|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
News :: Crime & Police |
|
Terrorist Threats Bring Lenient Treatment |
Current rating: 0 |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
29 Dec 2002
|
White skin privilege results in slap-on-the-wrist
The Dec. 28, 2002 edition of the News-Gazette brought news of the apparent conclusion of the case against Max Weissberg, 21, who was charged with the federal crime of transmitting an interstate communication of a threat on August 26. The threat by Weissberg was designed to discredit the Green Party campaign for Congress of Carl Estabrook by pretending it was from a non-existent group of Middle Eastern terrorists, implying that terrorists supported Estabrook for Congress. The charge against Weissberg, who admitted his responsibility for the crime, could have resulted in a prison term of five years and a maximum fine of $250,000. Instead, the charge will be completely dropped if Weissberg successfully completes a 18 month long diversion program. If Weissberg had been of Middle Eastern descent, it is very likely that this case would have had a far different outcome. |
The Dec. 28, 2002 edition of the News-Gazette brought news of the apparent conclusion of the case against Max Weissberg, 21, who was charged with the federal crime of transmitting an interstate communication of a threat on August 26. Weissberg, formerly of Champaign (but allowed to move to Portland, Oregon by the court after his arrest), used a computer at his mother's Mahomet home to send an e-mail that threatened to blow up school buses to the CU Cityview, a local weekly paper.
The threat by Weissberg was designed to discredit the Green Party campaign for Congress of Carl Estabrook by pretending it was from a non-existent group of Middle Eastern terrorists, implying that terrorists supported Estabrook for Congress. It played on the Cityview's decision to pull Estabrook's regular column from their pages for the duration of his campaign to avoid what they saw as a conflict of interest. It demanded that the Cityview restore the column or school buses would be blown up to protest their decision to suspend it. The staff at the Cityview contacted authorities, who traced the messsage to the computer in Mahomet and served a search warrant to seize it. Forensic investigation determined that it was Max Weissberg who had sent the threat.
The charge against Weissberg, who admitted his responsibility for the crime, could have resulted in a prison term of five years and a maximum fine of $250,000. Instead, the charge will be completely dropped if Weissberg successfully completes a 18 month long diversion program. The Assistant U.S. Attorney handling the case insisted that "cases such as this are taken very seriously by the government," but the actions in suspending prosecution and placing Weissberg in diversion clearly deprecate the seriousness of the case.
Weissberg's attorney, Steve Beckett, claimed that the case raised First Amendment issues, according to the News-Gazette article. However, if Weissberg had merely wished to express his constitutionally-protected opinions, it would seem that a letter to the editor of the Cityview, instead of a faked threat, would have been more appropriate.
One thing is clear from the outcome of this case. Weissberg's white skin privilege seems to have been the deciding factor in the decision to place him in the diversion program, feeeing him from any propect of prison or a hefty fine. If Weissberg had been of Middle Eastern descent, it is very likely that this case would have had a far different outcome. Currently, the federal government is indefinitely holding numerous people with Middle Eastern, Arab, or Muslim backgrounds who have been charged with NO crime at all, in stark contrast to the charge against Weissberg.
The News-Gazette article came more than a week after the resolution of the case in federal court in Urbana on Dec. 20. It also mistakenly claimed that Mr. Estabrook's Green Party campaign was on behalf of the "Progressive Party," which seems not to have run a candidate for federal office since the ill-fated campaign of Henry Wallace for president in 1948.
Like much of the News-Gazette's coverage of local political issues, this article seems to be stuck in a time warp from the middle of the last century. One can only wonder if, following the death of News-Gazette owner Marajen Stevick Chinigo, the foundation that the paper was placed under control of will make attempts to ensure that local political coverage is more thorough and accurate, instead of serving the narrow parochial interests of its owner.
Follow this link to original coverage of this story: |
See also:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/7599
|
Comments
|
More Reasons This Stands Out As Peculiar |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
29 Dec 2002
|
The lenient treatment meted out to Weissberg stands in stark contrast to the way others accused of the same crime have been treated. Was it the high-powered legal representation by Mr. Beckett or the fact that Weissberg's parents are notable members of local conservative circles? Is it because he only threatened to blow up school buses, instead of threatening the pResident?
For instance, take the case of 17-year old Johnnie Edward Harris, who is accused of sending two e-mails threatening to kill pResident Bush. He faces a trial even after admitting he had sent the threats, even though "he did nothing to follow through on the threat..." Strangely, the case is being prosecuted in state court in Macomb County, Michigan. There the local prosecutor stated that "[w]hether he intended to carry out the threat -- and we're not saying he did -- is not germane to the case." Perhaps Weissberg should have been turned over to the tender mercies of John Piland, Champaign County State's Attorney, instead of getting the free ride that he received in federal court here?
