Most static pages still get pulled by hosting providers when faced with that kind of traffic. That might be what happened here, or the authorities could've asked them to pull it.
Guy dicks around with forces he doesn't have the free cash available to dick around with, blames IRS.
Later finds himself losing work due to working in aerospace as Air Force bases are closed in the 90's, leading into 9/11 and a meltdown in his ability to generate personal revenue. Blames IRS.
Runs out of money, blames IRS.
Flies plain into IRS building with the intent to indiscriminately murder anyone who happens to be in the building at the time, ending his pathetic life. Doesn't even garner a headline on the Huffington Post. Forgotten two weeks later.
I tell you, I can be sympathetic to a letter such as his, to some of the things any of us can easily see are wrong right now in the USA, but of course I do not condone his extreme by any means.
However, here was the kicker for me: "But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income". Let me get this straight -- he was in love and married. Forget all the money stuff, tax liens, unemployment, whatever it was. He was so in love that he just got married. And then what does he do? He pilots a plane into the IRS building. I also read somewhere that he burned his house down before doing that. It's probably anyone's guess that his wife was at work while all this was going on. So this troubles me that a man focuses so myopically on purity principles such as anti-corruption, that he would block out one of the purest principles at all, which is love.
Meanwhile, local television in Austin, the Texas capital, said Stack's house was fully engulfed in flames this morning just before the crash into the IRS building, and that Stack's wife and 12-year-old daughter had been pulled out distraught but unscathed.
I think he has a point about the sloppiness and unresponsiveness of the government -- although the sloppiness and unresponsiveness of a large, bureaucratic organization hardly justifies carrying out his own miniature September 11th! Doubly painful in that the people he killed probably liked the IRS no more than he did -- few workers in government bureaucracy _enjoy_ what they have to put up with...
Killing others and committing suicide are both very serious matters, so I hate to say this, but his rant on the IRS reminded me of nothing so much as Timecube. What have we done wrong in this society, that we get people like this, especially the deadly ones? I don't think it's a political, moral, or social-outlook problem; but I hardly know what it is. A more honest and competent government would have removed this man's particular grievance, but it wouldn't have fixed the root problem; someone in his mental state is probably going to find something to be aggrieved with regardless...
It's just a bug in our design as humans, IMO, but it's that same bug which allows us to occasionally do monumentally amazing things. It just depends how you spin your perceptions to yourself, I suppose, and if you can accept that greatness is, more or less, a large scale way of turning a frown upside down. :)
Oh, I'm a nut too, and humanity would be much worse off without its nuts, but what concerns me is that particular, Timecube-esque variety of nut -- not particularly creative or ambitious, but turgid and cramped. Why do people end up like that...?
I can't really say why, but I think the common thread they share is they get lost following a path of information that becomes self-referential - and rather than seeing that as a flaw, they apply a kind of naive mathematical reasoning and assume that because they ended up back where they started it proves the whole system is consistent - and that's therefore a good and universal truth.
If you've ever listened to any significant amount of Coast to Coast AM, you've probably heard any number of conspiracy theorists and paranormalists justify and build their books and beliefs upon the books, beliefs, or incidents of others. My untested hypothesis is that if you unraveled all those interdependencies and book citations, references, etc. you'd end up with an entirely self-contained cloud of "evidence" that is disconnected from objective reality.
Whatever it is in a culture that leads desperate people to decide to kill strangers before commiting suicide has far more to do with the culture than with human DNA.
The site was pulled down, here's the copy of the rant:
If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?” The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn’t enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I’m not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.
We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.
While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.
Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.
And justice? You’ve got to be kidding!
How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that’s not “duress” than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.
How did I get here?
My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early ‘80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having ‘tax code’ readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to t...
The deck is stacked everywhere, but so what? Get over it. An engineer has the ability to improve the world by building better things without resorting to destruction.
That's rather defeatist. I'd say humanity doesn't have a chance of surviving if it doesn't figure out how to address the concerns of smart, disgruntled people.
Keeping them in check just delays the inevitable meltdown.
I'd say smart, disgruntled people aren't as smart as they think they are.
The societal problem is convincing everyone that they're a genius. When life hands them less than the best and they have to overcome it, they just get disgruntled, because "they're too smart" to deal with it.
Parents, remind your children that there's always going to be someone smarter/faster/stronger/etc than them, and that they should focus on doing as well as they can with the circumstances they're given. There's more good in being the best you can be than there is in being the best; for a lucky few, those things are identical, but for the rest of us they aren't.
> there's always going to be someone smarter/faster/stronger/etc than them
However in this country (the US) the gaps are wider and the deck is stacked more than in any other industrialized nation in pretty much every category.
Why don't we hear more about people flying planes into buildings in China? Or students (or even teachers!) losing it and shooting up their schools?
Is it just that they have better control of their media (so we don't hear about it), better control of the people (so they don't get a chance to do it), or something else?
By the way, there were also some incidence of pupils shooting up their schools in recent years in Germany. I guess you are just much more exposed to American incidents than to the rest of the world. (E.g. have you heard of the whole ugly neo-nazi stuff in east Germany in the 90ies? It still goes on, though at a much lower level of intensity. It's quite hard to find English language sources on the anti-asylum-seekers riots in Hoyerswerda in 1991 but http://www.jstor.org/pss/4146935 is on.)
There have been smart, disgruntled people forever. On the whole, I think they're less violent and therefore less dangerous than dumb, disgruntled people.
