
FBI put Anonymous 'hacktivist' Jeremy Hammond on terrorism watchlist - randomname2
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/02/fbi-anonymous-hacktivist-jeremy-hammond-terrorism-watchlist
======
will_brown
It 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.

~~~
rayiner
> 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.

It's pretty offensive to muslims to lead your characterization of al-Awlaki
with the fact that he was Muslim, rather than the fact that he went to Yemen
and took up arms against the United States while inciting violence against the
country. U.S. Citizenship isn't a blanket immunity against U.S. military
action. It's certain that the U.S. killed Americans who went and fought for
the Nazis in Europe. Few people would challenge the validity of such actions.
Does it become wrong because you make a list instead of doing it
indiscriminately?

And ultimately, it's deeply counter-productive to try and lump people like
Hammond together with people like al-Awlaki. Military action against foreign
aggressors is a fundamental right of sovereign nations. People will not give
it up. If you tell them that such actions must be subject to "law" all you'll
accomplish is distorting and diluting the law to accommodate the sorts of
actions that must be taken against foreign aggressors. The law should not try
to insert itself into foreign military matters. It's not a fight it will win,
and it will be the downfall of the law.

~~~
shit_parade
> rather than the fact that he went to Yemen and took up arms against the
> United States while inciting violence against the country.

It is difficult to call it a fact since there was no trial, no due process,
nor evidence cited by US government in the killing of its citizen. Perhaps
there was secret evidence presented in secret to a secret court, but that's
rather grim consolation.

Also the concept of law should absolutely insert itself into matters of
foreign military matters. WWI and WWII were both horror shows, Western
civilization rightly decided to do their best not to repeat the worst of the
atrocities committed therein. You seem all to eager to return to a world where
Western governments kill millions without consequence.

~~~
rayiner
> It is difficult to call it a fact since there was no trial, no due process,
> nor evidence cited by US government in the killing of its citizen.

Trials, due process, evidence, these are domestic legal concepts. They don't
apply to military actions on foreign soil.

> Also the concept of law should absolutely insert itself into matters of
> foreign military matters.

Rule of law depends on the institutional capital of the judiciary. The
judiciary inserting itself into diplomatic and military matters costs
institutional capital. The more the judiciary stays out of the foreign affairs
of the military, the easier it is to keep the military out of the domestic
affairs of the judiciary. And ultimately when you make politically necessary
things illegal, you set the rule of law up for failure.

~~~
CamperBob2
_They don 't apply to military actions on foreign soil._

Assassination by drone is (or should be) considered a political act, not a
military one.

~~~
harryh
All military acts are political.

------
flycaliguy
Step 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.

~~~
CamperBob2
I have no problem at all assigning the label "terrorist" to people who do
things like this
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Washington_firebo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Washington_firebombing_incident)).

~~~
flycaliguy
I 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.

------
junto
We 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
That and blowing up buildings, sure.

~~~
Crito
I don't think junto has an issue with the concept of terrorism encompassing
the blowing up of buildings. And I think that you know that.

~~~
tptacek
You're right. I chose a snarky way to disagree with their premise. I should
have just contested it directly. Sorry.

~~~
gwys
Seem to keep happening for you, so I'm not sure how sorry you really are.

~~~
tptacek
In the sense you mean it: not sorry at all. More like, "you're right, and that
was my least favorite comment of mine on the thread".

------
torthrowaway123
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).

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.)

~~~
tptacek
_As far as I know he 's never committed or planned to commit any violent
crime_

Hammond was arrested for violently protesting a holocaust-denier at a German
restaurant in suburban Chicago. He and his companions entered the place
wearing masks, apparently threw paint, and then glassware; one person was
injured.

He also also plead guilty to battery after he threw red paint at and then
struck a police officer in a 2004 gay rights rally.

If your definition of violence includes property damage, he was also arrested
for tearing down and burning a Chicago 2016 Olympic campaign banner.

The latter two incidents --- with the cops and the sign --- who gives a shit,
I guess. After watching the Chicago NATO protests a few years back, I gained
some sympathy for the police and what they face with "Black Bloc"
"protestors", but those situations are generally so fucked up and fraught it's
hard to confidently take a side; the overwhelming majority of protestors work
in good faith.

But the first incident --- storming a restaurant and throwing glassware
because they're hosting a private event for a holocaust-denier --- that's
unequivocally violent and criminal. The corrective for bad speech is more
speech, not violence.

~~~
orbifold
Some fraction of those black bloc people are usually agent provocateurs. At
least here in germany the far right and left is subverted by payed informants
and undercover police to the extend that it wasn't feasible to prosecute the
most prominent far right party because a significant fraction of their
leadership had been police informants for years.

~~~
tptacek
If by "agent provocateurs" you mean "assholes who are not good-faith
protestors but instead seizing on the opportunity to revel in mayhem with the
protection of a big crowd of people to disappear into", sure, I absolutely
believe that's the case.

If by "agent provocateurs" you mean "the police sent people in as agents to
incite violence", you've lost me.

In any case: none of that could possible apply to the Edelweiss restaurant
incident with Hammond.

~~~
e12e
There's certainly room for interpretation, but when I look at stuff like:

[http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/05/terr-m21.html](http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/05/terr-m21.html)

from Norway, I'm not thinking: great way to support the right to peacefully
assemble and protest.

------
threatofrain
I 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
Most 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.

~~~
threatofrain
But I think it's actually a good thing that some domestic terrorist groups
don't fit the definition of paramilitary organization. To make our construct
useful in public policy, we should be able to propose broad treatment across
all members of a construct and be able to predict consistent outcome. We
should be interested in developing useful tools for policy talk, and being
able to make grounded generalizations is super useful.