For more info on this case: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=6518322&BRD=988&PAG=461&dept_id=141265&rfi=6
Then there is the case of six foreign students who have been in jail for the last 10 days because they aren't carrying the required 12 hours of course work in the fall semester required by their student visas, including one poor kid who was just one hour short of 12. They were thrown in the slammer after following instructions to report for a special registration required by the INS for citizens of a number of Middle Eastern countries, just as hundreds of others have been at several other locations around the country.
More info on this case: http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/12/27/foreign.students.ap/index.html
It certainly looks like there are two very disparate systems of justice in operation in this country.
Earlier reporting on hundreds of detentions of Middle Eastern immigrants: http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/8626/index.php
|
|
Re: Terrorist Threats Bring Lenient Treatment |
by Dr. John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 2
30 Dec 2002
Modified: 07:50:46 AM |
Human nature is more irrational than rational, therefore
the legal system is more irrational than rational, like
everything else. In the Weissberg case, I suspect that
political factors (hostility towards the Green Party) and
the local social standing of his parents were primarily
responsible for the lenient treatment. It's also possible
that random chance (luck) may have played a role.
There was a similar case involving an undergraduate
student from the University of Illinois, who sent an
e-mail threatening to kill President Clinton a few years
back (as reported by the News-Gazette). He was sent to
prison, notwithstanding the fact that he was a white male.
It makes me wonder if anything would have happened if
he had threatened to kill Ralph Nader, rather than Clinton.
|
|
Re: Terrorist Threats Bring Lenient Treatment |
by CARL ESTABROOK
cge (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
31 Dec 2002
Modified: 12:43:11 PM |
ML's account, like his earlier remarks on this incident, is detailed and correct so far as I know (although young Weissberg was not I think exactly "allowed to move to Portland, Oregon" -- he's apparently a student there, at Reed College). But I do think the court made the right decision -- the charges should indeed have been dismissed, on free speech grounds. In fact, the restrictions that the court placed on Weissberg seem to me to be an unacceptable use of judicial power.
Weissberg is a Zionist fanatic and a writer of scurrilous letters (there are other examples), but the FBI (and the court) are exceeding their powers by harassing an exercise of free speech, however stupid and vicious; they get away with it because of the government-stoked hysteria on "terrorism." (Imagine how excited the local FBI boys must have been to have their own terrorist case.) But the First Amendment contains no exceptions for stupidity or viciousness.
The FBI showed me the text shortly after the Cityview editor raised the alarm, and it was clear that it was a hoax, a "black advance" as the spooks say (i.e., the sort of thing that the FBI does -- see COINTELPRO). The author's ignorance of Islam and bias in favor of US/Israeli oppression were immediately obvious, even though the note purported to be from a Muslim terrorist group. Public monies were wasted for the time the FBI and court spent on this sordid bagatelle (to say nothing of my lawyer's fee, since I refused to talk to the FBI without her presence). That our secret police are rousting people over communications like this is the real scandal.
Regards, Carl Estabrook
|
|
Re: Terrorist Threats Bring Lenient Treatment |
by mary tilman
onionforum (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
02 Jan 2003
|
|
typical dirty trick |
|
Re: Terrorist Threats Bring Lenient Treatment |
by M. Gordon
mpgordon (nospam) uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jan 2003
Modified: 10:44:13 AM |
I think this "article" is typical of the quality of journalism common to this organization. To wit, "One thing is clear from the outcome of this case. Weissberg's white skin privilege seems to have been the deciding factor in the decision to place him in the diversion program, feeeing [sic] him from any propect of prison or a hefty fine." Immediately below, to their credit, your readers cite multiple examples of equivalent cases in which young white males were treated much less graciously by the government. And yet, in the absence of any research or supporting evidence, you say that this episode "clearly" indicates that his treatment resulted from the fact that he was white. This is irresponsible journalism, as it either willfully, or else negligently, omits relevant information and draws highly specious conclusions.
This is only part of the larger problem exhibited by almost everything produced by the IMC that I've ever read. Speculating on what would have happened if he were Middle-Eastern leaps from the negligent to the fantastical, wholly removing this story from the realm of reporting. The ugly implications of this statement are, of course, left to the reader, seething, unsaid, under the surface. Leave it to Carl Estabrook to at least do the dubious justice of bringing the true ugliness to light by using the "Zionist fanatic" code-word.
