It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Email could get you five years

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   
The next time you decide to send out an email, you better make sure what is in it. A 21 year old student from Louisville, is under investigation after he sent out an email that stated that president Bush should be shot. The secret Service is investigating Phillip Bailey, chairman of the UofL Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee, after he sent an email. It will up to the US Attorney General's office to decide if he will be charged with making threats against the president. If he is charged the offense can carry a five-year prison term.
 



www.wkyt.com
Phillip Bailey, who posted the e-mail Monday, is chairman of the UofL Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee. Bailey says his message on a Web site called "The SOULution," came in response to a posting suggesting that looters be shot. He says many people in New Orleans were simply trying to find necessities to stay alive. His posting called for shooting " ... every cop, national guard and politician who stands in your way, including George W. Bush if need be."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Wow, now we are really getting into the information age. I am sure that many people have sent out emails that would be best not read by others. From now on, people should really watch what they write. It doesn't tell how the Secret Service got his email, but they did. It seems like 1984 was a few years off.




posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Of course it doesnt say "how". Why do you think the net was created? You know they constantly search it for keywords (emails included).



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   
It wouldn't surprise me if they didn't get it the old fashioned way.
Someone sent them the link, or forwarded the post.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   
It still surprises me that people don't routinely encrypt their messages. It's not that hard you know... not foolproof but still better then nothing.

BTW This type of survailance will be allot hard to do with WiFi/WiMAX mesh networks.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   
You would think that somewhere along the lines this would have to be a violarion of privacy, one would have to think. I know that there is a big grey line, but if they had no reason to be searching this man or tapping his email, then it should be a private matter.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   
This serves as a good reminder that absolutely nothing on the internet is above scrutiny. We all need to be very careful about what we write, be it emails, blogs or even on boards like ATS.

What that student wrote is no better than what Pat Robertson has been accused of suggesting, imo, and if his target had been G W Bush instead of Chaves, I'm fairly certain he'd be charged too.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Actually this has been around for many years.
The FBI originally had a program that all ISP had to install on thier gateways and mail servers. The program was called Carnivore
Carnivore
The Carnivore program was built mainly to monitor email communication (which is legal to do without a court order for a wiretap. It would perform word searches looking for such words as bomb, assassinate, shoot (the president), etc.
The Carnivore program was laid aside back in 2003 in favor of commercial programs that were more robust.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   
And according to Rense, I'm obviously a security risk.

(My name is Tess. I'm on "the list". Oh dear).

Though I don't generally class Rense as being credible, the list was interesting nonetheless

The thing is though, do you really think you have legal protection against threatening POTUS?

Even if it's in a blog/email?

We've never been afforded that right. Freedom of speech, you'll find, does not protect against threatening the life of another.

I'm not exactly thrilled at the thought of my correspondence being filtered or tracked, but I'm not naive enough to think I'm automatically afforded the right to threaten the life of someone else, either.





posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Tess, and all...

It has been illegal, for a very long time, to threaten the President of the United States (Potus sounds like something icky in an anatomy and physiology class. i.e. If you stick your hand down in the lower right outer quadrant of this cadaver, you can feel his distended articulated potus ...
).

Point being that I think there are legal "thangs" that allow for virtually anyone to intercept and scan your email. I could be wrong, but seems to me that we are on a wide open frontier, and so, virtually anything goes. Even if I am wrong, the government still manages to be the 500 pound gorilla on the web.

It's probably not right, but there you are...



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
but I'm not naive enough to think I'm automatically afforded the right to threaten the life of someone else, either.

Thats a pretty relative statement. How many Americans would be arrested for saying that "Osama Bin Laden should be shot"?

If you think President Bush is guilty of murder, such as people think Bin Laden is, shouldnt you be able to say "President Bush should be shot"?

I personally wouldnt shed a tear if he died. Oooh come and arrest me Secret Service. I'd love to see Blair explain that arrest.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by K_OS
"..A 21 year old student from Louisville, is under investigation after he sent out an email that stated that president Bush should be shot.."


