Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

UK Woman Charged As Terrorist For Computer Files 470

Posted by Zonk
from the more-you-know dept.
Terror Alert Brown writes "Reuters is reporting that a UK woman has been charged as a terrorist because of computer files on her hard drive. According to the article, these files included 'the Al Qaeda Manual, The Terrorists Handbook, The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook, a manual for a Dragunov sniper rifle, and The Firearms and RPG Handbook.' She was picked up in connection with the plot stopped in August to detonate explosives in airplanes flying out of Heathrow airport. Now might be a good time to delete any copies of the Anarchist's Cookbook you once read for amusement and still have floating around on your hard drive."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Woman Charged As Terrorist For Computer Files

Comments Filter:
  • by topham (32406) on Friday November 10, 2006 @07:34PM (#16800296) Homepage
    She was linked to terrorists, and the files are evidence.

    She wasn't arrested and charged BECAUSE of the files.
    there is a difference.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by bunions (970377)

      Police on Thursday charged a woman on terrorism-related offences for possession of a computer hard drive loaded with operating manuals for guns, poisons, mines and munitions.


      Sounds like she was arrested for possession to me. I'm sure the police have reasons to suspect her as a terrist as well, but unless I read TFA wrong, she was arrested for possession of forbidden documents.
      • by zxnos (813588) <zxnoss@gmail.com> on Friday November 10, 2006 @07:48PM (#16800430)
        read the next paragraph ma man...

        Police said the charges against the woman were connected with the arrest last month of a man caught at Heathrow airport in possession of a night vision scope and a poisons handbook.

        the wouldnt have looked at her without some evidence she was linked to the man who was arrested prior who had similar documents on a hard drive.

        • by cold fjord (826450) on Friday November 10, 2006 @08:06PM (#16800620)
          A totally innocent combo:

          ...in possession of a night vision scope .... and a poisons handbook.
          ... especially in light of:

          MI5 tracking '30 UK terror plots' [bbc.co.uk]
          MI5 knows of 30 terror plots threatening the UK and is keeping 1,600 individuals under surveillance, the security service's head has said.


          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by The_Wilschon (782534)

            MI5 tracking '30 UK terror plots' MI5 knows of 30 terror plots threatening the UK and is keeping 1,600 individuals under surveillance, the security service's head has said.

            And where, I ask, has our precious "innocent until proven guilty" gone? This sort of thing (and don't tell me it doesn't happen in the good ol' Land of the Free and Home of the Brave too) is ludicrous. Absolutely flipping ludicrous. Has a crime been committed? Has anyone been accused of committing a crime? No? Then let the po

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by cold fjord (826450)
              Absolutely flipping ludicrous. Has a crime been committed? Has anyone been accused of committing a crime? No?

              Well, yes [bbc.co.uk], actually. In fact, more than one. They are trying to prevent a repeat.

              And where, I ask, has our precious "innocent until proven guilty" gone?

              It is still there, but it applies at trial, not in investigations. Investigations don't involve questions of legal guilt or innocence. You investigate based on leads or suspicion, not based on presumption of guilt.

              Then let the police keep their fa
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Tsagadai (922574)
            If there are 1,600 terrorists in England you are screwed. There were only about 1,000 in fallujah (according to a close friend who was there as a doctor) and the US had 20,000+ troops against them. If there are 1,600 terrorists that's it head for the hills. ...but we all know thats not the case. What there really is, is alot of people "suspected" or witch hunted by the government for some reason. And in all seriousness that is only their official claim of how many they are watching. I'm becoming quite terr
        • They story implies she was linked just beacuse she shared a common interest in documents.

          And since when is carrying a book and night-vision goggles illegal? Again, no concrete reasons were implied in teh story except for the 'evil' books.

          Perhaps there is more meat to this and there is a real link between them and a real reason to be arrested, but the story i saw has nothing.
        • by bunions (970377) on Friday November 10, 2006 @08:43PM (#16800948)
          My point is that the charge against her is apparently "possession of forbidden documents." I understand the reason that she's a suspect.

          > they wouldnt have looked at her without ...

          you're getting close to the "don't worry about making everything illegal, the cops will only arrest people they think are criminals" argument.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by cold fjord (826450)
            My point is that the charge against her is apparently "possession of forbidden documents."

