The Nationally Directed Effort to Take Down Aaron Swartz

The death of Aaron Swartz, co-founder of Reddit, co-author of the specifications for the Web feed format RSS 1.0 (Rich Site Summary), pioneer of open-source, and  Internet activist against the monopoly of information, was sadly, a death that was coerced. Yes, he apparently killed himself, but it's the government--with the assistance of MIT who over-zealously persecuted through prosecution, and pushed him to that point.  Not the first time, I might add.

The issue here is the abusive treatment of citizens, in particular, one citizen who courageously spoke truth to power, Aaron Swartz, by a government bureaucracy intent on intimidating activists. In this case, prosecuting a person accused of a victimless "crime," if it was a crime at all, and threatening a severe sentence--35-years in jail-- in retaliation for, in this case, advocating on behalf of the free flow of information on the Internet.

What was Aaron Swartz's crime? Attempting to liberate taxpayer paid research journals--that already belonged to the public--to the public for free, journals that the "owner" of the records, JSTOR, declined to press charges. Swartz did not seek to profit from the information he liberated, and the writers/researchers had already been compensated for the work, unlike all of corrupt banksters, CEOs, and politicians, who not only go free but are rewarded for intentionally bringing down the global economy.

“..he used an open network connection at MIT, which explicitly allowed free guest access, to download academic research papers that were available for free for any user on that particular network."

According to a good friend of his, Aaron Swartz had a "much broader agenda than the information freedom fights for which he had become known." He was also a "political activist interested in health care, financial corruption, and the drug war."  To sum it up, Aaron's goal was making "life a little less unfair." And for that, he paid the ultimate price.

Here are some of the more unusual aspects in this case:

Two days before Aaron Swartz was arrested, the Secret Service took over the investigation.

"On the morning of January 4, 2011, at approximately 8:00 am, MIT personnel located the netbook being used for the downloads and decided to leave it in place and institute a packet capture of the network traffic to and from the netbook.4 Timeline at 6. This was accomplished using the laptop of Dave Newman, MIT Senior Network Engineer, which was connected to the netbook and intercepted the communications coming to and from it. Id. Later that day, beginning at 11:00 am, the Secret Service assumed control of the investigation."

The top federal prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz and her assistant Stephen Heymann rejected any deal that did not involve a prison sentence.

Aaron Swartz prosecutor 'drove another hacker to suicide in 2008 after he named him in a cyber crime case'

“In his suicide note, James said he had no faith in the justice system, which he believed were trying to tie him to a crime he did not commit.

'I have no faith in the "justice" system. Perhaps my actions today, and this letter, will send a stronger message to the public.

'Either way, I have lost control over this situation, and this is my only way to regain control.

'Remember, it's not whether you win or lose, it's whether I win or lose, and sitting in jail for 20, ten, or even five years for a crime I didn't commit is not me winning. I die free.'

James was the first juvenile put into confinement for a federal cyber crime case.

And last, but certainly not least, from emptywheel, who seems to be breaking most of the news regarding the death of Aaron Swartz, the Department of Justice invoked Aaron Swartz’ manifesto to justify investigative methods.

“And look at the passage from the Manifesto they quote in the brief, which appears in this larger passage.

“There is no justice in following unjust laws. It’s time to come into the light and, in the grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public culture.

We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that’s out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks.

In context, much of the manifesto advocates for things that are perfectly legal: sharing documents under Fair Use. Taking information that is out of copyright and making it accessible. Purchasing databases and putting them on the web.

Aside from sharing passwords, about the only thing that might be illegal here (depending on copyright!) is downloading scientific journals and uploading them to file sharing networks.

Precisely what the government accused Swartz of.

But they don’t cite that passage. Rather, they cite the “making copies” passage–something not inherently illegal. As if that justified the investigative tactics they used.

Used as it is in this page-limited brief arguing why their tactics were legal, the citation is really bizarre. But it does seem to admit that the government considers Swartz’ role in the Open Access movement to be as much proof he was a criminal as that he chose to download the documents at MIT and not Harvard.

This is just one more example of how distorted the whole US justice system has become in order to please the elite few who want to retain their power and wealth at any cost.

“For remember, we live in a world where the architects of the financial crisis regularly dine at the White House — and where even those brought to “justice” never even have to admit any wrongdoing, let alone be labeled “felons.” Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig,

Read more...

Did Bush Set Precedent For the Palin Administration?

I posted this back in early December, however since then, President Obama has made it clear he will not pursue the crimes of the Bush administration when he said, "I don't believe that anybody is above the law," he responded, but "we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards."

If that's true, than why bother investigating any crime? President Obama, more than anything else, reestablish the "rule of law" as that is what makes this country great. Ignoring the Bush Administration's blatant disregard for the law sends the opposite message...that as long as you are rich enough, powerful enough...the law does not apply to you.

Barack Obama may not choose to indulge in the dangerous legal precedent the Bush administration has set, however, unless that legal precedent is overturned, it's very likely, that a President, like, let's say, Sarah Palin, will cite George W. in an attempt to push her agenda forward.

More than three decades ago, David Frost asked Nixon to respond to the following:

"So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal."

Nixon: "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."

23-years later, we emerge from an imperial presidency - no doubt, inspired by former President Nixon's statement, 31-years ago, that he is above the law. If 13 words from an impeached president, who resigned in disgrace, can bring on eight years of a president who declares himself immune from the "rule of law"...imagine what might foment in the future if we allow the precedent of illegal wire-tapping, suspension of habeas corpus, and systematically justifying torture as legal dogma, to stand.

Scott Horton, a New York attorney specializing in international law and human rights, who wrote the cover story in the latest issue of Harper's Magazine, " Justice After Bush: Prosecuting an Outlaw Administration" believes a presidential commission of inquiry would be the swift, clear way to proceed. Normally, the justice system conducts such investigations, however as Horton points out, the justice department itself is the crime scene in this case.

President Bush is doing as much damage as he can on his way out. These are not the actions of a man who will redeem himself - if that's even possible - in the future. However, whether President Bush repents or not is not the issue. If it were, we could afford to let him off the hook, and concentrate on repairing what his administration destroyed, however, this goes far beyond what President Bush, the individual deserves or doesn't deserve and has everything to do with
renewing our nation's commitment to the rule of law.

On June 10, 2008 Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler cosponsored 35 articles of impeachment for indicting George Bush. Included in the list of impeachable offenses:

• Authorization and encouragement of torture as official policy
• Fabrications about Iraq’s nuclear weapons
• Lies about Iraq’s connections to al Qaeda
• Retaliation against those who tried to tell the truth
  
• Direct responsibility for extraordinary rendition
• Illegal detention of U.S. citizens and foreign captives (including the imprisonment of children)
• Warrantless wiretapping
• Failure to protect the U.S. by heeding pre-9/11 warnings
• Failure to protect soldiers in Iraq with proper armor
• Failure to protect the residents of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina
• Instructing subordinates to disregard congressional subpoenas
• 1,100 signing statements releasing him from carrying out even those laws passed during his own administration.

Faces of the Fallen

Read more...

The Tragic Legacy of President Bush.

Bill Moyers talks to former constitutional and civil rights lawyer Glenn Greenwald about President Bush, his disregard for the rule of law and government accountability.

Part One:


Part Two:


Part Three:

Read more...