So would mailing a bag of pretzels be classified as an 'assassination attempt' *choke*?



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
It's not an email that they intercepted, it was a post on a messageboard, am I right?
www.thelouisvillechannel.com...

The controversy stems from comments made by Phillip Bailey, 21, on a Web site message board, WLKY NewsChannel 32's Andy Alcock reported exclusively Wednesday.


Nevertheless it is illegal to threaten the president



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Also the website being called The Soulution www.the-soulution.com...


All it takes is some hateful person to be reading and point people in his direction. Either that or it was already being monitored by the govt.
(As I'm sure a lot of racially biased websites are)



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   
It wasn't the e-mail that got him in trouble... it was the idiotic move to post it in a message board...
We at ATS have been wary of loud mouthed idiots for years... it was irresponsible for the website to publish that e-mail...

I can totally understand the anger. I was pissed too... calling for all looters to be shot is moronic, and a useless scare tactic...
if people needed food/water, they WERE going to take them... regardless of threat... and I am impressed at the police and troops that pledged to ignore looters taking food/survival supplies, regardless of orders...

It is that kind of humanity that makes the difference.

As for this guy... I hope they give him a little jail time, so that he can think about the logic of calling for violence to the rescuers... he and his ilk, were the main reasons so many DIDN'T get rescued... people like him, just gave the inept government response teams an excuse to allow death...(which is also a problem)

*please note, i am not addressing the part that was directed to the president... I am concerned with what those inflammatory statements might cause to the rescuers on the scene.

[edit on 9-9-2005 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   

. i.e. If you stick your hand down in the lower right outer quadrant of this cadaver, you can feel his distended articulated potus .


If I could find a smiley for "So nauseated I had to pluck out my left eyeball to prevent further mental trauma", I'd use it here


Thanks for the imagery
(It has to be said - if I wanted to see anyone's "distended potus", George's wouldn't be high on my list. 'Nuff said...)

Anyway - subz, I do see your point, absolutely.

But....

His posting called for shooting " ... every cop, national guard and politician who stands in your way, including George W. Bush if need be

Maybe it's just me, but there's a difference here - the implication being that he's actually calling for/suggesting direct action, as opposed to a theoretical statement of "so and so should get the death penalty", or "Bin Laden should be shot".

Lazarus - yup, well said. He's angry, but that doesn't give him the right to suggest such a useless - and illogical - scare tactic.

Though I really don't want to stand in judgement, I have to wonder...has this guy ever been in a situation like that in Louisiana? I'd guess not. Does he have any idea what those people are dealing with on an hourly, daily basis?



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I just got a good look at "the list"
I wont give specifics, but I think there are some major clues in that list regarding situations that might come up (secret organization names, secret ops missions, secret things all around)...

there are far too many words that wouldn't be the slightest bit justifiable to "protect" against...

there are several popular cartoon characters, and several species of fish listed...
are we expecting an invasion from warner brothers, or is the god Neptune going to rage against us?

Does anyone see what i mean? could these be clues to secret plans/agendas, that they are keeping tabs on leaks of?



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Dunno, Laz...

Theoretically, if I wrote to my nephew, about our Aunt Mary in Mexico who bought some maple smoked beef jerky at her local Osco and wanted to send the package to Uncle Stanley in Yukon before he went on his casino trip to Panama, I might be raising some flags.

It's quite ridiculous, really.

Then again, maybe Aunt Mary really is a triple agent.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Just out of curiosity, how often was this law prosecuted under Clinton's presidency?

IIRC we had a member of Congress hinting Clinton would get assassinated if he stepped onto a military base, I don't recall him being charged with anything. If every rightwinger that suggested Clinton be shot got locked up, we'd be runing out of prison cells...



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Is saying "someone should be killed" vs "I am going to kill someone" still veiwed as the same threat in a court?



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Is saying "someone should be killed" vs "I am going to kill someone" still veiwed as the same threat in a court?


The two are very different.

The latter involves "intent", which is quite specific.

So....the two are not the same, at all.

Hth



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join