In terms of death toll, I'd probably disagree. It seems that 20 men from the upper classes (on horseback, armed and trained to use weapons) could destroy an 11th-century town of 1000-3000 inhabitants (although suffering heavy losses on their end) if they were so inclined. A powerful nobleman could assemble the knights.
In terms of impact, you're probably right. I think it's likely that 9/11 is the first news story to have reached half the world's population in a few hours. However, there are pre-modern events that rival it in terms of potential impact. I can't think of any from the 11th century, but the Defenestration of Prague comes to mind, as would the Gunpowder Plot had it succeeded.
If the Gunpowder Plot had succeeded, it wouldn't have been the destruction of parliament that would have been the issue, it would have likely been a full out campaign to kill every catholic in Briton by the most gruesome methods possible. The public reaction to the Gunpowder Plot was very 9/11 in terms of public opinion against the Catholics. In fact the Gunpowder Plot likely delayed the Catholic Emancipation by potentially two-centuries and increased intolerance towards Catholics quite dramatically.
Honestly if the Gunpowder Plot had succeeded, I have little doubt it would have turned into a massacre of Catholics in Briton and likely devolved into a full out war. Ireland would have received a full massacre for the guerilla war it had waged against Briton, and Spain would have likely come under full attack for supporting the Irish Catholics during that time.
It would be hard to see any result that isn't total war for a successful bombing. Ironically the plot was the worst thing to happen to Catholics but simultaneously the best outcome for the situation.
if the "smart, disgruntled" were so smart, they would figure out how to get what they want so as to be no longer disgruntled.
getting frustrated with life and throwing your hands up isn't smart.
Do you have any concrete suggestions other than "building better things" that might actually lead to change that would address the issues like systemic injustice and economic subjugation in the face of endless corporate welfare?
Empower the people with global democracy in the form of an open web-based voting system, show them what's possible and they may force laws to be enacted globally similar to the NI4D, become lawmakers, and end corruption. Many don't believe that the people are ready for that much responsibility, and it's better for them to be managed by the various elites, but the price for this will always be systemic injustice, economic subjugation, etc.
Taking innocents down is not the way to go, but I otherwise agree. Once people realize healthcare reform is not going to happen and health insurance execs start getting knocked off over rescissions and life caps, I'll secretly be smiling. (Of course, a public option would be a better and nonviolent option.)
I disagree with his methods, but I kind of sympathize with the guy. He is disgruntled that 1. The rules are different for different entities. (big companies get bailed out but individuals don't) 2. The law isn't consistently applied. (i.e It is arbitrary) and 3. When he got audited he felt like being mummified by red tape. He feels that a confusing bureaucracy is similar to a corrupt one.
But, as someone said his text is a like a 'shell' people can fit into. In that case it might be just me, then.
If you can't live with the IRS or other parts of the US system, there are 194 other countries out there. Many of them are good places for English speakers to live and work. Vote with your feet, not with violence against helpless government workers.
easy to say, not so easy to do. for an american to legally live and work in another country is not trivial unless you have citizenship in that country. trust me, i would have been out of here years ago if it were less complicated.
Errrrmmm. If you're an American with a degree, it's pretty trivial. It's certainly trivial when compared to what people have to go through to get into the US.
I know a lot of people who have relocated to NL (me), UK, DE, or FR.
1. Americans can travel freely to most countries in Europe, for business or vacation, no visa required. Once there, you can go on job interviews, and firms with many internationals will have no problem arranging a work visa for you. Alternatively, you can arrange the work visa yourself, which is also pretty easy.
2. Many countries (Holland, for example) have agreements that American entrepreneurs can start their own businesses. You just have to show that you will not be a drain on society (i.e. you buy health insurance and have some money in the bank), and that you will be making a 'substantial investment' in your company (usually less than $10k)
3. I studied here, a one-year M.Sc. (which cost less than $15k and was of a surprisingly high quality), and they gave me a green card for a "job-seeking-year", during which I can work anywhere... but have switch my visa to a normal work permit before it expires. It took me 5 days from getting the permit to switching it to a regular permit.
4. Or you can just find a foreign partner, you don't even need to marry them in some countries. Sometimes that's enough, other times they need to show that they earn enough to take care of you both (in case you can't find work), but the threshold is so low it's a joke ($30-35k yearly salary).
Bad news is: Americans living abroad still have to pay US-income tax, if you make a lot of money. You'll have to stay in your new home for a while and get citizenship (5+ years), renounce your US citizenship, and even then they can come after you for a while...
I know so many US expats over here, and only a few have had visa-related issues (all resolved well). Most of those were because someone didn't do their homework, or didn't take it seriously. All of them pale in comparison to the visa-issue that I've heard from expats living in the US.
I met most of my expat friends at the beginning of their visa processes (vacationers or students who want to stay, or fell in love with someone here), so I don't think survivorship bias plays a role in my own observations.
Unfortunately that solution doesn't work so well in practice. The United States is one of the few countries in the world to tax income earned by US citizens in other countries. (The only other ones of which I am aware are North Korea and, while it was in existence, the Soviet Union.)