I don't think the Unabomber or Anonymous fits in the same policy discussion as
IS or Al Qaeda, because I think these problems suggest very divergent courses
of policy. Every time we have to make caveats to our category, every time we
must exercise discretion in interpretation, we will find our construct
proportionally less robust.

Imagine a government rule which authorizes military action against IS,
cartels, or Al Qaeda, including assassinations and characterized by an absence
of legal process. Whether or not I agree with this rule, I can accept that it
is sensible and potentially productive to at least talk about. I can accept
that these groups have common characteristics which behave consistently
following military or civilian interventions, thus permitting policy
generalizations. I can also see that there is an intuitive connection between
the solution and the problem.

What is hard to accept is that Unabomber and Anonymous should be on that same
table for discussion, because what the overinclusion of these groups do is
move the line of justification to remove legal process a little closer to
home, and a little more into the realm of capricious discretion. It's hard to
accept that some domestic terrorists are anything like an organization that
has revenue streams, human resource management, infrastructure,
administration, a paramilitary force, and so on, and so it's hard to connect
the solution to the problem.

Of course, behind all of this is the assumption that terrorist organizations
are so mighty that they have graduated beyond the class of criminal and into
sub-state actor, and that ordinary civilian instruments are totally
inadequate, and that military solutions are the only effective solutions.

------
a3n
The 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.

------
tptacek
The 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.)

~~~
bmelton
I'd also add that the "REDACTED" bit makes it look arbitrarily suspicious. The
FBI terrorist screening center isn't a secret thing. They've got contact info
on the FBI site which I can confirm rings to a phone inside the building.

Or, at least it did, before they moved from Reston to Vienna.

~~~
tptacek
Sure, but I assume it's the DOJ that redacted that bit :)

------
sarciszewski
torthrowaway123:

> 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?

~~~
tptacek
You 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
> You 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.

Fair enough.

> 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.

At this point, I want to say, "What can be done about this abuse?!" but I
don't really have any answers. The best we can hope for is some form of
independent oversight from someone who can remain some degree of objectively
neutral (which is to say, not buddy-buddy with law enforcement), but who also
can be trusted not to leak stuff to the press.

I dunno, does anyone have better ideas? This is way outside of my comfort
zone.

------
transfire
Oh the Irony since the United States of America was founded by Terrorists.

~~~
tptacek
This is definitely message- board- clever, but I'm not sure what it's supposed
to mean. Stipulate that the United States was founded by terrorists. Now what?
What's the implication of that fact on public policy today?

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
He's probably just trying to point out that the founders would likely be on
terrorist watch lists today.

~~~
tptacek
If you actually believe the founders to have been terrorists, what's
interesting about that?

~~~
e12e
You know, I found this list of google hits interesting in light of this sub-
thread. Now obviously, I should probably have substituted "Britain" for
"United Kingdom"... but still -- who's under the rule of which over-reaching
global power these days?:

    
    
        https://www.google.no/search?q=american+war+freedom+united+kingdom

------
gwys
Has 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.

------
rilita
Jeremy 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.

~~~
exo762
You are out of your mind. You are equating pennies of damage done by Anonymous
with terrorism, which involves killing people for instilling fear and reaching
unpopular political goals.

~~~
tptacek
Terrorism seems to be uniformly violent, but it is not always murderous.
Extreme property damage is a tool of terrorism as well. But hacking is
virtually never violent, and Stratfor wasn't an exception to that.

We may be jumping to conclusions when we suggest that Hammond's inclusion on a
watchlist means that the FBI views Anonymous as a terrorist group. What he did
with Anonymous is surely what got their attention, but his other affiliations
seem like a more likely grounds for being added to a list of people to flag.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Throwing paint on some old racist's books (at a book signing) and knocking
their dinner to the floor is terrorism? Sure, it's worse to throw paint/ink
than a pie at them, but it's not terrorism. Maybe nuisance-ism.

~~~
tptacek
They didn't just throw paint. Someone left in an ambulance. And what does "old
racist" have to do with anything? People who attack women getting abortions
believe they're acting to prevent _actual murders_. We don't consider the
substance of their positions when we rightfully send them to prison for doing
that. You don't get to bust up a restaurant and attack a senior citizen
because you don't like what he has to say. The antidote to bad speech is more
speech, not violence.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>Someone left in an ambulance.

And you think that was by design. A guy said "Hey, I think I'll go ruin their
books and their dinner, and then I'll maim one of them half to death pour
encourager les autres? No, someone fell on broken dinnerware and received a
cut(s).

>We don't consider the substance of their positions when we rightfully send
them to prison for doing that.

We do, according to you. That's exactly what we're doing when we maintain
terrorist watch lists of people who have committed no crimes, or when the
crimes are as minor as this dinner crashing, or the Olympic flag burning. In
the dinner crashing, tellingly, Hammond was found guilty of disorderly conduct
and sentenced to four days in jail.

>The antidote to bad speech is more speech, not violence.

I'm not making a unqualified defense of Hammond's behavior. I'm saying that it
isn't terrorism.

~~~
tptacek
I don't think it's terrorism either. Just because we don't agree about
everything doesn't mean we _disagree_ about everything. I responded to a
comment upthread that suggested Hammond was nonviolent. Hammond is not
nonviolent.

On this particular subthread, I'm pointing out that Hammond's inclusion in a
watchlist doesn't necessarily mean that Anonymous is a terrorist group
(obviously, I don't think it is). He had other affiliations that freaked the
USG out. As I've said elsewhere on the thread, this being 2015 and not 1970, I
don't think the USG has a reasonable fear that "anarchist extremists" are
terrorist groups.

