home

Anonymous "Operation Last Resort" Takes Down U.S. Sentencing Site

Anonymous has hacked the website of the U.S. Sentencing Commission in retaliation for the suicide of Aaron Swartz and in protest of the overly harsh federal sentencing guidelines and policies of the Department of Justice, particularly for hactivists. More here.

From the video: They have been plotting and holding their tongue, but with the death of Aaron, they will wait no longer. They have decided to give the Justice Department a taste of its own medicine and show it the true meaning of infiltration. It wants legislative change and a return to proportionality in sentencing. Today is just the beginning. [More...]

Anonymous is not seeking negotiation. They know they are outside the system. But others are not and Anonymous wants Congress to work with those who are trying to reform the system from within.

Anonymous says the Government cannot ride out this wave. This time there will be change or there will be chaos.

This is a fascinating video. The description of the flaws in the federal sentencing system and the overreach of federal prosecutors is a must to listen to. A transcript is here.

< Friday Night: X Games and Open Thread | Immigration Reform Proposals to be Submitted This Week >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Link to the Anonymous documentary (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 06:20:41 PM EST
    We Are Legion: The Story of the Hacktivists

    For as long as the link lasts anyway. A very enlightening film, especially in light of today's activities.

    My wife is an I.T. director for a bank (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 06:31:15 PM EST
    A small bank, doing great work focusing on investing in green and sustainable businesses. But this stuff makes her so nervous she can't stand thinking about it. She knows how powerless she and her bank ultimately are if the right someone wants to bring it all down. Not that her institution would be targeted, but you never know what "collateral damage" means in this kind of battle.

    Gonna get very interesting, and we're going to see a lot of popular Dems supporting status quo tyranny, no doubt. Will someone in power stand up to lead in the direction of freedom?  

    probable not (none / 0) (#3)
    by nyjets on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 06:42:17 PM EST
    'Will someone in power stand up to lead in the direction of freedom?   '
    Whether you agree with annoynmous or not, what they are doing is extortion. Sooner or latter they are going to hurt innocent people. Nobody in COngress is going to want to be on record in helping them in making policy.

    Parent
    May be true (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 07:06:44 PM EST
    But as extortionists, Anon can't hold a candle to Uncle Sam's cops and suits. As techies, however, I think will have an edge for some time, barring the country becoming a complete tyranny.

    Parent
    "I think THEY will have an edge..." n/t (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 07:07:30 PM EST
    Anonymous does not seem to understand (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 07:44:14 PM EST
    that the Sentencing Commission is not an agency of the Justice Department.  (True, the Justice Dept has undue influence at the Commission, but that's not the same thing at all.)  While the US Atty's Office was threatening Aaron Swartz with conviction for a dozen felonies, and threatening to ask for a seven year sentence (not 35 yrs, as some supporters and media keep saying) if he were to stand trial and be convicted, the Sentencing Commission Guidelines (as Jeralyn and I both commented, after about ten minutes study) were there to tell the judge that the number of counts doesn't matter and that the suggested sentence in such a case was in the range from probation to six months' imprisonment.  While I have plenty of criticisms to level at the Commission, and its Guidelines are totally whacko on certain offenses (mostly when it tries to read Congressional tea leaves), the offenses with which Swartz was charged are not among them. Their website does not seem like an astutely chosen target, it seems to me, even from their point of view (and I agree with their criticisms of our present justice system, although not with their tactics).

    Peter, a clarification (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:26:47 AM EST
    I said the multiple counts wouldn't affect his guideline range appreciably because of grouping rules, but I never calculated the guidelines at 6 months -- in fact, I think they are much higher. What I said: "It's doubtful the added counts would have changed Aaron's sentencing guidelines by much."

    The guideline range for even one count could be quite high, since the guideline for many of the counts is 2B1.1, which is calculated by the amount of loss. (Statutory index here, go to 18 USC 1030 and 18 USC 1343 on pages 10 and 11.) The higher the loss, the higher the guideline range.

    Because the Government was arguing for a really high amount of loss to JStor , and because of the various enhancements under 2B1.1, Aaron's range for even one count would likely be several years, and certainly above 6 months. According to Marty Weinberg, Aaron's second attorney who was negotiating a deal with the Government, his guideline range was around 5 years (half a decade he says):

    Martin Weinberg, Swartz's attorney until Fall 2012, says the problem is the sentencing guidelines that hovered over his deceased client's head.

    "I think it's a more systemic problem that has plagued the criminal justice system since the 1980s ... Congress took the historic power away from judges to individualize sentencing without concern for minimum mandatory sentencing or in this case federal sentencing guidelines that create a coercive club that has lead to over 95 percent of federal defendants pleading guilty," Weinberg said.

    Weinberg argues federal guidelines for sentencing in a case such as Swartz's aren't appropriate because they depend on financial losses.

    "Well the Aaron Swartz case was a paradigm. Greed, monetary motives were not in any respect Aaron's objective in doing what he is alleged to have done," Weinberg said. "Instead, he had political and moral agenda, yet was subject to these coercive and even draconian guidelines that threatened to, after trial if imposed, to extinguish half a decade of his life warehoused in a federal jail."

    ..."Because of the guidelines, the government felt like they reduced it by 90 percent and gave me a plea offer, which was less than six months, when I believe passionately that Aaron Swartz was a person who should've received at worst probation for the crimes that he was facing," Weinberg said.

    Carmen Ortiz said:

    This office sought an appropriate sentence that matched the alleged conduct - a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting. While at the same time, his defense counsel would have been free to recommend a sentence of probation. Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge.

    I think the Government was going to acquiesce in a variance from the guidelines if he plead, not that the guidelines weren't high. There's no indication she was seeking an upward departure or variance from the guidelines that I've seen.

    I agree with much of what Anonymous says about the need for change in Congress and our federal sentencing guidelines. And especially with cutting back on the discretion of prosecutors.

    While I can't support their infiltration of government websites or disclosing of restricted government documents, I do think many of their arguments are valid.

    Congress often dictates when passing a new law with a greater penalty that the Sentencing Commission increase guidelines for that offense. It is Congress that establishes mandatory minimums. The Sentencing Commission takes its cue from Congress. And ultimately, it's the Justice Department that decides what charges to bring, what plea bargain to offer, and what onerous conditions attach to that offer (e.g. waiver of appeal rights) or to a rejection of the offer (superseding indictment with more charges, recidivist enhancement doubling the mandatory minimum for a person with a prior drug felony, even if it was 20 years ago etc.)

    There's plenty of blame to go around, and while Congress and DOJ are responsible for most of it, I don't think it's misguided to put a fair share on the Sentencing Commission.

    Parent

    forgot to include the link (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:28:26 AM EST
    to the Statutory Index, it is here.

    Parent
    I did discuss the "loss" issue carefully (none / 0) (#18)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:16:47 AM EST
    in