Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OMG! Elf's need to be squashed!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GeorgeWendtCFI
    replied
    Focusing on clandestine sites on the Internet is stupid. I just did a ten-minute search on Amazon.com and bn.com. Here are some of the titles I found.

    Poor Man's James Bond
    Anarchist Cookbook
    Steal This Book
    Complete Guide to Dirty Tricks
    Home Workshop Explosives
    Tnroduction to the Technology of Explosives
    Chemistry of Explosives
    Armed and Dangerous; A Writer's Guide to Weapons

    Videos include:

    Pickett's primer on Explsoves
    Commercial Explosives
    Terrorist Weapons and Explosives
    Deadly Explsovies; How and Why They Work

    There are dozens more. Each of these sources contain the same instructions you will find on the Internet. Where do you think they got them? I guarantee that if you search your local library system, you will find at least one of these books. College and University libraries probably have them all. These books are no secret. Some of them have been around for 30 years! Do we close all the bookstores and libraries? That is the reason there has never been and never will be a prosecution on that stupid law.

    The focus should be on the behavior! Bombs and improvised explosive devices are illegal. People were building them long before the Internet and it was still illegal.

    It is the price we pay for living in a free society.
    Last edited by GeorgeWendtCFI; 08-15-2003, 01:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • GeorgeWendtCFI
    replied
    Here's a better article:

    January 2001 Freedom of Speech: Bomb Recipes Flourish Online Despite New Law

    Students at Socorro High School in New Mexico were settling into their chairs for the start of second period last March when an explosion ripped apart a locker and hurled shrapnel through a hallway, piercing the ceiling and walls.

    Arrested for igniting the bomb, four students told investigators they didn't design it on their own: They relied on instructions found on the Internet.

    They weren't the first to use the Internet for explosives research, but their timing was significant. Like a number of other teenagers over the last year, the New Mexico students built their device well after the August 1999 passage of a federal law designed to curb the availability of bomb-making recipes on the Web.

    In short, the law has been a dud. Federal prosecutors have yet to record a single prosecution under the statute, which mandates up to 20 years in prison for anyone who distributes bombmaking material knowing or intending that the information will be used for a crime. Web sites, chat rooms and online bulletin boards containing instructions for bombs continue to flourish.

    Last March, four Kent City, Mich., teens were sentenced to probation after they built two bombs from Internet instructions and tossed them into the yard of a man who had accused them of destroying his mailbox. The explosions, which made a small hole in the yard, awoke residents up to a mile away, police said.

    In October, a Santa Ana, Calif., sophomore was arrested at school after police found in his back-pack a pipe bomb constructed with instructions found on the Internet. A 15-year-old Delta, Colo., boy was arrested in November after police said he used a school computer to download bomb instructions. Bomb parts and fragments of exploded bombs were found at his house, and a teacher discovered a document on a school computer that discussed 'getting revenge on teachers and principals.'

    Bombs on the Web were in the public eye again when it was discovered that Michael McDermott, the man accused of shooting to death seven co-workers at a Wakefield, Mass., high-tech company in late December, participated in an Internet discussion group focused on explosives. Although Mr. McDermott offered mostly technical advice on the forum, a few talked of violence.

    Disparate groups have been demanding more controls on the Internet, including bans on the promotion of Nazi and Ku Klux Klan memorabilia. But the failed attempt to curb bomb-making tutorials show how difficult Internet regulation can be.

    Congress jumped into the controversy after the Columbine High School massacre in Colorado, whose student perpetrators carried bombs built from Web-based instnuctions. The legislation that was adopted was championed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who said then that the measure 'would limit the availability of the bomb manuals online.' Sen. Feinstein now acknowledges it hasn't, yet she adds in an interview that it is too early to call the law a failure.

    At the recommendation of the Department of Justice, the Feinstein bill was drafted narrowly to avoid transgressing free-speech rights under the First Amendment. The wording may pass constitutional muster, but it also has served to dissuade prosecution of those who post bomb instructions. Intervention would do the most good before any planned violence. But police say showing criminal intent--especially before any crime has been committed--is all but impossible.

    Thomas Warren, the supervisory agent in charge of the FBI's Bomb Data Center, says 'a lot of information on the Net has been used to build devices,' but the FBI doesn't even monitor such sites. A spokesman adds that since postings by themselves are not criminal, unless it can be proven that the authors intended them to be used in the commission of a crime, the FBI reasons it would find nothing to prosecute.