Furthermore, any US citizen who decides to renounce his or her citizenship is assumed to have expatriated for tax reasons if the tax liability is over $127,000 or the individual's net worth is at least $2 million. (Though those, of course, are not the only reasons that an individual will be assumed to have expatriated for tax purposes.) An individual who has expatriated for tax reasons must pay US taxes on all US-derived income for 10 years and if the individual returns to the US for 30 days in those ten years, all income earned abroad is taxable by the US government. If such an individual has the misfortune of dying during any year in which he or she spent at least 30 days in the US, the entire estate is taxable by the US government.
I'm not sure Stack's tax liability was $127,000, but given his problems with the IRS, I wouldn't be surprised if the IRS would have declared him expatriated for tax reasons had he tried to leave the country. Escaping the long arm of the IRS can be easier said than done.
An individual who has expatriated for tax reasons must pay US taxes on all US-derived income. True, and they're fairly effective at collecting it too by withholding at the source. So if you don't want the IRS in your life, you can't get paid by US companies. Billions of people manage to do so.
10-year rule was replaced in 2008 with "exit tax" - you have to pay taxes on all gains (realized and unrealized) and then you can go about your own business. Realizing gains to pay tax is a pain, but it only gets unbearable if your assets are illiquid.
Tragically naive, but naive in a self-serving and narcissistic way. Childish, I guess one would say. Hard to sympathize with for that reason. It's one thing to take a naive and idealistic look at government with the intent of improving it; it's another thing to take that approach to your own taxes.
Fortunately - and not surprisingly - it's barely readable anyways. I read most of it and I still don't have a clear picture of what made this guy so mad.
[Edit: While I don't agree with lliiffee, I think it's a valid point of view and I wouldn't vote it down. I wavered between wanting to understand this person's state of mind, and not wanting to "reward" him with attention. But even if he were alive I don't think he'd get any satisfaction from people's reactions to this meaningless, incoherent screed.]
It sounded to me like he made a lot of really stupid money choices in his life and blamed all his losses on the IRS, the government, and anyone else of "power" that happened to be nearby at the time rather than taking personal responsibility and manning up.
I think his distaste was that when he made some mistakes, he got caught and shafted by arcane laws, yet when some richer folks deliberately committed fraud, the government barely did anything about it or rejigged the laws for them.
I'm in no way condoning fraud or corruption or entitlement or whatever, but I think the reason "the rich" often appear to get away with a lot more stuff than "the rest of us" is because, in some sense, as much as you might not like to admit it, they did somehow became rich - and that usually involves years of work and contributions to society either by the person him/herself or their family. So, in some small sense, being rich is a sign of having done something significantly important or useful at some point in their history, and so maybe they are worthy of more benefit of the doubt because of that? Maybe being rich is like a credit against future mistakes? Maybe it shouldn't be that way - but it seems kind of like it is. Perhaps this is some second order effect of humanity itself.
I agree. Life isn't fair. That doesn't stop us from seeing a small percentage of people who believe everything should be fair and just going postal, though.
The concern is in setting a precedent that anyone can have a wide hearing of their ideas by killing people, which creates copycats in the future. (We have seen this happen with, e.g., school shootings.)
Well the fact is that every time something like this happens there's a huge media splash about it, it's analyzed to pieces, and (as far as I'm aware) there's almost never copycats of the same magnitude or scope.
If you're looking to take some kind of memorable action to get people to notice you, probably the least effective way is to do the same thing someone else just did.
It made perfect sense to me. I see exactly where he is coming from, and why he did what he did. I have been wondering how long until someone did something like this. I would bet this will be the first of many things similar, where people start to rebel against the government. The less violent the better however.
It made perfect sense to you? Did we read a different note or something? The one I read seemed to ramble and drift and eventually lose the thread of logic by the end. I saw no great injustice perpetrated that necessitated the need to fly a plane into a building.
It did ramble and drift a bit but it all added to his story.. just very slowly. I don't think he should have flown a plane into the building. However I believe he did it because he tried the proper way spending over $5k of his own money and months of his time to change it. No one listened/cared (which is the main problem) about his problem. So when push came to shove and the government and businesses took everything he had by taking advantage of him, he had to finally stand up and say no more. Thus we have this event today, which is his way of raising enough commotion about the problem to hopefully get them changed. Honestly I cannot believe its not more common (not the plane part but the people rebelling part).
But what, really, was his problem that no one was listening to? I couldn't really figure that part out. It seemed to me that he was just pissed off the government wanted to collect taxes and annoyed that some people were a lot richer than he was.
He spent $5000 lobbying dozens of government officials, but what was he trying to change? Does it really all come down to the rule determining whether programming consultants are treated as employees for tax purposes? Was he even able to explain his case to them coherently, without using phrases like "declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave"? And then he makes ludicrous choices like taking an IRA distribution (which in most cases results in taxable income and/or early distribution penalties) without reporting it or paying taxes on it:
"I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn’t have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed..."
Why is he just assuming that there's no need to file, rather than looking it up himself or asking someone for advice? Oh yeah:
"After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash I swore that I’d never enter another accountant’s office again."
...because he once had a bad experience with accounting (which as far as I can tell he never actually describes), he decided that all accountants are frauds and there is no way to find an honest person to help him. It sounds like he was an antisocial crank long before flew a plane into a building.
Yes, and after he expresses his reluctance to ever enter an accountant's office again, he says that he did, out of desperation, and then got screwed again.
I disagree, it is information (although poor quality information tbf) about what motivated this guy to do this.
The information should be public so people can come to their own conclusions about the event, otherwise the story is one sided.