            I think you are probably completely wrong there. I think it is most likely she has run afoul of the law for what you could call "contextual crimes", that is, having something that is innocent unless you are involved in law breaking which could involve that particular item. Some examples:

            A crowbar in your workshop or garage is a crowbar. A crowbar in your hands at 3:00 AM in another town used to help break into a hou
      • by xoyoyo (949672) on Friday November 10, 2006 @08:48PM (#16800990)
        Forbidden in the context of terrorism, yes. If I was writing a book about Al Qaeda I could legally possess the Al Qaeda Manual; if I was planning an act of terrorism it wouldn't.

        The relevant section of the Terrorism Act 2000 is here - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--g.htm# 57 [opsi.gov.uk]

        It's not a great law as it basically makes being a bit terroristy a crime rather than something concrete such as possession of a weapon - possess a weapon such as plastic explosive and you've committed an offence (assuming you're not special forces or in mining); planning to do a terrorist spectacular would make the offence worse, but even if the law couldn't prove terrorist intent they'd still have you. Here the law has to prove (should this ever come to court) terrorist intent, otherwise there's no offence.

        But it's better than banning the books outright.
    • by gillbates (106458) on Friday November 10, 2006 @08:18PM (#16800702) Homepage Journal

      I think the most terrifying aspect of this whole thing is that she was arrested not because of anything she did, but rather because of her association with others the government doesn't like.

      This isn't justice; it's not even close. It's more like vigilantism with official sanction.

      How long will it be before merely showing an interest in "Terrorist Causes" or "Terrorist Methods" - however defined by the government - is enough to get one arrested? Or has it happened already?

      Democracy in Britain is officially dead.

      • by Turn-X Alphonse (789240) on Friday November 10, 2006 @08:29PM (#16800810) Journal
        Democracy=This,

        If the people say they want a witch hunt then you have to give the people a witch hunt. If you think democracy is some magic wand where everyone does right then you're wrong. It's an excuse for the masses to hunt the minorities while feeling they have the high ground and "doing the right thing".
        • by IgnoramusMaximus (692000) on Friday November 10, 2006 @08:51PM (#16801020)
          If the people say they want a witch hunt then you have to give the people a witch hunt. If you think democracy is some magic wand where everyone does right then you're wrong. It's an excuse for the masses to hunt the minorities while feeling they have the high ground and "doing the right thing".

          That is why most "democratic" nations are actually variations on a theme called "Republic". That is the democractic will of the masses is constrained by a set of rules, such as the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, and the like. This prevents (at least in theory) tragic outcomes of the proverbial situation where 2 wolves and a sheep vote democratically on "what's for dinner?".

          And that is precisely why the recent abolishment of Habeas Corpus by the "conservative" fear mongerers is such a devastating (and maybe fatal) blow to the integrity of system of government of the US.

        • by udderly (890305) * on Friday November 10, 2006 @09:50PM (#16801594)
          Please try to read John Stuart Mill's treatise, On Liberty. Mill discusses a danger to democracy he refers to as "the tyranny of the majority." This is one of the strongest arguments for a Republic that has intrinsic rights at its core.
      • by Kuciwalker (891651) on Friday November 10, 2006 @08:39PM (#16800910)
        How is this insightful? She was "associated with" people who tried to blow up several airplanes. I use quotes because it sounds like they're saying she was a collaborator, or part of the cell. These aren't people "the government doesn't like," these are people who demonstrably tried to kill hundreds of innocent people.
        • by snarkth (1002832) on Saturday November 11, 2006 @12:22AM (#16802548)
          So... do you know, for certain, that everyone you know, or have exchanged files with or phone messages or mail or time with, is *not* or *will not in the future* be considered a criminal or a terrorist?

            Years ago I dated a woman for several months who was arrested (and eventually convicted) as being a courier for a methamphetmine distribution ring a few months after we ceased seeing each other. I had no idea what she was into, but I was visited many times by police officers who grilled me at length as to our relationship - because my phone# was in her cellphone and there were "handwritten documents" - letters, notes, journal entries - in her domicile that had my name on them - and threatened with prison for being "non-cooperative"; my apartment was searched twice, and details of the investigation leaked to local reporters.

            I was "associated" with a drug ring, although I had no knowledge nor involvement in it. Fortunately I was cleared without being indicted or subpeoned, but only after several months of random interrogation and very annoying, obvious and aggravating surveillance which cost me reputation and money. Many months later there were still people spreading damaging rumors about me; I eventually moved more than a thousand miles from there, partially for personal reasons, but also because my business dried up to an extent as a result of the attention. One of the things the police threw at me was our intense exchange of phone calls over that short period. They just didn't seem to believe that maybe I was interested in her because she was an attractive woman. I spoke to a local lawyer about it who told me there was no recourse - iow, I couldn't sue the local police department for the damage caused.

