exactly the same. The fact I didnt include every word of your post did nothing to cloud the issue or muddy the waters. No technique I&#39;m afraid.

Avoiding the issue is a technique in itself, is it not?

He pled guilty because he had no choice. Anyone can see that.

This is blatant misuse of terrorist legislation, i.e using it to remove a political problem.

Not good.

[J'Pol]

Specious

A self - proclaimed anarchist pled guilty to a terrorist offence. Of course he had a choice, it was entirely a matter for him. He did it to get a lesser sentence, go anarchy boy - there&#39;s the courage of your convictions.

He was sentenced within the rules and is now putting himself forward as a victim.

I would have more sympathy if he had fought his case and argued his corner. He could then have put forward points like your&#39;s.

However he chose not too.

So tough - do your time and grow up, oh and if you chose not to live within society&#39;s rules then you can go back. Oh that&#39;s right your an anarchist so you don&#39;t obey the rules - LOL.

With regard to the ludicrous Amazon analogy. I would think it unlikely that a body corporate can actually be prosecuted for such an offence.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by jpaul

Specious

A self - proclaimed anarchist pled guilty to a terrorist offence. Of course he had a choice, it was entirely a matter for him. He did it to get a lesser sentence, go anarchy boy - there&#39;s the courage of your convictions.

He was sentenced within the rules and is now putting himself forward as a victim.

I would have more sympathy if he had fought his case and argued his corner. He could then have put forward points like your&#39;s.

However he chose not too.

So tough - do your time and grow up, oh and if you chose not to live within society&#39;s rules then you can go back. Oh that&#39;s right your an anarchist so you don&#39;t obey the rules - LOL.

With regard to the ludicrous Amazon analogy. I would think it unlikely that a body corporate can actually be prosecuted for such an offence.

This is the thing though. He wasnt on trial for his beliefs and its easy to say he should have fought his corner when your not the one looking at 20 years in a federal prison. 20 years&#33;&#33;&#33;?? And for what? Posting outdated crap from the 80&#39;s that is widely available on many websites all over the world?

Also can you please explain why the comparison with amazon is ludicrous? Perhaps Im missing something but it seems perfectly rational to me. The only difference is that amazons info is likely to be far more professional and they actually make money from it and furthermore this info has already been used to deadly effect in Japan. If they can charge corporations with manslaughter Im sure they could manage to do it for this. The idea of a company being above the law just because its a company is non-sensical.

Amazon is not the only one as stated... if this case is &#39;legit&#39; and not based on politics we should be expecting similar action against Loompanics.com, Bombshock.com, Totse.com et al. I wont be holding my breath thats for sure.

Lets not forget the context of this case. The FBI have been trying to &#39;get him&#39; long before any of this happened. They&#39;ve been hounding him for months and now they&#39;ve brought to bear the heavy handed weight of this terrorist legislation which was designed for the likes of Al-Queda.This stinks and imho is an ominous warning for the future usage of this &#39;legislation&#39;.

btw I cant help but suspect your being influenced by his political beliefs.

As for "you chose not to live within society&#39;s rules then you can go back".. go back where JPaul? His mothers womb? afaik the guy is not an immigrant.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 11:06

As for "you chose not to live within society&#39;s rules then you can go back".. go back where JPaul? His mothers womb? afaik the guy is not an immigrant.

To Prison.

Quite clear given the context of the post.

Unless you were making assumptions about the authors beliefs. Given your reply it would appear you were.

Tell you what - you stay on the moral high ground and I&#39;ll stay on the legal one and we can agree to disagree on this.

Think he&#39;ll get parole for good behaviour, I do.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by Jpaul+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jpaul)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>To Prison.[/b]

Hes never been there. He cant "go back" to a place he&#39;s never been. So no, not clear at all.

The rest of your post is irrelevant and evasive.

Although to be fair you did capture the issue rather well with this I thought..

<!--QuoteBegin-Jpaul
you stay on the moral high ground and I&#39;ll stay on the legal one [/quote]

The problem here is that the 2 are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I&#39;d like to see you thoughts on some of the queries I raised in my previous post. The amazon issue, misuse of legislation etc. afaik you havent even touched on these issues let alone disagreed on them.

[J'Pol]

"So tough - do your time and grow up, oh and if you chose not to live within society&#39;s rules then you can go back."

It is quite clear when one reads the whole sentence, once again you chose to censor. Then to reply to just that part.

I will not reply to the ludicrous. I have already said that I do not think your Amazon analogy is sound, so why would I reply to it. The arguement is specious.

With regard to our relative positions. The Judge rules and sentences on matters of Law, not on morality.

How many times must you hear this before you can accept it :

HE PLED GUILTY TO THE OFFENCE AND WAS SENTENCED ACCORDING TO THE LAW.

Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

Sorry for shouting, but it would appear that I cannot be heard when you are so high up. Either that or you are so lost in your convoluted logic that you are begining to appear obtuse.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by Jpaul+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jpaul)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I will not reply to the ludicrous. I have already said that I do not think your Amazon analogy is sound, so why would I reply to it. The arguement is specious[/b]

Face it. Its not ludicrous at all. They are all websites hosting the same information. Some for free, some for profit. Some individuals, some companies. They&#39;re the only differences and they&#39;re hardly fundamental as far as distributing this information is concerned.

You know it as well as I do. I would love to hear your theory as to why its ludicrous. But it doesnt exist does it?

<!--QuoteBegin-JPaul
With regard to our relative positions. The Judge rules and sentences on matters of Law, not on morality.

How many times must you hear this before you can accept it :

HE PLED GUILTY TO THE OFFENCE AND WAS SENTENCED ACCORDING TO THE LAW[/quote]

I see. So in 1940&#39;s Germany you would say the same thing to a Jew? How about Stalins Russia? Extreme examples I know but the point is the same.

Morality comes way above the legal system. Otherwise you could justify everything and anything if it were enshrined in law. Rape? Legal? Lets do it&#33; Murder? legal? Lets go for it&#33;

The last I heard that defense of legality didnt go down too well at Nuremberg.

He pled guilty to the offence because he had no choice. Either that or risk 20 years in jail. I doubt you would do any different.

Smoke and mirrors? Convoluted logic? Add unjustified indignant emotion and evasive tactics into the mix and I think you&#39;ve just about covered your strategy quite well.

2 issues here.

1) The law being right/wrong, used/abused.
2) The double standards in relation to Amazon et al.

Lets stick to the facts and not get too emotional eh? It only detracts from the core issues which isnt in anyones interests... or is it?

[J'Pol]

More smoke and mirrors. Some quite offensive actually.

No matter what you say he pled guilty to the offence for which he was accused and was sentenced accordingly.