Pennsylvania Man Pleads Guilty to Terrorist Solicitation and Firearms Offense

Pennsylvania Man Pleads Guilty to Terrorist Solicitation and Firearms Offense

www.justice.gov

WASHINGTON – Emerson Winfield Begolly, 22, of New Bethlehem, Pa., pleaded guilty today in Pittsburgh to soliciting others to engage in acts of terrorism within the United States and to using a firearm during and in relation to an assault on FBI agents.

The plea was announced by Lisa Monaco, Assistant Attorney General for National Security; David J. Hickton, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Neil H. MacBride, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; James W. McJunkin, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office; and Michael A. Rodriguez, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Pittsburgh Division.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Internet Censorship Storm Is Coming, Warns Schmidt
Clinton Says Internet Censorship Harmful to Governments
Protect IP Act, Internet censorship?
Australia secretly censors Wikileaks press release and Danish Internet censorship list

The quoted text below is the most important part of the entire piece.

Quote from : Pennsylvania Man Pleads Guilty to Terrorist Solicitation and Firearms Offense

“Today’s guilty plea underscores the need for continued vigilance against homegrown extremism and use of the Internet to incite violence,” said Assistant Attorney General Monaco.

That people are stupid enough to fall for this is quite sad.

I am referencing not only the news itself but the violence as well.

There is no need for the ignorance of violence to be incited.

As a community anyone here inciting violence is not welcome.

www.justice.gov
(visit the link for the full news article)

“Jihadist propaganda on the Internet is a serious threat to our safety, and today’s plea is the latest example of our Office’s efforts to aggressively identify and prosecute homegrown terrorists,” said Neil H. MacBride, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. “Extreme radicalization can happen anywhere, and this case underscores the need for continued vigilance against homegrown terror threats.”

“On a daily basis, Americans are faced with a complex threat environment that includes homegrown extremists who use web forums to share information and incite violence,” said Assistant Director in Charge McJunkin and Special Agent in Charge Rodriguez. “As this case unfolded, the FBI in Washington, DC and Pittsburgh, in close coordination with the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney’s offices in Pittsburgh and Alexandria, Virginia, worked quickly and effectively to eliminate the threat against U.S. citizens.”

And thus... free speech whimpers and withdraws from our society.... "propaganda is a threat to our safety"? Hmmmm. I didn't know they thought so little of our citizens as to hold that we cannot see a threat.... in words.

Stupid people can be used/tricked into doing anything you want them to do, to serve your agenda.

Been going on for thousands of years.

"So, this is how [democracy] ends? With thunderous applause."
They always spout this rhetoric so that they can take our freedoms from us. I do believe this is getting serious, as if it hasn't been for the past 10 years.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
As a community anyone here inciting violence is not welcome.

Oh really? But think about why that is. This forum has that policy so it can't be held criminally actionable. NOT because that is always the noble and correct policy. America wouldn't exist without violence and uprising. Freedom wouldn't exist without it. As someone mentioned, our media is hypocritical: they champion twitter and online organizing when the protests are happening in Libya or Egypt, but god forbid anyone use them to organize something in the UK!

I can, as an ethical and moral person, look at the state of the world today, and assure you that violence is going to be necessary to fix it. What I can't do is make specific recommendations or organize anything, because of forum policies and legal consequences.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


really hoping its not this guy from a tread i posted in about civil unrest and creating a hotline to get people like him to cause civil unrest www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Maxmars
And thus... free speech whimpers and withdraws from our society.... "propaganda is a threat to our safety"? Hmmmm. I didn't know they thought so little of our citizens as to hold that we cannot see a threat.... in words.

I don't see how inciting violence is anywhere near Freedom of Speech.

Politician's fervor should be included if that is the case because they incite violence.

Through policy and actions by stirring up emotions towards the climax of war upon others.

Originally posted by Cryptonomicon
Stupid people can be used/tricked into doing anything you want them to do, to serve your agenda.

Been going on for thousands of years.

Only stupid people can be used or tricked to fulfill an agenda.

Since the dawn of time it has been going on.

And it will happen until the end of time.

Originally posted by Skada
"So, this is how [democracy] ends? With thunderous applause."
They always spout this rhetoric so that they can take our freedoms from us. I do believe this is getting serious, as if it hasn't been for the past 10 years.