            I'd like to note that no public statement was ever made by the local PD regarding my innocence, despite repeated demands on the part of me and my lawyer to do so. That, to me, was criminal negligence on the part of the local PD. How many times does one see public apologies for ruining someone's life in that sort of circumstance? IF this woman turns out to have been innocently duped, will she ever recover her life? What recourse might *she* have?

            In the US, we have this oft-repeated yet apparently little understood concept called "innnocent until proven guilty". Or at least we used to.

            I'm not defending the woman in the article (insufficient data), but I am trying to point out just how damaging baseless allegations can be, especially when made by "authorities" and spread by the media - and if you think that you are immune to it, you might want to reconsider that. It can happen to anyone; don't think you're immune to it simply because you are innocent. People in a society are interconnected, that's why we call it a society. What are you going to do, avoid all connections with other people? There was another sort of damage there - I'm even more paranoid than I used to be when it comes to relationships. Can I sue them for it? Should I? I've been advised against it, as the burden of "proof of damages" would be too difficult. But the damage is very real.

            So tell me, friend, where should the line be drawn?

          snarked

           
      • by DerekLyons (302214) <fairwater@gmail. c o m> on Friday November 10, 2006 @08:55PM (#16801058) Homepage
        I think the most terrifying aspect of this whole thing is that she was arrested not because of anything she did, but rather because of her association with others the government doesn't like.

        You act as if this is a new thing - but its not. She could just as easily been implicated in a group plotting a murder, or a bank heist, or an insurance fraud scheme - and still be picked up questioning and possible charged if she was found in possesion of circumstantial evidence linked to that type of crime. Its pretty much routine.
         
         
        Democracy in Britain is officially dead.

        Nah. Nothing much has changed (at least in this particular case) except it made the media. (If she was implicated in a child pornography ring, and found with lolikon on her PC - I bet you'd be among the first frothing at the mouth to hang her high.)
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Your response might seem reasonable if she had been convicted on the basis of this evidence. But she was merely arrested. You're making a lot of noise over nothing. People all over the world are routinely arrested with this amount of evidence against them. This is entirely reasonable. If she were convicted for associations, that'd be different.

        Oh...and I ought to point out that 'democracy' defines how the government is elected and not how much evidence is needed for an arrest.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by purduephotog (218304)
        That's called criminal behaviour. When one criminal associates with another person, that person could theoretically be considered a suspect by a normal, sane individual.

        Unless it's posted on Slashdot, in which case it's condsidered spying and intrusive.

        If I have a long dinner conversation with a known money launderer and I run a business, and he's under investigation, don'tcha think the police are going to take a little bit longer look at my business practices?

        Common sense.

        Good for them.
      • by Zemran (3101) on Friday November 10, 2006 @10:57PM (#16802026) Homepage Journal
        Do you remember the paedophile riots a few years back when a paediatrician in Portsmouth was beaten up because the mob were too stupid to know the difference?

        Same mentality, new cause...
    • by lawpoop (604919)
      What exactly was her "link" to terrorists? Perhaps these files themselves?

      I have a wide circle of friends. Perhaps one or two of them sells weed. If I downloaded a pot-growing manual, does that give the government enough cause to arrest me as a narco-trafficker?
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        If someone is arrested because of intent to commit a criminal act, then one of the obvious things to do is see who they associate with. If any of those people have equipment or other evidence in their possession that suggests they are conspiring with that person, then they'll get arrested. Let's change your example a bit - if you know someone who sells pot in large quantities and gets arrested, then it's probably time to get rid of all the equipment you have for growing it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Durrok (912509)
      Well let me give you an example:

      I was walking home from my sister's apartment and a cop stopped me. FREEZE, hands on the gun, whole deal. I was handcuffed, pockets emptied, and sat on the curb. I was then told they were looking for people that were breaking into cars. Since I had two cell phones (one for work and one for personal use) they were pretty convinced I was one of them, even though I listed off the names in the address book but couldn't tell them the number for my work phone (hell I never call
  • by BWJones (18351) * on Friday November 10, 2006 @07:34PM (#16800298) Homepage Journal
    I am hoping that there were other lines of evidence against this woman as this is what we need to be very careful about here in the US. The concept of a thought crime is not new and any society that starts prosecuting individuals for books they may possess or for studying things is becoming a a darkness right out of an Orwellian nightmare.