HOWEVER due to copycats and the general suggestability of the public, organisations who broadcast should think twice before broadcasting this text. This is because it provides a "reward" for people contemplating doing this kind of thing, fifteen minutes of fame.
Unfortunately this is exactly what news channels typically fail to do.
E.G. High school shootings
I certainly can't say I know the law in this respect. His rant did include the names of a few people which could possibly be bad for them, but it's too late now - it was posted online, cached by lots of spiders, copied by lots of people... Pulling it down now doesn't seem like it'd much matter.
They have a link to the copy at the Smoking Gun, right where it's down; I'd say this was a question of keeping the FBI happy without actually impeding the flow of information.
I suspect they were not legally obligated to take it down (without a court order or a National Security Letter, anyway). But they also, of course, had no obligation to keep it up. I'd probably take it down if I worked there.
Don't you think the FBI is going to be looking through his website? I wouldn't be surprised if they poked around in other servers while they were at it.
I think, for the most part, free speech is a right people expect to keep after they're dead. If you say something, the government isn't allowed to censor it, even when you're no longer around to stop them. I would want a host that would support that ideal.
It was pulled even before the FBI request. The original pull text said something along the lines of "This page has been removed in light of the events in Texas earlier today". Later it was changed to mention the FBI request and gave the link to the smoking gun mirror.
The Department of Homeland Security released a statement calling this a criminal act, not terrorism. I am confused. A few years ago everything was considered terrorism and now nothing is.
This guy wasn't targeting individual people in the IRS, he was targeting the whole establishment. This is akin to the Oklahoma City bombing. If that was a terrorist incident and 9/11 was a terrorist incident, this is too. He even has an IRS hate manifesto.
I think it is a shame that the government uses certain words to its advantage, but I guess propaganda is just the nature of the beast.
I tend to agree with the cynic in me that says it's because the guy's name was "Joe Stack". Had it been Mohammed something then it would've been terrorism.
Agree, The way I see it is that if its a criminal act against the government it because terrorism. Had he been out to kill someone in that building it would have been a criminal act. This was terrorism.
I'd argue that terrorism is largely a term to describe an opponent whose tactics go beyond what its adversary's population regards as appropriate... and so the term is mostly intended to marginalize an opponent and paint him and his cause as morally bankrupt.
The term can be used to describe asymmetrical warfare techniques whose objective is more to motivate fear in the target population than to achieve a classic military objective, but if you think about it, the neighbor kid being sent home from the front lines in a body bag also has that effect, albeit a bit more indirectly.
I think by definition an asymmetrical conflict that doesn't result in the weaker side quitting outright must include some sort of different moral standard about things like civilian life, soldier sacrifice, etc.
Terror? No, but I'm reasonably sure that there will be a large number of off-balance nutters who are upset about corporations and taxes and the gubment who will use this event as a rallying call for further violence.
You hit on an important characteristic of asymmetrical conflict, which is the propaganda aspect of a particular campaign (contrary to the traditional military objective of capturing territory, causing large scale surrender, etc.)
I think the guy is nuts, and i think the best description is that he chose a really screwed up way of committing suicide.
Politicians who put laws on the books at the whim of a monied few special interests instead of listening to their constituents, and who insist on ceaselessly driving the wedge between rich and poor in their own back yard instead of pursuing policies that would lift up the whole country?
It's terrorism because it's directly in line with 18 USC 2331:
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
I think that the law would still hold detonating a bomb in an unoccupied building as 'dangerous to human life' if you didn't follow all of the safety precautions that a real building demolition would have to follow. If you put a bomb in an abandoned building at set to detonate in 2 hours and then flee the scene, there's not guarantee that someone won't enter the building in the interim.
That's not my point, my point is just that the logical structure attributed to the definition is not accurate.
The definition does not state that all of the clauses must be satisfied for something to qualify as terrorism, and as I showed above, satisfying a single clause is trivial (and clearly not terrorism).
I think that you should ask a lawyer about that before jumping to those conclusions. This may be some sort of gap between legal-speak and plain English. There are a lot of terms that diverge in meaning between common usage (even 'traditional' definition) and legal definition.
Logic would dictate that the meaning of that is "if A and (B[1] or B[2] or B[3]) and C", but it's not explicitly there.
> Terrorism is the use of violence, especially murder and bombing, in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to do something.
This was a single, possibly mentally unstable, man crashing a plane into a building. He may have thought he was trying to achieve something politically or to force the government to do something, but without any larger organization behind him it seems silly to label this as a domestic terrorist attack. It's giving the guy far more credit than he deserves.
That definition says nothing about the perpetrator needing to be a part of an organization. If his act meets the definition - which I think it clearly does - then we have to call it terrorism.
I can see your point of view here, but if you're trying to "achieve political aims or to force a government to do something" it's implicit that there's going to be people around after your death to push your agenda, (or that you're going to survive whatever you plan is) to push it forward.
yep. The mentality is that we are in a war against terrorism, most people understand you cannot actually attack terrorism so when you say "war against terror" most people really think "war against angry foreign influenced Muslims". If someone who isn't a angry Muslim commits a crime that invokes Terror (flying planes into buildings) it isn't terrorism.
Different administrations have different policies. My issue is the contradiction between this event and the Christmas underpants bomber. The only excuse I can come up with is that it would be politically impossible to not call that one terrorism.
Would you be so quick to assume the terrorism label if he hadn't used an airplane to commit his crime? I do think that's going to color a lot of people's perception of this wording issue.