    Before the Internet, bomb-making material was available through specialty publishing houses, some engineering textbooks and other material available in college libraries and the Library of Congress. Much of the Web information is taken from printed manuals such as 'The Anarchist Cookbook.' But the Internet makes obtaining bomb recipes much quicker and easier.

    Disappointed with the legislative attack, a group of bomb victims and others are trying to persuade Internet companies to crack down. The group includes Gary Wright, a Utah computer programmer who was injured when he picked up a mail bomb made by Unabomber Theodore J. Kaczynski; the mother of an Oklahoma City bombing victim; and Mr. Kaczynski's brother David.

    But so far, calls and letters to Yahoo! Inc., AOL Time Warner Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Walt Disney Co., which is part owner of the online Go Network, have yielded disappointing results, Mr. Wright says. The companies generally decline to do any active monitoring, though several do say they prohibit the posting of hateful or violent material and delete offending material when it is found after complaints.

    'It is a really fine line for us to walk to make a subjective call to determine when content violates (our) terms of service,' says Srinija Srinivasan, editor in chief of Yahoo's Web portal. AOL spokesman Nicholas J. Graham says bomb-making material is not allowed on AOL sites but that policing content for such information is difficult because of the large number of users and the constant addition of new material.

    Max Pages, a free service offered by Max Software Consultants Inc. that allows users to create Web sites, hosts several home pages filled with bomb instructions. The service warns users it won't allow Web sites to contain anything 'dishonest, pornographic, illegal, hateful, vulgar, violent disreputable, or distasteful.'

    William MacLeod, president of the Towson Md., company, says that under this policy, sites with bomb instructions have been removed frequently, but as soon as one site is deleted, another appears, often created by the same person under a different name. 'It is a relentless battle for us,' he complains.

    It was on a site hosted by Max Pages that 18-year-old Ben Villa and his friends found the instructions to build the bomb used at Socorro High School, federal agents say. The four teens used the search word 'anarchy' on a home computer.

    'There was like hundreds of recipes,' Mr. Villa says in an interview. As instructed by the site, the four teens built a bomb using an empty shell, gunpowder from bullets and a cannon fuse.

    Mr. Villa said he and his friends had no idea how powerful the bomb would be and never intended to harm anyone. Police say that if the hallway had been filled with students when the bomb exploded, there would have been serious injuries.

    Mr. Villa faces up to 10 years in prison after pleading guilty in federal court to possessing an unregistered destructive device and aiding and abetting the commission of a felony. His three friends were charged as juveniles in state court. 'These are really dangerous sites,' Mr. Villa says. 'I am a convicted felon,' he adds, but 'I'm not a troublemaker or anything. I'm just a regular kid'" (David Armstrong, The Wall Street Journal, January 18, 2001).

    Leave a comment:


  • engine23ccvfd
    replied
    In August 1999, Congress took steps to curb the availability of bomb-making recipes on the Internet. But 18 months later, the instructions are still there and teenagers, among others, are still clicking onto them to make and later detonate bombs. The law has been a dud.

    Federal prosecutors have yet to record a single prosecution under the statute -- which mandates up to 20 years in prison for anyone who distributes bomb-making material knowing or intending that the information be used for a crime.

    Websites, chat rooms and online bulletin boards containing instructions for making bombs continue to flourish.

    Thomas Warren, the supervisory agent of the FBI's Bomb Data Center, says the agency doesn't even bother to monitor bomb-making websites.

    Police say that showing criminal intent -- especially before any crime has been committed -- is all but impossible.
    A group of bombing victims and others are trying to persuade Internet companies to crack down on the instructional material.

    Source: David Armstrong, "Bomb Recipes Flourish Online Despite New Law," Wall Street Journal, January 18, 2001.

    http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pd011801d.html

    Leave a comment:


  • hfd66truck
    replied
    Being a moron has never been against the law.
    As a matter of fact, it keeps us in business!

    Leave a comment:


  • Duffman
    replied
    George, once again I find myself in total agreement with you. Thanks for explaining why ELF is no different than the klan, the arayan nation or the boy scouts for that matter. Like it or not they have rights.

    Being a moron has never been against the law.

    Leave a comment:


  • GeorgeWendtCFI
    replied
    Originally posted by engine23ccvfd
    I believe a law just went into effect or will soon that makes it illegal to post articles on how to make a bomb.
    Please cite the law and the legislative body that is pursuiing it.