And, of course, Mr. Estabrook's apparent magnanimity towards his malefactors, while touching, is misguided. Since Oliver Wendell Holmes it has been well established that speech that engenders clear and present danger does not have constitutional protections. The number and magnitude of the Bush administration's offenses against the constitution, freedom of speech, due process, and privacy are well-documented, even by the hated "big media." Choosing a pariah and a clear criminal as a standard-bearer for your cause does nothing but sap your credibility. Fortunately, Mr. Estabrook lacked credibility to begin with, due to his long and lingering dalliance with half-crazed conspiracy theory and propagandist invective, making the loss negligible.
M. Gordon
---
I remain committed to a sane and intelligent form of liberal discourse. I tolerate stupidity from conservatives, because it's what I've come to expect, but I will brook no propagandist drivel from my compatriots. |
|
We'll Have To Disagree |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jan 2003
Modified: 06:57:28 PM |
Just to be clear, I share Carl's reservations about this being decided on what was said by Weissberg. While I do agree with you that threats are not protected language under the First Amendment, I also think it is a very slippery slope that this is on in the midst of the current "anti-terrorist" hysteria. It's far too easy for this to be abused by the government.
My feeling is that his case should have been prosecuted as FRAUD. Weissberg was certainly neither Middle Eastern (nor probably serious about carrying out his threat) but he did perpetrate fraud by claiming to be what he wasn't and defaming the character of others without good reason. He fraudulently misrepresented himself in a criminal manner, so let's leave the First Amendment out of this, while not ignoring his obviously sociopathic behavior.
And I noted some info that I think substantiates my claim that justice is being applied unevenly in this case. Why should threatening the President be taken anymore seriously than any other threat? That certainly is selective enforcement.
Perhaps it was a bit of journalistic hyperbole to say that Weissberg's lenient treatment was due solely to his skin color. The fact that his family is well-off and probably politically connnected to the kind of people that can influence the legal system certainly is a factor, not to mention being able to afford the good services of a skillful attorney like Steve Beckett. But in a country where issues of class are clearly tied to issues of race (yes, there are still vast disparities in the average class position between whites and other ethnic and racial groups), issues of class and race are inextricably linked in this country.
And it's certainly not "fantastical" to speculate on what would have happened if Weissberg had been Middle Eastern. I think the case I cited in my additional commentary points out that even when people of Middle Eastern origin are accused of far LESS than what Weissberg was accused of they are treated far more harshly. Or maybe you consider what was done to the students in Colorado somehow legitimate on the part of the government? Sorry, I disagree strongly. And not even mentioned were the many cases of deportations and detentions without charges that people of who are Muslims have faced. You've mostly heard nothing about that because the government has been stonewalling on addressing the legal issues involved and the nearly always all-too-compliant dominant media has been none too eager to confront this obvious violation of legal and human rights as any really "free" press should. The local case where this happened saw our IMC in the forefront of exposing the government's BS so that, at least in this case, the person was treated fairly and released on bail.
And where do you get the idea that the dominant media covers everything and never "omits relevant information [or] draws highly specious conclusions"? Maybe they only omit the info you prefer to have omitted, so you haven't noticed.
Now that you have gotten me to more fully express my views on your concerns, although we will probably still disagree, I don't see why you're making such a derisive point about why you "think this 'article' is typical of the quality of journalism common to this organization." I happen to believe that, while we are not perfect, our kind of journalism, along with the immediate opportunity for the public to interact with the media that it offers, and to even write and post their own stories (maybe you don't because you may not feel capable of living up to your own somewhat warped standards?) compares very favorably with the turgid, stodgy, and highly selective journalism you can read in the News-Gazette and view on local TV. It's ridiculous to claim that THOSE media are somehow superior, but I'll note that you didn't specifically claim they were superior, just that you don't like Indymedia.
And where do you get the idea that I chose Weissberg "as a standard-bearer for [my] cause" that "does nothing but sap [my] credibility." I don't think I said anything that associated myself in any way with what Mr. Weissberg did nor do I see him as a standard bearer for anything except the silliness that goes to some peoples' heads when the listen to too much Rush Limbaugh or other ridiculous conservatives. And I certainly disagree with that crap, so Weissberg isn't representing me in anything he does.
And finally, why did you waste half of what started off as a criticism of me and Indymedia on dissing Carl Estabrook? Sour grapes from the last election? Sorry, but Josh Hartke didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell to beat Johnson and the Dems didn't even bother to consider challenging Johnson until Carl got in the race, so there's no reason to be pissed at what Carl campaigned for, unless you're one of those Democrats who prefers to portray their party as damn-near-Republicans, hoping the voters don't notice, and are then surprised when they'd rather vote for real Republicans, instead of fakey ones? [run-on sentence alert!] At least the Champaign County Dems seem to not be afflicted by such nonsense, for the most part, having run and won on the kind of platform that the national Dems ought to pay attention to if they really want to dig themselves out of the hole they're in.
|
|