I suspect they don't believe the term applies because he didn't claim to be acting on the part of an organized group or even a very specific ideology. His note made it pretty clear he thought of himself as some kind of lone warrior for justice.
Read the final two paragraphs of his screed (posted in this thread). He says that he wants his act of violence to initiate change - I assume in the IRS specifically, but also in American politics in general. That's the definition of terrorism.
Terrorism does not have to be initiated on behalf of a group or a specific ideology. The definition is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."
In my mind the difference here is that he was alone, committed his crime in a singular act, and now he's effectively out of commission. There's no terrorist at large to further perpetuate the terror. There's no looming sense of threat from this guy personally, and since he wasn't part of an organization, there's no nebulous "other" threat from that, either.
Had he enacted a long term plan where he was shooting at people randomly for days and making demands or something like that, then that's different in my eyes. At that point it becomes about using the fear of further violence as a tool and that's when you cross into terrorist land.
But who knows. I think DHS decided it'd be called a criminal act for now - so I guess that's what it gets to be called. Perhaps that label was politically motivated, but I can certainly understand the decision. Everything need not be a conspiracy and every large scale crime need not be a terrorist attack.
I think that the point is that the government selectively applies the 'terrorism' label when it benefits them (i.e. using the 'terrorism' label to get records to bolster a case against criminals that are certainly not terrorists).
"He says that he wants his act of violence to initiate change - I assume in the IRS specifically, but also in American politics in general. That's the definition of terrorism."
Tell that to Thomas Jefferson and George Washington...
Terrorism is a strategy not a sin, just because you happen to agree with what they are saying does not mean they are not terrorist's. Also you don't need actually kill people to induce fear, setting fire to an empty building can also count.
I agree in principle, but that's not how society defines it. By popular definition, a terrorist is someone who commits atrocities for a cause that one does not agree with. If there was agreement, they'd be labeled a "freedom fighter" or something like that.
He's absolutely a terrorist according to 18 USC 2331:
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
His explicitly stated goal was to affect the conduct of the government and coerce the civilian population via mass destruction.
"I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are."
I wonder at which point "domestic terrorism" is instead considered "rebellion/revolt?" [1] I guess it's a hard concept given the media's decisive unanimity on the topic, but I do believe Great Britain probably felt similarly when we started killing the soldiers they sent over.
I'm not confident to which side I am on: I think the government is mostly stupid, not draconian to the people at large. It's hard for me to believe they are innocent at times.
If I worked for the IRS, my wife and I would not exactly be sleeping comfortably tonight. And I think it’s fair to assume that Mr. Stack intended to provoke that feeling in every IRS employee.
It's simple. The goal of terrorism is to terrorize. If the perpetrator was part of an organization from which similar acts could be expected in the future, than that has a terrorizing effect.
The FBI's definition of terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
He was angry and violent, but he didn't have any objective he was trying to achieve through the act. The objective in terrorism isn't the violence, it's a means to an intended end (such as changes in policy, release of prisoners, etc.).
He states in the final paragraphs that his goal is to affect change in the government and coerce the public to change the government, so he very clearly did have an objective.
"Terrorism" became an overloaded term once we coined the term "War on Terror".
While this is an act of terrorism for sure, this is not the Terrorism that originates from those we are supposedly fighting in the War on Terror, therefore we should not raise our country's alertness level, have reason to panic, or mobilize our armed forces in response.
I tend to agree, but I'm a bit more cynical. These days governments use the word "terrorism" to describe acts against which they would like to retaliate with the backing of their citizens. The term has become a trigger word for prompting a particular reaction from the people. There's nobody to retaliate against here and using the word terrorism in this case would simply water down the trigger effect of the word in the future when the U.S. government wants to prompt a specific response from Americans.
How is this guy different than the Ft. Hood shooter? Both went on rants against the actions of the US Government; both apparently snapped; both wanted to inflict mass carnage. Senators like Joe Lieberman have insisted that the Ft. Hood shooter be labeled and tried as a terrorist.
I agree. I think it's reasonable to consider him a domestic terrorist. His actions and rantings are not materially different from those of Timothy McVeigh (OKC Bombing) or Ted Kaczynski (The Unabomber). Both of them were rightly considered terrorists at the time, and this guy should be considered a terrorist as well.
He may not be linked to the international Islamic terrorist networks, like the underpants bomber or the guy who shot up Fort Hood. But just because he's not a Muslim terrorist doesn't mean he isn't a terrorist.
The US Dept of State defined "terrorism" in its Pattern of Global Terrorism report (2004) as:
"premeditated politically motivated violence, perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."
I'd say it's clear he fits the government's own definition quite clearly.
Or at least a clearer rant. I was surprised at how well written Kaczynski's "Industrial Society and its Future" was. I don't like that he got it published by mailing people bombs until the New York Times promised to publish it, but it's still worth reading.
I doubt any future rants will get clearer. Rants of these types are big, sprawling, disconnected tales of tragedy and woe with the point heavily obfuscated or altogether absent. This makes it very easy for other people will similar unbalances, but possibly unrelated motives, to write their own motives into the gaps. The problem is, to these types of readers, their own motives are blindingly obvious in what they're reading, so they don't even perceive the lack of clarity that you and I do. They can just hold it up and say "this is exactly what I've been saying!" not because the post says anything, but because it doesn't. It's big and empty, which makes it a great echo chamber.
