[vehementi]

It's pretty disingenuous to downplay attacks vs Anonymous as motivated by them "engaging in such topics with an opinion contrary to that of the intelligence agencies". No, that's not agencies go after Anon. Agencies go after anon because of the actual criminal activity.

edit: I'm receiving disagreement downvotes. What's up?

[fnordfnordfnord]

>Agencies go after anon because of the actual criminal activity.

Where is the due process? There isn't any. Please tell me which actual crimes that some Anons have committed whose consequences are so critical that it justifies the abandonment of longstanding principles of fair governance, and military action to sabotage IRC operations in order to halt the occurrence of said crimes.

[diminoten]

You don't give due process to imminent threats.

It ends up fitting well into a battlefield metaphor - you don't try every single enemy soldier before you shoot them on the battlefield.

The argument can be had whether or not this is indeed a battlefield, but to cry, "due process" won't get much of a reaction out of the folks who are doing this (GCHQ/NSA).

[fnordfnordfnord]

>You don't give due process to imminent threats.

We do, in fact. But I can agree that we rightly don't allow imminent threats of grievous injury or disaster to proceed unchecked. Please, show me what grievous injuries and disasters have been or would have been wrought by anon via IRC. PS Defacing the DOJ website and sending black faxes to US attorneys doesn't count.

>It ends up fitting well into a battlefield metaphor - you don't try every single enemy soldier before you shoot them on the battlefield.

Except this isn't a battlefield and we're not at war.

>The argument can be had whether or not this is indeed a battlefield, but to cry, "due process" won't get much of a reaction out of the folks who are doing this (GCHQ/NSA).

Then they need to go. They have no function in a free/democratic society. If we must keep them, then they cannot have any judicial influence.

[mpyne]

> Then they need to go. They have no function in a free/democratic society.

Snowden himself has said that spy agencies have a place, when they're doing targeted operations. Maybe you should go convince him?

[diminoten]

This argument is a non-starter, because you already begged the question. The argument revolves around whether or not this is a battlefield, and if we are or are not at war.

[fnordfnordfnord]

I see. Can we agree that Ian Fleming and Tom Clancy wrote fiction?

[diminoten]

Quite good fiction, I'd even say!

[vehementi]

I mostly agree with you, but my point is this article is misrepresenting the motive behind those attacks as "these people disagree with the government - quick, silence them" which is obviously not what's going on.

[fit2rule]

Isn't it? Where is the evidence that the targets of the government attack have been given due course to defend themselves in an open court of law, with due process, based on widely acknowledged and agreed upon state law?

There isn't any. That's why this is a politically motivated attack on speech and little else. If you can't see the fascism from here, maybe you're standing too close.

[vehementi]

Evidence of them being given due process is off topic. We are talking about the motives behind the unlawful attacks on Anon. It is not up for debate that a lot of illegal shit is being done and taken credit for by anonymous members of Anon. That is the reason for the actions, not because of Anon's politics. You can't just say since they haven't located specific Anon members to prosecute for those crimes, therefor there cannot possibly be a reason except "rrrr I need to silence you". That doesn't follow.

The DEA raided the known drug den, but since they hadn't conducted court trials first, it could only be because the drug dealers espoused anti establishment political messages!

[fnordfnordfnord]

It's not off-topic at all. Not only has anon been deprived of due-process, so have many people who are completely unrelated, and who are not involved in crime at all.

>It is not up for debate that a lot of illegal shit is being done and taken credit for by anonymous members of Anon.

Most of which are mere nuisances, and none of which involve any immediate danger which might justify such action.

> That is the reason for the actions, not because of Anon's politics.

Okay, then why doesn't GCHQ intercede when they overhear someone planning a burglary, or notice them planning to murder some average plebe?

[fit2rule]

>Okay, then why doesn't GCHQ intercede when they overhear someone planning a burglary, or notice them planning to murder some average plebe?

Exactly. These attacks by GCHQ on innocent members of the public are entirely politically motivated. If due-process is to be done away with "because terrorism" then I'm afraid this leaves a lot of doors wide open for civilians to denounce their government, and rise up in revolution - because without such checks and balances on power, we live in a totalitarian world where those in power, are the only ones with power.

Power, to the people!