Anonymous Threatens US Govt ... Operation Last Resort



fuck anonymous and any other 115 lb white limpwrist geeks who want can't face the consequences of their actions. if you have principles, stand your ground like a man instead of going out the pussy way like a spineless internet leech.
 
drave said:
fuck anonymous and any other 115 lb white limpwrist geeks who want can't face the consequences of their actions. if you have principles, stand your ground like a man instead of going out the pussy way like a spineless internet leech.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right.
There were atleast 2 of them who stood their ground. One was forced to commit suicide and the other is accused of Raping and had to flee and stay inside an Embassy.
 
datassbubblebath.gif
 
This sounds like quite a huge bluff to me; or at least someone else (like the cia) setting up anonymous to look like a fool for making too large of a bluff and not carrying through on any of it.

Anyone believe one word of this? Why such a strong response to Aaron in particular?
 
lukep said:
Why such a strong response to Aaron in particular?
Click to expand...

not that strong of a response. 35 yr opening bid due to multiple counts, may have gotten convicted for 10, out in 5. dude offed himself rather than serve 5 years. thinking 5 years is alot = the shortsightedness of a 24 year old. (OMG! i'd be 29!)
 
drave said:
not that strong of a response. 35 yr opening bid due to multiple counts, may have gotten convicted for 10, out in 5. dude offed himself rather than serve 5 years. thinking 5 years is alot = the shortsightedness of a 24 year old. (OMG! i'd be 29!)
Click to expand...

5 years with the unique American phenomenon 'negro-homosexualis'.
 
rusvik said:
5 years with the unique American phenomenon 'negro-homosexualis'.
Click to expand...

Nah, he would have been sent to a fed prison for white-collar criminals, where the guards ask you to address them by their first name, and you play bocche ball all day.
 
From the WSJ:

Mr. Swartz's lawyer, Elliot Peters, first discussed a possible plea bargain with Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann last fall. In an interview Sunday, he said he was told at the time that Mr. Swartz would need to plead guilty to every count, and the government would insist on prison time.

Mr. Peters said he spoke to Mr. Heymann again last Wednesday in another attempt to find a compromise. The prosecutor, he said, didn't budge
Click to expand...


From Declan McCullagh:

It's true that Swartz would not have faced 50 years in prison; that was, after all, the maximum sentence for his supposed felonies, not the minimum one. But Ortiz and her staff were intent on requiring that he plead guilty to multiple felonies and serve significant time behind bars.
Click to expand...


From Jennifer Grannick:

There was great practical risk to Aaron from pleading to any felony. Felons have trouble getting jobs, aren't allowed to vote (though that right may be restored) and cannot own firearms (though Aaron wasn't the type for that, anyway). More particularly, the court is not constrained to sentence as the government suggests. Rather, the probation department drafts an advisory sentencing report recommending a sentence based on the guidelines. The judge tends to rely heavily on that "neutral" report in sentencing... If he plead guilty to a felony, he could have been sentenced to as many as 5 years, despite the government's agreement not to argue for more. Each additional conviction would increase the cap by 5 years, though the guidelines calculation would remain the same. No wonder he didn't want to plead to 13 felonies. Also, Aaron would have had to swear under oath that he committed a crime, something he did not actually believe.
Click to expand...


From Matt Stoller:

Or if you are truly dangerous and brilliantly subversive, as Aaron was, you are bankrupted and destroyed. There's a reason whistleblowers get fired. There's a reason Bradley Manning is in jail. There's a reason the only CIA official who has gone to jail for torture is the person – John Kiriakou - who told the world it was going on. There's a reason those who destroyed the financial system 'dine at the White House', as Lawrence Lessig put it.
Click to expand...


From Glenn Greenwald:

The grotesque abuse of Bradley Manning. The dangerous efforts to criminalize WikiLeaks' journalism. The severe overkill that drives the effort to apprehend and punish minor protests by Anonymous teenagers while ignoring far more serious cyber-threats aimed at government critics. The Obama administration's unprecedented persecution of whistleblowers. And now the obscene abuse of power applied to Swartz.

This is not just prosecutorial abuse. It's broader than that. It's all part and parcel of the exploitation of law and the justice system to entrench those in power and shield themselves from meaningful dissent and challenge by making everyone petrified of the consequences of doing anything other than meekly submitting to the status quo.
Click to expand...


Also, from Glenn Greenwald:

And that's exactly as it should be given that, as he documents, there is little question that her office sought to make an example out of Swartz for improper and careerist benefits.
Click to expand...


I know some of you have shaky morals. As such, you can't imagine believing in something so strongly that it resonates in you with every breath, and the thought of betraying it makes you physically ill.

I also know some of you read very little and understand less. Given that, your ability to make reasonable connections is stunted. So be it. Go in peace.

For the rest of you, those few who actually believe in something, and are voracious readers and relentless thinkers, you understand that the normal rules were thrown out when Swartz popped up on Ortiz's radar.* Same with Manning, though he popped up on a completely different, and far worse, radar.




* Actually, if you understand how prosecutors work, and what motivates them, you will realize that some of the rules doomed Swartz from the outset. Consider how good Michael Milken was for Rudy Giulini's career.
 
drave said:
not that strong of a response. 35 yr opening bid due to multiple counts, may have gotten convicted for 10, out in 5. dude offed himself rather than serve 5 years. thinking 5 years is alot = the shortsightedness of a 24 year old. (OMG! i'd be 29!)
Click to expand...

You only live once. That's over 5% of you're life.
 
KimDotCom was right to say that 'taking down websites' is the wrong approach. I sure hope they have a better plan than some simple takedowns and doxxing.

If only there was some way they could mass-educate the public... As it is the sheeple won't understand the significance of whatever they'd dox.
 
This is going to fly over a lot of heads, but the problem isn't government.

It's delusions and horizontal social pressure.

The government has power as long as people believe they do.

The issue isn't fighting government, as much as dealing with the legitimacy of the idea of government.

The problem with KimDotCom, and many other technologist/rabble rousers, is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want an accountable social system, and they want government. They do not understand that these two things are incompatible.

As long as you have an agency with the power of government, someone will corrupt and subvert it for their own profit and control. The real issue isn't how to reform government. It's how to abolish government.

And I believe that abolition is only possible with a mass consciousness change, which I don't see happening anytime soon.

Many (most?) humans are hard-wired to look for and accept herd signaling and the smarter members of the species will always figure out how to position themselves as the ones broadcasting those signals.
 
guerilla said:
And I believe that abolition is only possible with a mass consciousness change, which I don't see happening anytime soon.

Many (most?) humans are hard-wired to look for and accept herd signaling and the smarter members of the species will always figure out how to position themselves as the ones broadcasting those signals.
Click to expand...

Been trying to tell you this for years.
 
lukep said:
This sounds like quite a huge bluff to me; or at least someone else (like the cia) setting up anonymous to look like a fool for making too large of a bluff and not carrying through on any of it.
Click to expand...

That already happened when Anonymous tried to go up against the Mexican Cartels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom