Aaron Swartz, Jim Bell, Carl Johnson, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden

[John Young]

The Swartz situation was more complicated than the prinicipal
legal parties involved. A comprehensive legal attack implicated
a slew of people and institutions in Aaron's circle, some who were
frightened into pulling away from him, some of who were forced to
testify much to their later shame and embarassment when that was
made public.

It is not unusual for supporters to run from the scene when pressure
comes down through federal investigators digging into private
affairs, intimidating witnesses, friends and familiies with fruits of
those findings, turning poeple against each other, bamboozling
journalists and publishers who pretend opposition to authority.

Swartz's case parallels what happened to Jim Bell, and to Carl
Johnson.

Prosecutors are highly adept at creating fear in supporters with
grand jury subpoenas for evidence and closed testimony, then
later subpoenaed for trial. This was done with several cypherpunks,
me among them.

During two trials and his imprisonment not a few cypherpunks
came down on Jim Bell, cowardly sorry motherfuckers, some
of them once admired for courage, shown to be candyasses
out to avoid risk beyond rhetoric (as with Manning and Snowden).

Not a few came down on Aaron Swarz, cowardly sorry motherfuckers,
some of them still lamenting the loss of a brave man while hiding
their abandonment of him, stigmatizing his loss of adorableness, his
loss of lovers, true friends and supporters, his lonely withdrawal from
social affairs, his hiding inside his apartment pondering the rest of
his life betrayed by those blaming him for their chickenshitedness.

Swartz died more likely murder, enforced suicide, a killing by
officials and those unable to match Aaron's bravery.

Jim Bell and Carl Johnson were not so easily buffaloed. Although
there continues to be bountiful cowardly motherfuckers who fucked
them as was Manning, as were the Anonymous 16, and will likely be
Snowden, led by the media which takes no chances beyond
rhetoric and hypebole.



At 10:10 AM 1/3/2014, you wrote:

>On Jan 3, 2014 5:34 AM, "James A. Donald" <jamesd at echeque.com> wrote:
> >
> > > At 04:38 PM 12/31/2013, James A. Donald wrote:
> > >> In practice, it is pretty obvious that most practitioners of civil
> > >> disobedience believe they are above the law, that they usually *are*
> > >> above the law, and that in particular Swartz believed he was above the
> > >> law, and was shocked to find that he was not.
> >
> > On 2014-01-03 11:53, Ulex Europae wrote:
> > > You seem to be laboring under a pernicious misapprehension: that there
> > > is a legitimate mandate to obey laws that are unconstitutional and/or
> > > unjust. There is a mandate, but it is just as illegitimate as the
> > > unconstitutional or the unjust law.
> >
> > If someone was to hide a laptop in one of my cupboards, to steal such
> > large amounts of information from my home network as to disrupt its
> > functioning, I would take a sledgehammer to his laptop, and when he
> > showed up to collect his laptop, a sledgehammer to him.
> >
> > Swartz committed a crime against people more powerful than he was,
> > incorrectly thinking he was more powerful than they.
>
>Just who did he commit the crime against, both MIT and JSTOR wanted 
>prosecution dropped.
>
>In your example "your house" represents both MIT and JSTOR.
>
>The rest of your argument makes me think your either a deciple of 
>Authority or here to troll, or both.