I think it is interesting that the IRS treats certain workers differently:
"This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work."
To be fair, it's not that the IRS has decided to treat these workers differently, it's that Congress has instructed them to through the laws it has passed.
1) Because of how governments deal in collective punishment, private aviation is likely to suffer further regulatory decimation even though events of this type are extremely rare, statistically speaking.
2) His rambling, narcissistic screed will be broadcast widely, and his immature and senseless actions used to paint those with legitimate and sensible criticisms of our tax system or systems of governance.
The reaction might change, but I'm mainly seeing the opposite effect on #2 so far: there seems to be a sympathetic undercurrent of "collusion of big-government IRS and greedy corporate capitalists drove hardworking man to kill himself" in some of the coverage.
Maybe. Then again, maybe extreme actions cause people to unconsciously try to discredit the beliefs (no matter how rational) behind those actions to distance themselves from being exposed to uncomfortable truths.
Wasn't that kind of his point? With guidelines like "Don't ask for instructions from the hiring firm about how to do your job." it's just silly and you never know on which side of the line you are currently... There's just no way to be sure and even if you are right, you might be notified too late to protest.
Except that without any editorial text accompanying the two quotes, two readings are possible: "here's the motto of a good system and a bad system," OR: "everyone's heard of the moronic motto of this system, but the current system is just terrible in its own different way." Reading the whole thing my impression was that the second interpretation was what he was getting at.
I was considering going to SCALE this weekend, but maybe I'll take the train or not go after all.
Like many people on HN, I am pretty close to the guy's profile. I've been negatively effected by SEC. 1706 - now, I'm far to cynical to think such things can be changed, and I'm not really the murder/suicide type but, uh, I certainly fit the profile.
I'm convinced that domestic terrorism is going to be a bigger problem over the next couple of decades than foreign attacks. The political discourse/tolerance in this country has gone downhill significantly even in my lifetime. I can only imagine at the extreme fringes these people have gone off the deep end. We see it over and over again. Probably the most disturbing sign of what to come is the 2008 election where the VP candidate for one of the two major parties was openly inciting hatred and smiling as people in the audience shouted horrible things.
How old are you? There's been plenty of political discourse all through time. That's how this country was founded and nearly split up. Just look at the 70's. I'm not that old and even I know how much protest was going on at that time. It's just that the fire is being fanned by mainstream media and the growth of the Internet, and that gives it more visibility than before. The Teabaggers are a perfect example of this.
In 2008 somebody in Germany got fed up with the high taxes on fuel. He couldn't afford to run his business (which required a car) any more. So he parked the car on a lawn in the city centre of Frankfurt, wrote "Fuel Profiteering http://www.acidware.de/ in big letters on it, and put it on fire.
I just want to say that there are other routes to explore before taking it this far.
There aren't that many 24-hour cable news stations in Germany that are broadcast around the world in a language that a fair number of people internationally can speak.
Unauthorized protest ? Unlawful and possibly violent. Definitely trying to influence government and the civilian population. Therefore, terrorist. See how that goes ? The definition is so ambiguous it can be applied to anything.
As far as I know they fined him for pollution or something. He said that he had some clothes and a toothbrush with him because he expected to go to jail for this. But the police set him free on the same day. It would have been different if he had lit the fire on the road though.
So, was this related to the changes reported in today's front-page New York Times story, "U.S. Cracks Down on ‘Contractors’ as a Tax Dodge," or is the timing just a coincidence?
"Federal and state officials, many facing record budget deficits, are starting to aggressively pursue companies that try to pass off regular employees as independent contractors. President Obama’s 2010 budget assumes that the federal crackdown will yield at least $7 billion over 10 years."
USA consists a few oligarchs and a lot and lot of brainwashed sheep. Resembles feudal society. Masters and their slaves. How sad to see you guys becoming pathetic parodies of the values you used to represent.
I surmise his software ventures never succeeded because he hated the IRS more than he loved programming. In 1987 alone, he says, he spent at least 1000 hours railing against the tax code -- about 20 hours a week.
His obsession with, and resentment of, the IRS started when he and others tried to create their own religious organization, ostensibly to draw attention to the capricious laws exempting religious organizations from taxes. How this plan was supposed to work is unclear. L. Ron Hubbard saw the same opportunity and was better at exploiting it.
People don't respond well to acts of violence directed against them or those with whom they empathize. Timothy McVeigh's act caused shock and anger yet achieved nothing. Whatever message Stack wanted to convey has been utterly discredited by attempting to murder people going about their day. And if he wanted to give the government a way to dismiss him, he couldn't have made it any easier.
A conflict of some type is necessary to bring in change. The people who benefit from the tax code will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo. Luke warm sentiment will not change things.
217 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 249 ms ] threadThe site's been holding up surprisingly well. Not bad, T35 Hosting.
EDIT: It looks like it's gone now. Here's the home.htm that was on the site as well: http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://celes.niran.org/~ni...
Later finds himself losing work due to working in aerospace as Air Force bases are closed in the 90's, leading into 9/11 and a meltdown in his ability to generate personal revenue. Blames IRS.
Runs out of money, blames IRS.
Flies plain into IRS building with the intent to indiscriminately murder anyone who happens to be in the building at the time, ending his pathetic life. Doesn't even garner a headline on the Huffington Post. Forgotten two weeks later.