    Hell, as kids we had copies of the Anarchists cookbook and manuals that the US government printed for crafting insurgencies and survival that had all sorts of directions for creating improvised munitions and such. It makes me wonder if we would have been suspects back then. Of course the early 80's were a different time when a couple of 14-15 year olds could carry a rifle out in the Texas countryside to shoot cans without even a second glance. Now, we have bastardized Republicans (Neocons) who are out to create National IDs, document any passage in and out of the country, search our personal information including credit files and library files, and some even propose to index all of the information on personal computers in an effort to screen out "enemy combatants" not to mention revoking Constitutional rights such as Habeus Corpus. It's a strange time.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dbIII (701233)

      I am hoping that there were other lines of evidence against this woman

      There probably isn't. Recall that from the information so far the investigation is into planned attack on planes with explosives by people with no tickets, no passports, no back door onto a plane, no explosives, no explosive components and no equipment to manufacture explosives. It appears that some faulty intellience supplied by unaccountable spooks triggered arrests when there was no evidence of any crime. Considering that conspiric

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by heli0 (659560)
      "Now, we have bastardized Republicans (Neocons) who are out to create National IDs, document any passage in and out of the country..."

      You must have a short memory. National ID cards were part of the Democratic health care initiative (aka 'Hillarycare') in 1993, and it was Hillary again in 2003 that proposed the introduction of a national ID card to monitor immigration.

      It looks like the republicrats have both sides convinced that these ID cards are a conspiracy of the "other guys".

      http://www.lp.org/ [lp.org]
    • by IcyHando'Death (239387) on Friday November 10, 2006 @09:52PM (#16801604)
      Some reading material for you all:

      The Al Qaeda Manual: http://www.disastercenter.com/terror/ [disastercenter.com]
      The Terrorist's Handbook: http://www.totse.com/en/bad_ideas/irresponsible_ac tivities/168593.html [totse.com]
      The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook: http://www.thedisease.net/arcana/nbc/chemical/Muja hideen_Poisons.pdf [thedisease.net]
      The Dragunov Sniper Rifle Technical Description and Service Manual: http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/manual/english/svd/ [kalashnikov.guns.ru]

      Now don't go reading this stuff and getting yourself arrested.
  • When (Score:5, Funny)

    by captnitro (160231) on Friday November 10, 2006 @07:35PM (#16800304)
    When the Mujahideen Poisons Handbook is outlawed, only outlaws will have the Mujahideen Poisons Handbook.
  • by A beautiful mind (821714) on Friday November 10, 2006 @07:36PM (#16800312)
    ...that the EU rules on flight were strictened for basically no logical reason, but based on the horsecrap Blair is feeding to the UK and the world.

    Basically the overwhelming majority of experts on the field confirmed that liquid explosives and things like dirty bombs are not feasible or existant.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Better review your "experts", then. Liquid explosives are both "feasible" and "existant". (Try "extant", BTW.)

      In fact, some explosives are preferred in some applications precisely because they're liquid. That's one of the main virtues of an ANFO slurry, for example. You just pump it into the holes you drilled in the rock and set it off. (The other big virtue is that it's cheap.) Since it's a liquid, it automatically fills all the gaps, and it's a lot easier just to pour it in than to try to pack down
      • by A beautiful mind (821714) on Friday November 10, 2006 @08:08PM (#16800632)
        Yeah. That's why they wanted to use TATP [wikipedia.org]. You would only need to bring a complete mobile chemical laboratory to the plane, mix stuff with chemical fumes and being extemely careful for 2-2.5 hours in the toilet and then if you're lucky you could detonate it. Sounds realistic.

        About dirty bombs: it spreads the radiation! This means the small pieces are not nearly enough to cause even a temporary health problem! -- that's a summary coming from a terrorism expert.
      • by FungiFromYuggoth (822668) on Friday November 10, 2006 @08:12PM (#16800660)
        Experts have pointed out that the UK peroxide bombing plot, as discussed, was wildly implausible [interesting-people.org].

        You are completely correct that both liquid and binary explosives exist. Nitroglycerin has been used as an explosive in the past.