I knew back in 1984 that Russia would fall soon.

As well I also knew when the Great Russian Bear fell it would be a death knell.

When the Iron Curtain fell is when we moved into a One World Government.

Too many people missed it thinking it was still coming and it's already happened.

Originally posted by Observer99

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
As a community anyone here inciting violence is not welcome.

Oh really? But think about why that is. This forum has that policy so it can't be held criminally actionable. NOT because that is always the noble and correct policy. America wouldn't exist without violence and uprising. Freedom wouldn't exist without it. As someone mentioned, our media is hypocritical: they champion twitter and online organizing when the protests are happening in Libya or Egypt, but god forbid anyone use them to organize something in the UK!

I can, as an ethical and moral person, look at the state of the world today, and assure you that violence is going to be necessary to fix it. What I can't do is make specific recommendations or organize anything, because of forum policies and legal consequences.

Why would anyone want ATS to be held criminally actionable?

I for one welcome the protection from being lumped in with idiots and morons wanting violence.

I am not anti-Government I am anti-corruption within Government.

There is a distinct difference between the two even if it is not always discernible.

American was born on the lips of conspirators and through conspiracy itself against a King.

Tyranny was his watchword.

There are far too many ways to get rid of the current officials without violent actions.

Originally posted by pcrobotwolf
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

really hoping its not this guy from a tread i posted in about civil unrest and creating a hotline to get people like him to cause civil unrest www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why do you suspect it might be that thread author?

I sure hope it's no one from ATS.

I'm tired of seeing stupid people do stupid things.

Originally posted by pcrobotwolf
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

really hoping its not this guy from a tread i posted in about civil unrest and creating a hotline to get people like him to cause civil unrest www.abovetopsecret.com...

That someone would want to create a hotline to create civil unrest is kind of stupid.

That person is asking to be taken out like Martin Luther King Jr..

Not that M.L.K was inciting violence but the assassination of the man is because of his trying to unite people outside of Government control, and Government is prepared for that, and will do anything, and I mean anything to stop it.

reply to post by Maxmars


If this wasn't so pathetic, it would be really funny!

This Neil MacBride character sounds like a real up-and-comer. In two sentences, carefully crafted to exactly fit comfortably within a soundbite, he managed to make the subconsious link between "Jihadists" and "homegrown extremists" in the minds of everyone who reads this statement.

And he did it with no logic or facts to support his position! A masterpiece of communications art.

Or.....

Do they promote complete idiots to the position of U.S. Attorney?

Either way, it's either pathetic or funny....

Of course I suppose he COULD be an Islamic Extremist who was born here (and thus "homegrown") who was stupid enough to incite violence in a public forum without masking his IP address. In which case, he may well have been actually tracked down and captured by our heroes, the Feds. But that seems to be the only circumstance in which the Attorneys' statement makes any logical sense at all.

Or would that just be another observation of natural selection in all its' glory?

reply to post by Tholidor


They promote those people who are easily controlled.

In other words, puppets, who have strings they can pull and twitch.

Nothing any real thinking citizen would promote and or desire in any way.

Too bad there appears to be so few actual thinking American citizens.

violence begets more violence become evil to fight evil

meh i pass.

we have other ways and means to make changes i will never lift up arms agianst my fellow americans.

i may not agree with alot of what may happen shooting the fbi or inciting violence to exact change.

hey that didnt work out too well hell in egypt the new boss was same as the old boss and that is everywhere you go.

when people accept that they have to have someone calling all the shots over them you are inviting more of the same.

i

reply to post by neo96


Agreed.

Too few people know how to or desire to lead themselves.

I have limited my following others leadership to the best of my ability.

When and where it happens is something only I decide.

Far too often I see others looking to me for leadership anyway.

Whether I want it or not it happens and I take the lead.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

I don't see how inciting violence is anywhere near Freedom of Speech.

A lot of people can't. That's entirely the problem.

The central issue here, is really the doctrine of exceptionalism; and the fact that governments are able to make it seem reasonable and acceptable to people.

So they say, as one example, that you can have freedom of speech. But you can't say anything that might potentially incite violence. You can't say anything that might potentially cause someone to become a terrorist. You can't say anything that (insert minority with victim complex here) might find offensive...

