|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Hidden with code "Submitted as Feature" |
|
News :: Crime & Police |
|
Terrorist Threats Bring Lenient Treatment |
Current rating: 0 |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
28 Dec 2002
Modified: 10:05:44 AM |
|
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. 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
|
|
More Reasons This Stands Out As Peculiar |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
28 Dec 2002
Modified: 10:18:08 PM |
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, 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 there 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. It certainly looks like there are two very disparate systems of justice in operation in this country.
More info on this case:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/12/27/foreign.students.ap/index.html
Earlier reporting on hundreds of detentions of Middle Eastern immigrants:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/8626/index.php |