        However, the restrictions on carryon luggage didn't seem to be solving any actual security problem and don't really seem intended to. (If you're really worried about binary explosives, why make them pour the containers into the same bin, in front of what could be hundreds of people?)

        • Calling a chemistry student [interesting-people.org] who admits to working off from second hand reports, and then guessing as to the process involved, and who doesn't have any stated expertise in binary explosives or especially the formulations or processes that may have been developed by real chemists with a background in explosives working for Al Qaeda, an expert is a bit much:

          Now, for reasons that don't need exploring at this juncture, I'm back at school, studying chemistry, and I'm spending this summer in a lab doing organic

  • by SomethingOrOther (521702) on Friday November 10, 2006 @07:41PM (#16800366) Homepage
    I'm from the UK and heard this story on the radio today

    My HD still has the anarchist cookbook and all sorts of shite in my home directory. Stuff I copied from friends on floppys back when I was a 13yo.
    I am honestly getting worried where CCTV Blairs Britan is taking us.

    No I've nothing to hide. I've nothing to share either.

  • by Das Auge (597142) on Friday November 10, 2006 @07:45PM (#16800400)
    Uh, if you'll excuse me, I need to go hide my D&D Player's Handbook. Yeah, it's first edition, but you can't be too careful, I guess.
  • RPG handbook (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chris Burke (6130) on Friday November 10, 2006 @07:45PM (#16800406) Homepage
    "the Al Qaeda Manual, The Terrorists Handbook, The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook, a manual for a Dragunov sniper rifle, and The Firearms and RPG Handbook."

    I of course misinterpreted the acronym, but they sure do look like RPG manual titles, don't they? "Dungeons and Dragunovs". Did they read them? They'd feel rather silly I bet if they said "At level five, you can learn Mujahideen Sneaky Poison Attack that does 2d6 damage if you roll..."

    Not to be flippant, but even the summary points out that she was arrested in connection with a bomb plot, and then these documents were found. Presumeably the prosecution's case will rely on drawing that connection, with the manuals as circumstantial evidence. Frankly if that's the best they have the case may fail, but if it's part of a larger collection of evidence (like that which lead to her arrest) then it may not. The justice system has held up fairly well as fair as maintaining standards of burden of proof even in terrorism cases, so barring something like false arrest I'm not feeling any rights violations here.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by PayPaI (733999)
      I of course misinterpreted the acronym, but they sure do look like RPG manual titles, don't they? "Dungeons and Dragunovs". Did they read them? They'd feel rather silly I bet if they said "At level five, you can learn Mujahideen Sneaky Poison Attack that does 2d6 damage if you roll..."
      Wouldn't be the first time [wikipedia.org]
  • Slashdot needs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10, 2006 @07:49PM (#16800438)
    a terrorism icon.
    • I just found the perfect one [wikimedia.org].
    • Here [gop.com] is a good one.
    • They [slashdot.org] already [slashdot.org] have [slashdot.org] several. [slashdot.org]
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cold fjord (826450)

      If there is going to be a terrorism icon, it should be one that stands on its own and captures the essence of the subject, like maybe this explosion [istockphoto.com]. If that is a little too "spot on", then maybe some dynamite [nasa.gov]. It should not be something used to represent another subject area, including:

      Censorship
      Privacy
      Big Brother
      Republicans
      Democrats

      The particular flavor of extremists providing most of fodder for discussion on Slashdot have goals independent of the often petty political squabbles here.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ggvaidya (747058)
      I vote for The Scream [wikipedia.org]. "Terror! Terror! Oh, snake, it's a ssnnnake, sssnake ..."

      Or it could just represent the rest of us screaming at the sheer inanity of some of the new laws coming out. Whichever.
  • by pedantic bore (740196) on Friday November 10, 2006 @07:51PM (#16800468)
    Now might be a good time to delete any copies of the Anarchist's Cookbook you once read for amusement and still have floating around on your hard drive.

    Don't forget the missing intermediate steps of encrypting it, and then making a backup copy on secure, durable media.

    Someone who has all these files on their hard drives is either a compulsive packrat or might be up to no good... certainly it might raise a few eyebrows. But it shouldn't be illegal to possess these things, and isn't, yet. If possessing certain types of knowledge becomes illegal in and of itself, that's when we'll need the Anarchist's Cookbook the most.