The list goes on and on. What most people don't realise, is that after all of these exceptions in the name of political correctness and "safety," have been made, freedom of speech in practice no longer exists at all.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

I don't see how inciting violence is anywhere near Freedom of Speech.

A lot of people can't. That's entirely the problem.

I'm not sure whether you read what I was saying right or not here.

I know the difference between right and wrong and right and left.

Inciting violence done in the wrong arena with the wrong intent is wrong.

Do I think that there are exceptions to that rule?

Yes.

Would I do it?

I don't know.

Do I think others will do it?

Most definitely.

The biggest problem I see is that Government, any Government, has the law on their side.

Unless you're smart and know the laws as in depth as the Government.

Too few people do.

Due to the dumbed down state of the citizens of any country you want to insert here.

It is a precarious balancing act between Freedom of Speech and inciting violence.

Because of the examples of history we cannot allow something to be so easily defined.

The complexities of the particular situation as well as the dynamics shift the paradigm.

Originally posted by petrus4
The central issue here, is really the doctrine of exceptionalism; and the fact that governments are able to make it seem reasonable and acceptable to people.

Not just the Government.

But the people looking to it for leadership.

If people only learn to educate and do not learn to think then they are doomed.

Doomed to repeat history and the lessons still waiting for them.

Freedom of Speech is our right through many sets of circumstances of history.

It does not however protect us to abuse the very laws which make us free from the get-go.

Originally posted by petrus4
So they say, as one example, that you can have freedom of speech. But you can't say anything that might potentially incite violence. You can't say anything that might potentially cause someone to become a terrorist. You can't say anything that (insert minority with victim complex here) might find offensive...

There are reasons for some of those particular things you address above.

Some of it to cover the Government's fat ass so it is seen to make no exceptions.

Other parts of it so it does not make it easy for people to abuse the dissimilar perspectives.

So many ideas, thoughts, words, and perspectives are based upon abstractions.

This is not stating that any of them should be limited.

But merely that with so many different perspectives it is like dancing naked in a rattlesnake pit.

When it comes to the laws of the land and the people who walk within it.

Originally posted by petrus4
The list goes on and on. What most people don't realise, is that after all of these exceptions in the name of political correctness and "safety," have been made, freedom of speech in practice no longer exists at all.

edit on 9-8-2011 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

Personally, "politically correct", is a bunch of hogwash, designed for imperfect people.

It makes everyone walk on eggshells waiting to see if someone is offended or upset.

Freedom of Speech is perfectly alive and well as long as you know how to use it.

Using it with the utmost of responsibility is something very few people practice.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

Originally posted by Maxmars
And thus... free speech whimpers and withdraws from our society.... "propaganda is a threat to our safety"? Hmmmm. I didn't know they thought so little of our citizens as to hold that we cannot see a threat.... in words.

I don't see how inciting violence is anywhere near Freedom of Speech.

Politician's fervor should be included if that is the case because they incite violence.

Through policy and actions by stirring up emotions towards the climax of war upon others.

I apologize for my delay in responding..... Since you know me enough to understand my roundabout verbose nature I will give you my perspective... It'll take a minute or two to get there...

I view this issue as one of social 'scaffolding.'

On the one hand, we cannot argue against responsible communication. Meaning we accept that what we say may have consequences; and in theory, a person should anticipate and be prepared to accept such consequences. Ideally, a measured action should include a rational anticipation of the likely result.

On the other hand, we have the reality of what was said (or conveyed/posted) and whether it merits consequences deliberately chosen.

People often say things to be dramatic, use hyperbole, sarcasm, double entendre, polemics, histrionics, and presumptive moral relativism to bolster or promote their opinion. This reality is also a matter of the infinity of perspectives, information, misinformation, faith, and here's the kicker ........ error.

Our social mechanisms exist to minimize and smooth out those instances where such things manifest themselves. Were I to say. "There's that jerk over there, I'm going to kill him!" you would be well-advised to realistically determine whether a call to the police is in order.... doing so - because of the utterance of a phrase - might lead to a tragic and wasteful exercise in law enforcement - the police of course will certainly justify whatever action they take (this is a given) and it's 'rightness' or 'wrongness' will be removed from the purview of your judgement. Regardless of the presumed threat, the verbal thrashing that would have been interrupted by an agitated and anxious police officer could be strikingly our of place. Failing to call them, by wrongly interpreting the phrase as metaphorical, has equal dire consequences, and in some case, might even lead to liability on the part of the interpreter of the statement... "But I told him I was going over there to kill him! He didn't stop me." ... and thus you may be held liable - one way or another, by someone.