However, here was the kicker for me: "But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income". Let me get this straight -- he was in love and married. Forget all the money stuff, tax liens, unemployment, whatever it was. He was so in love that he just got married. And then what does he do? He pilots a plane into the IRS building. I also read somewhere that he burned his house down before doing that. It's probably anyone's guess that his wife was at work while all this was going on. So this troubles me that a man focuses so myopically on purity principles such as anti-corruption, that he would block out one of the purest principles at all, which is love.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/18/austin-plane-sui...
Killing others and committing suicide are both very serious matters, so I hate to say this, but his rant on the IRS reminded me of nothing so much as Timecube. What have we done wrong in this society, that we get people like this, especially the deadly ones? I don't think it's a political, moral, or social-outlook problem; but I hardly know what it is. A more honest and competent government would have removed this man's particular grievance, but it wouldn't have fixed the root problem; someone in his mental state is probably going to find something to be aggrieved with regardless...
If you've ever listened to any significant amount of Coast to Coast AM, you've probably heard any number of conspiracy theorists and paranormalists justify and build their books and beliefs upon the books, beliefs, or incidents of others. My untested hypothesis is that if you unraveled all those interdependencies and book citations, references, etc. you'd end up with an entirely self-contained cloud of "evidence" that is disconnected from objective reality.
The general feeling I get from this is that the guy cares way too much about money and tit-for-tat.
If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?” The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn’t enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I’m not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.
We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.
While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.
Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.
And justice? You’ve got to be kidding!
How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that’s not “duress” than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.
How did I get here?
My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early ‘80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having ‘tax code’ readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to t...
Keeping them in check just delays the inevitable meltdown.
The societal problem is convincing everyone that they're a genius. When life hands them less than the best and they have to overcome it, they just get disgruntled, because "they're too smart" to deal with it.
Parents, remind your children that there's always going to be someone smarter/faster/stronger/etc than them, and that they should focus on doing as well as they can with the circumstances they're given. There's more good in being the best you can be than there is in being the best; for a lucky few, those things are identical, but for the rest of us they aren't.
However in this country (the US) the gaps are wider and the deck is stacked more than in any other industrialized nation in pretty much every category.
Try complaining against the state in an industrialized nation like China.
Is it just that they have better control of their media (so we don't hear about it), better control of the people (so they don't get a chance to do it), or something else?
By the way, there were also some incidence of pupils shooting up their schools in recent years in Germany. I guess you are just much more exposed to American incidents than to the rest of the world. (E.g. have you heard of the whole ugly neo-nazi stuff in east Germany in the 90ies? It still goes on, though at a much lower level of intensity. It's quite hard to find English language sources on the anti-asylum-seekers riots in Hoyerswerda in 1991 but http://www.jstor.org/pss/4146935 is on.)
In terms of impact, you're probably right. I think it's likely that 9/11 is the first news story to have reached half the world's population in a few hours. However, there are pre-modern events that rival it in terms of potential impact. I can't think of any from the 11th century, but the Defenestration of Prague comes to mind, as would the Gunpowder Plot had it succeeded.
Honestly if the Gunpowder Plot had succeeded, I have little doubt it would have turned into a massacre of Catholics in Briton and likely devolved into a full out war. Ireland would have received a full massacre for the guerilla war it had waged against Briton, and Spain would have likely come under full attack for supporting the Irish Catholics during that time.
It would be hard to see any result that isn't total war for a successful bombing. Ironically the plot was the worst thing to happen to Catholics but simultaneously the best outcome for the situation.
Yet more of people's hard-earned money going to perks for jerks rather than health-care for those paying the premiums.
I know a lot of people who have relocated to NL (me), UK, DE, or FR.
1. Americans can travel freely to most countries in Europe, for business or vacation, no visa required. Once there, you can go on job interviews, and firms with many internationals will have no problem arranging a work visa for you. Alternatively, you can arrange the work visa yourself, which is also pretty easy.
2. Many countries (Holland, for example) have agreements that American entrepreneurs can start their own businesses. You just have to show that you will not be a drain on society (i.e. you buy health insurance and have some money in the bank), and that you will be making a 'substantial investment' in your company (usually less than $10k)
3. I studied here, a one-year M.Sc. (which cost less than $15k and was of a surprisingly high quality), and they gave me a green card for a "job-seeking-year", during which I can work anywhere... but have switch my visa to a normal work permit before it expires. It took me 5 days from getting the permit to switching it to a regular permit.
4. Or you can just find a foreign partner, you don't even need to marry them in some countries. Sometimes that's enough, other times they need to show that they earn enough to take care of you both (in case you can't find work), but the threshold is so low it's a joke ($30-35k yearly salary).
Bad news is: Americans living abroad still have to pay US-income tax, if you make a lot of money. You'll have to stay in your new home for a while and get citizenship (5+ years), renounce your US citizenship, and even then they can come after you for a while...
I know so many US expats over here, and only a few have had visa-related issues (all resolved well). Most of those were because someone didn't do their homework, or didn't take it seriously. All of them pale in comparison to the visa-issue that I've heard from expats living in the US.
survivorship bias
I met most of my expat friends at the beginning of their visa processes (vacationers or students who want to stay, or fell in love with someone here), so I don't think survivorship bias plays a role in my own observations.
