28 ms·
FBI put Anonymous 'hacktivist' Jeremy Hammond on terrorism watchlist
- flycaliguy 12y agoStep 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.
- woodman 12y ago> ... 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.
- na85 12y agoThe problem is that, North of the 49th, "eco terrorism" simply means "anyone who dislikes the oil industry"
- chisleu 12y agoRadical used to mean someone who thought the time for peaceful politics was over. How it means anyone who thinks anything you think is extreme... :(
- anonbanker 12y agoNot 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.
- CamperBob2 12y agoI have no problem at all assigning the label "terrorist" to people who do things like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Washington_firebombing_incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Washington_firebo...).
- flycaliguy 12y agoI 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.
- e12e 12y agoYou forgot secret step 1.5 - infiltrate legitimate groups and provoke them into committing violence, paving way for step 2.
- torthrowaway123 12y agoA 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.)
- rilita 12y agoYou 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.
- 12y ago
- peterwwillis 12y agoJeremy has publicly encouraged rooms full of people to sabotage and destroy city buses and property. He regularly stole power, water and food. He has encouraged destabilizing the government in all ways possible. He has been involved in violent direct action. He tried to beat up an old man in a restaurant. He's threatened many people with physical harm. He's been to prison multiple times. For years he's recruited people through his "learning to hack" websites to work with his activist causes. Oh, yeah. And he's involved with the hacking and leaking of private and public information, basically to cause damage to the federal government, capitalistic entities and individuals. Jeremy Hammond is an actual terrorist.
- higherpurpose 12y agoIf that's a terrorist, what's someone that kills multiple people? He's at best a "criminal", possibly a felon. Not anything more.
- drzaiusapelord 12y agoThe problem with your argument is that terrorist now becomes a kind of no true scotsman. If someone is advocating the wholesale and random destruction of infrastructure to scare people, then yes, that's terrorism. The idea that you need to be Islamic to be a terrorist is, frankly, racist. If ISIS was doing this, no one would have an issue with the terrorist label. Hammond pretty much fits the bill.
- torthrowaway123 12y agoI think the difference of opinion here is on the definition of "violence", which is a part of the definition of "terrorism". AKA blowing up a building to scare people is, hacking into stuff (however damaging) isn't. Maybe that line needs to be re-defined in the 21st century, I don't know... but nobody brought Islam into the debate other than you.
- will_brown 12y ago
- transfire 12y agoOh the Irony since the United States of America was founded by Terrorists.
- Lawtonfogle 12y agoLiving in the southern portion of the USA, I get some mean looks when I wish people "Happy Treason Day" on July 4th.
- stefantalpalaru 12y agoI heard a brit saying "happy colonial betrayal day" :-)
- josefresco 12y agoCare to elaborate? ...not that it's relevant to this discussion.
- DINKDINK 12y agoThe United States was founded by a group of revolutionaries attacking the British state.
- josefresco 12y agoWe 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".
- seanflyon 12y ago> It's a pretty specific definition Please elaborate. I have not heard this specific definition.
- anon808 12y agoTerrorism: 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?
- rilita 12y agoJeremy 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.
- thissideup 12y ago> 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.
- mcantelon 12y ago>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?
- rilita 12y agoYou 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?
- gwys 12y agoHas 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.
- sarciszewski 12y agotorthrowaway123: > 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?
- thissideup 12y agoThese are all good questions. I'm sure some agent of the government will respond very conclusively shortly.
- sarciszewski 12y agoI 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.
- tptacek 12y agoYou 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.
- sarciszewski 12y ago
- will_brown 12y agoIt almost sounds like a farce: 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.
- tzs 12y ago> 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?
- will_brown 12y ago>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 http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/principles.shtml
- junto 12y agoWe 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.
- tptacek 12y agoThat and blowing up buildings, sure.
- threatofrain 12y agoI 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.
- tptacek 12y agoMost 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.
- detcader 12y agoYou 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-terrorism-motives-us-violence http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/24/boston-... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/18/david-frum-iraq-war-oil http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/18/david-f...
- tptacek 12y agoThe Daily Dot broke this story and provided the actual documents, the meat of which is: 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). Some observations: 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.)
- a3n 12y agoThe 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.