    Leave a comment:


  • engine23ccvfd
    replied
    I believe a law just went into effect or will soon that makes it illegal to post articles on how to make a bomb.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bones42
    replied
    They are against, in a way, cutting down trees to make lumber to build these houses/buildings/etc. So, once the trees are cut and made into lumber, and the lumber is used to build a house, they burn the house, which then leads to more trees being cut down to make lumber to rebuild the house. Yup, sounds like a sound idea to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThNozzleman
    replied
    I wonder why ELF activists don't burn their own houses and cars down. Do you think someone should inform them of the deadly emmissions they are releasing every time they burn something? Has the Green Party been advised of this terrible practice of wanton pollution?

    Leave a comment:


  • GeorgeWendtCFI
    replied
    From the Anti-Defamation League website
    ____________________________________________

    Radical Environmentalist Group suspected in San Diego Arson


    Posted: August 8, 2003
    The Earth Liberation Front (ELF), the most active radical environmentalist group in the United States, is suspected of burning down a housing complex under construction in San Diego, California, on August 1, 2003. If true, it will be the most costly ecoterrorist attack ever in the U.S.

    The blaze, which officials estimate caused around $50 million in damage, destroyed a five-story building and brought down a 100-foot-high crane. The heat from the fire was so severe that window blinds melted in apartments 500 feet away. About 400 residents were evacuated from nearby apartment buildings.

    Twenty law enforcement agencies are investigating the arson, including the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Captain Jeff Carle, spokesman for the San Diego Metro Arson Strike Team, said the fire was not an accident. "Someone, some persons came onto this site and set a fire with the intent to burn it to the ground," Carle said.

    A 12-foot banner reading "If you build it, we will burn it," along with the initials ELF, was found at the scene. The San Diego Union-Tribune also reported receiving an e-mail from the group saying the banner "is a legitimate claim of responsibility by the Earth Liberation Front."

    ELF cells have claimed responsibility for burning several luxury homes and housing developments across the county in recent months. On June 3, 2003, a fire was set at the Sterling Oaks Development in Chico, California. Graffiti reading "Save Our Bio Region ELF" was left at the scene.

    On June 4, two houses under construction were burned in Washington Township, Michigan. Graffiti spray-painted on nearby construction equipment read "ELF" and "stop sprawl." On March 21, 2003, two homes under construction were set on fire in Washtenaw County's Superior Township near Ann Arbor, Michigan. The garage door of a nearby house was vandalized with spray paint reading, "ELF, no sprawl."

    ELF has claimed responsibility for actions against what they perceive as the evils of urban sprawl for several years. In December 2000, ELF set fire to a condominium under construction in Long Island, New York. ELF said the homes were "future dens of the wealthy elite" and announced "an unbounded war on urban sprawl."

    In 1998, ELF claimed responsibility for the arson of a Vail, Colorado, ski resort that caused $12 million in damage, the costliest act of eco-terrorism in American history at the time.
    -----------------------------------------------

    This is criminal activity. But as you can see, this action will be very difficult totie to specific persons.

    Leave a comment:


  • jatkins7011
    replied
    Familiar......

    Hey didn't we discuss this a couple of months ago?

    There was a pretty lengthy thread for more information---

    Stay safe--

    Leave a comment:


  • GeorgeWendtCFI
    replied
    Which ones?

    To be considered a "terroristic threat", the threat must be specific: specific person, specific action. The person threatened must also believe that there is an immediate danger that the threat will be carried out. I don't find one threat on the website.

    I do believe that the RICO statutes are very helpful in prosecuting terrorist organizations, when the hierarchy of the organization can be identified and the actions of the group can be linked together. To date, law enforcement has not developed this information.

    Leave a comment:


  • FFFRED
    replied
    George,
    I think there are a number of statements on the site that could be argued as terroristic threats. Plus I'm also thinking that a creative Proscecutor could use the RICO statutes to prosecute any members of the ELF. What do you think George?

    FTM-PTB

    Leave a comment:


  • GeorgeWendtCFI
    replied
    Originally posted by FFFRED
    Just to make all aware terroristic threats are not covered by freedom of speech. I can't say to you "I'm going to kill you or set you on fire" Both would be considered Assault not free speech.

    FTM-PTB
    They wouldn't be considered assault, but they wouldn't be protected either. However...

    The objectionable content here is a manual on how to set fires. There are no direct threats associated with the manual, or the entire website for that matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • FFFRED
    replied
    Just to make all aware terroristic threats are not covered by freedom of speech. I can't say to you "I'm going to kill you or set you on fire" Both would be considered Assault not free speech.

    FTM-PTB

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X