    • by gfilion (80497)

      If possessing certain types of knowledge becomes illegal in and of itself, that's when we'll need the Anarchist's Cookbook the most.

      pedantic bore, you have been identified by our automated communi^M^M^M^M^M^M^Mterrorist identification system. Interrogation agents will come to your house in the next 96 hours. Until then, you must go outside, on your knees and put your arms in the air. If you do not comply to those instructions, you will be shot at view.

      To enter a plea of not guilty, please visit th

  • http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6203 6 38,00.html [guardian.co.uk]

    The first charge alleges that she possessed information on her computer hard drive likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism... Possession of items such as these is an offence under Section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

    The second charge claims Malik possessed "miscellaneous jottings" which may have been held for a purpose connected with terrorism, contrary to Section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

    The third charge a

  • by creimer (824291) on Friday November 10, 2006 @07:55PM (#16800512) Homepage
    Not to be playing RPGs (role playing games). RPGs are likely to get you shot by a gun-toting law official who thinks you're Sauron even though you're pretending to be a well-armed hobbit.
  • by nurb432 (527695) on Friday November 10, 2006 @08:00PM (#16800572) Homepage Journal
    Some of us bought the book ( and others like it ) many years ago, when it was still legal to read, and information was not restricted. Now we may pay for exercising our rights back then since the rules have changed since then.

    Once knowledge becomes a crime, freedom is gone.
  • Now might be a good time to delete any copies of the Anarchist's Cookbook you once read for amusement and still have floating around on your hard drive.

    Whats next?

    Bücherverbrennung
  • by Shihar (153932) on Friday November 10, 2006 @08:13PM (#16800666)
    I think people are jumping to conclusions. It sounds to me like she has more on her then simply having the material that she had. The police say that she was connected with the terrorist cell that was busted up earlier. If she is just an innocent bystander with some sketchy reading material she got out of curiosity (not malicious intent), then I imagine nothing is going to come of this. On the other hand, if she is connected to a terrorist cell and has more then just some questionable reading material, let her burn. I personally will reserve judgment about whether or not this is a violation of her rights until after the charges have been made clear. The little blurb in TFA really doesn't give enough information to judge if this is an over reaction or not.
  • by toby (759) * on Friday November 10, 2006 @08:59PM (#16801092) Homepage Journal
    I could be charged with being heterosexual for the pr0n on my hard drive...
  • A small experiment (Score:4, Interesting)

    by surfcow (169572) on Friday November 10, 2006 @09:13PM (#16801226) Homepage
    Try this: google for "cia manual"

    You find things like:
    KUBARK Coercive Questioning - Counterintelligence Interrogation (Torture)
    A Study of Assassination (Assassination)
    Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare (Terrorism)
    and so on.

    Now, I wonder how much material on her hard-drive came originally from the US?

    I am not sticking up for her or for terrorists or for barnyard sodomists, but I do have to wonder about karma.

    For fun, you can google for "School of the Americas"
    For extra points: go to Wikipaedia and look up "Mujahideen". Look under "Afghan Mujahideen". See who organized, financed, armed and trained them.

    Shake your head and marvel at how stupid OUR governments can be.

  • by NightHwk1 (172799) <jon@ e m p t y f l a s k.net> on Friday November 10, 2006 @09:33PM (#16801444) Homepage

    I'm sure a handful of other people are posting it as I'm writing this, but here's a link to the Mujahideen Poisons handbook [thedisease.net].

    Also, the Al-Qaeda Manual [disastercenter.com] (interestingly, this was distributed by the FBI)

    The Dragunov sniper rifle manual [kalashnikov.guns.ru]

    No luck searching for the RPG & Firearms handbook.

  • by Builder (103701) on Saturday November 11, 2006 @11:16AM (#16805282)
    because I've got all the equipment to carry that out.
  • Bwahahahaha!!! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Master of Transhuman (597628) on Saturday November 11, 2006 @09:51PM (#16810072) Homepage

    They should look at MY hard drive - got nuclear weapons plans there from Cryptome just last week! Not to mention every military weapons and improvised weapons and explosives manual and hacker book there is.

    Bwahahahaha!!

    And with MY background, they REALLY would be concerned.

    Of course, I'm white and not Muslim...

    When I got arrested for armed bank robbery back in 1993, the judge was provided copies of papers from my room. He didn't know whether to poop or go blind. All he could say was that he didn't think some of the stuff there was possible.

    He was wrong. Someday somebody somewhere (other than me) will prove him wrong.

You can't have everything... where would you put it? -- Steven Wright

Working...