All of this is to exemplify the idea that people speak, and people hear, but they do not by definition understand.... and what makes this important is that the listener may either, recognize that they could be misunderstanding, or not understanding, BUT instead of basing their reaction on that potential... they proceed as if they DO understand.

So this guy had a "jihadist" website? Tell me. What does that mean? So he wanted people to contact him to engage in acts of terror. Again, tell me, what exactly does that mean?

Let's be clear, people have been calling for violence all over the world.... since.... forever. You know this, most do. Would you, or our government, prefer that such calls for violence take place where they cannot be seen and countered? Of course not.

Our founding fathers, acknowledged regretfully that they accepted the need for violence to achieve their ends. In fact, "talking" about it may have made it possible to minimize the duration, level, and nature of the violence against their sovereign land and King. Yet most cringe at the characterization of them as terrorist leaders, and criminals for stating such things. They didn't say them out of hatred and bias, they believed they had no alternative.... today they would be in Guantanamo, or secretly rendered in some off-shore facility.... just to hurt them and 'make them pay'. They gave up all their secrets in their writings, which were all ideologically based and focused on the creation of something new.

Others have called for violence, and met the full force of the law.

But calling for violence, determining intellectually that a discussion of violence is in order, is not the same thing as "being violent".... in this case we are only assuming it is. And based upon that assumption we are launching a doctrine of treating those who "speak" of violence as "violent".

If someone should utter the words.... "Someone ought to kill that *fill int he blank with a person of consequence here*" Are they responsible for it happening? The justice people seem to want that to be the case; and I find that self-serving, since they cannot seem to do much about other things, they target the "notional" crimes that can be the subject of sophistic re-characterization, and played out in the courtroom according to the doctrines of legal theater.

Free Speech is exactly, without qualification, what it says to be. You are free to speak, to express your thoughts to convey them to others.

Thus, YES - your are free to incite violence, lie, misinform, misdirect, and most importantly, MOST, to be wrong.

Yes you are free to interpret the errors of others as lies, misinformation,. misdirection... because of that freedom this is reality.

CONSEQUENCES are what matters, NOT speech.

Just because someone calls for violence; you think that equates to a threat?

Certain prophets and notable historical figure spoke to incite peace; were the logical similarly implied, we should expect to be living in Utopia.

If I call for violence, YOU can choose to disagree and say so, that is an element of free speech. If I call for peace, you can disagree, that too is part of the freedom.

I will tell you what I found threatening in this scenario; the notion that speech should be squelched so the government law enforcement authorities can propagate the myth that they have made us "safer." I find that much more threatening to me... because unlike those who acquiesce to the precept of the benevolence of institutionalized enforcement as a universal reality, I will not cast aside my observations of systemic and prejudicial abuse to which people are subjected for speaking what they believe to be true.

Perhaps you and I disagree on what precisely should constitute "inciting violence." You seem to agree with the establishment that propagating your beliefs and ideas of what violence should be carried out based on that is the same thing as "inciting violence"... I fell that picking up a rock, or stick and hurting someone while leading others is...

Incitement is not the same as excitation. Politicians, and religious leaders say they "inspire" and "excite" people... by your definition, the will likely be the next silenced group; lest their passions about something "incite" others to act according to their own judgement based upon that excitation... for which, at least according to the prosecution here, is the same thing as being violent in the first place.

This is a matter of interpretation, one which the establishment and her institutionalized authorities have consistently demonstrated is not something we can trust them with. So much so the Jury system had to be 'invented' to ensure these zealots of "justice" don't get out of hand and turn our world into more of a police state than it already is....

As we all know a "plea" of guilty is nothing more than a settlement between the accused and the accuser... this doesn't seem like a victory for freedom and safety to me... especially since the trail was avoided altogether...

*whew* .... sorry about the lengthy response.... By the way GREAT thread!