6 ms·

If by we, you mean Ulbricht's lawyers, I'm sure they're on it since illegal search is basically his only defense. We, the HN community, could probably find ple

by Steko 12y ago

If by we, you mean Ulbricht's lawyers, I'm sure they're on it since illegal search is basically his only defense. We, the HN community, could probably find plenty of worthy people to advocate for that don't go around paying for assassinations.

Hello71 12y ago
We, the HN community, could probably find plenty of worthy people to smear by accusing them of paying for assassinations.
- Steko 12y ago
  Well good luck with the Ross Ulbricht canonization effort, sir.
rabite 12y ago
Prosecutors can write whatever fiction they want in a criminal complaint. The false criminal complaint I was once extradited on, for example, was based upon a fictitious claim that AT&T was headed in New Jersey, when a simple search of SEC Edgar or Wikipedia can verify that it is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Federal agents have been caught lying multiple times to everyone from the public to Congress, and yet for some reason people still consistently take the garbage they say seriously.
- Steko 12y ago
  The idea that because some Federal agents have lied therefore we should discount anything all of them say is farcial.
  - phaus 12y ago
    I don't think that's what he's suggesting at all. We shouldn't automatically discount their statements, but we should start scrutinizing them very carefully before we make a call.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      Scrutiny is fine, but the "scrutiny" on display in this thread is quite fanciful indeed. It's almost as if people were hoping that FBI is, somehow, someway, wrong, instead of skeptically analyzing the data presented using critical analysis and then following where the evidence leads. E.g. the top comment right now claims that a footnote practically proves FBI employed parallel construction, based on no reasoned argument, and without examining even the possibility that there is a reasonable explanation on the FBI's behalf. So if scrutiny is the byword, let's practice scrutiny. But I'm just seeing advocacy.
- tveita 12y ago
  He has. Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Substance; Attempted Witness Murder; Use of Interstate Commerce Facilities in Commission of Murder-for-Hire; Aiding and Abetting https://ia601904.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.238311/gov.uscourts.mdd.238311.4.0.pdf https://ia601904.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.238...
  - tveita 12y ago
    (This was in response to a sentence that has now been edited out that claimed Ulbricht has never been charged for murder for hire.)
woah 12y ago
What does your estimation of Ulbricht's moral standing have to do with anything? The HN community is advocating for due process.
- Steko 12y ago
  First we're not a monolith. Second, I don't see people advocating for due process so much as I see outright advocacy and willful ignorance of the idea that it's possible for the FBI to indict someone without violating their due process.

by Steko 12y ago

Hello71 12y ago

We, the HN community, could probably find plenty of worthy people to smear by accusing them of paying for assassinations.

Steko 12y ago
Well good luck with the Ross Ulbricht canonization effort, sir.

rabite 12y ago

Prosecutors can write whatever fiction they want in a criminal complaint. The false criminal complaint I was once extradited on, for example, was based upon a fictitious claim that AT&T was headed in New Jersey, when a simple search of SEC Edgar or Wikipedia can verify that it is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Federal agents have been caught lying multiple times to everyone from the public to Congress, and yet for some reason people still consistently take the garbage they say seriously.

Steko 12y ago
The idea that because some Federal agents have lied therefore we should discount anything all of them say is farcial.
- phaus 12y ago
  I don't think that's what he's suggesting at all. We shouldn't automatically discount their statements, but we should start scrutinizing them very carefully before we make a call.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    Scrutiny is fine, but the "scrutiny" on display in this thread is quite fanciful indeed. It's almost as if people were hoping that FBI is, somehow, someway, wrong, instead of skeptically analyzing the data presented using critical analysis and then following where the evidence leads. E.g. the top comment right now claims that a footnote practically proves FBI employed parallel construction, based on no reasoned argument, and without examining even the possibility that there is a reasonable explanation on the FBI's behalf. So if scrutiny is the byword, let's practice scrutiny. But I'm just seeing advocacy.
tveita 12y ago
He has. Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Substance; Attempted Witness Murder; Use of Interstate Commerce Facilities in Commission of Murder-for-Hire; Aiding and Abetting https://ia601904.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.238311/gov.uscourts.mdd.238311.4.0.pdf https://ia601904.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.238...
- tveita 12y ago
  (This was in response to a sentence that has now been edited out that claimed Ulbricht has never been charged for murder for hire.)

woah 12y ago

What does your estimation of Ulbricht's moral standing have to do with anything? The HN community is advocating for due process.

Steko 12y ago
First we're not a monolith. Second, I don't see people advocating for due process so much as I see outright advocacy and willful ignorance of the idea that it's possible for the FBI to indict someone without violating their due process.