Furthermore, any US citizen who decides to renounce his or her citizenship is assumed to have expatriated for tax reasons if the tax liability is over $127,000 or the individual's net worth is at least $2 million. (Though those, of course, are not the only reasons that an individual will be assumed to have expatriated for tax purposes.) An individual who has expatriated for tax reasons must pay US taxes on all US-derived income for 10 years and if the individual returns to the US for 30 days in those ten years, all income earned abroad is taxable by the US government. If such an individual has the misfortune of dying during any year in which he or she spent at least 30 days in the US, the entire estate is taxable by the US government.
I'm not sure Stack's tax liability was $127,000, but given his problems with the IRS, I wouldn't be surprised if the IRS would have declared him expatriated for tax reasons had he tried to leave the country. Escaping the long arm of the IRS can be easier said than done.
Naive and narcissistic?
I guess the real deal is if you're not going to pay your taxes, or otherwise chisel/wiggle, just do it. Don't brag about it.
Keep cash around, have people you trust for title to cars and property, and generally be prepared to live low on the food chain.
The key to happiness is low expectation, which clearly the author of the article didn't have.
[Edit: While I don't agree with lliiffee, I think it's a valid point of view and I wouldn't vote it down. I wavered between wanting to understand this person's state of mind, and not wanting to "reward" him with attention. But even if he were alive I don't think he'd get any satisfaction from people's reactions to this meaningless, incoherent screed.]
government employees are just people.
here's a book about this:
http://www.amazon.com/Perfectly-Legal-Campaign-Rich-Everybod...
If you're looking to take some kind of memorable action to get people to notice you, probably the least effective way is to do the same thing someone else just did.
It made perfect sense to me. I see exactly where he is coming from, and why he did what he did. I have been wondering how long until someone did something like this. I would bet this will be the first of many things similar, where people start to rebel against the government. The less violent the better however.
"I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn’t have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed..."
Why is he just assuming that there's no need to file, rather than looking it up himself or asking someone for advice? Oh yeah:
"After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash I swore that I’d never enter another accountant’s office again."
...because he once had a bad experience with accounting (which as far as I can tell he never actually describes), he decided that all accountants are frauds and there is no way to find an honest person to help him. It sounds like he was an antisocial crank long before flew a plane into a building.
HOWEVER due to copycats and the general suggestability of the public, organisations who broadcast should think twice before broadcasting this text. This is because it provides a "reward" for people contemplating doing this kind of thing, fifteen minutes of fame. Unfortunately this is exactly what news channels typically fail to do. E.G. High school shootings
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=%22embeddedart+com%22&d...
Would they legally be required to? IANAL but I can't think of any reason.
I would also want a host to keep sites online for as long as they'd been paid for.
This guy wasn't targeting individual people in the IRS, he was targeting the whole establishment. This is akin to the Oklahoma City bombing. If that was a terrorist incident and 9/11 was a terrorist incident, this is too. He even has an IRS hate manifesto.
I think it is a shame that the government uses certain words to its advantage, but I guess propaganda is just the nature of the beast.
I'm not in a state of terror about Osama, are you?
The term can be used to describe asymmetrical warfare techniques whose objective is more to motivate fear in the target population than to achieve a classic military objective, but if you think about it, the neighbor kid being sent home from the front lines in a body bag also has that effect, albeit a bit more indirectly.
I think by definition an asymmetrical conflict that doesn't result in the weaker side quitting outright must include some sort of different moral standard about things like civilian life, soldier sacrifice, etc.
I think the guy is nuts, and i think the best description is that he chose a really screwed up way of committing suicide.
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
By clause B a person who writes his congressman and threatens not to vote/donate in the next election cycle is a terrorist (threat/coercion).
If the key is intent, then a poet who writes an anti-government poem is a terrorist.
So an attack designed to destroy an unoccupied building would not be terrorism under the structure you describe above.
The definition does not state that all of the clauses must be satisfied for something to qualify as terrorism, and as I showed above, satisfying a single clause is trivial (and clearly not terrorism).
Logic would dictate that the meaning of that is "if A and (B[1] or B[2] or B[3]) and C", but it's not explicitly there.
> Terrorism is the use of violence, especially murder and bombing, in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to do something.
This was a single, possibly mentally unstable, man crashing a plane into a building. He may have thought he was trying to achieve something politically or to force the government to do something, but without any larger organization behind him it seems silly to label this as a domestic terrorist attack. It's giving the guy far more credit than he deserves.
... just another casualty to propaganda spreading disinformation.
I suspect they don't believe the term applies because he didn't claim to be acting on the part of an organized group or even a very specific ideology. His note made it pretty clear he thought of himself as some kind of lone warrior for justice.
Terrorism does not have to be initiated on behalf of a group or a specific ideology. The definition is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."
Had he enacted a long term plan where he was shooting at people randomly for days and making demands or something like that, then that's different in my eyes. At that point it becomes about using the fear of further violence as a tool and that's when you cross into terrorist land.
But who knows. I think DHS decided it'd be called a criminal act for now - so I guess that's what it gets to be called. Perhaps that label was politically motivated, but I can certainly understand the decision. Everything need not be a conspiracy and every large scale crime need not be a terrorist attack.
Tell that to Thomas Jefferson and George Washington...
Please don't use apostrophes for plurals. It makes my eyes bleed.
Here's a key, in case it gets confusing again:
- Guy in an airport with a Koran and an accent: terrorist.
- White software developer who flies a plane into buildings for ideological reasons: not terrorist.
I'm not necessarily defending the way the government labels different crimes, though. AFAIK the Unibomber was pretty much like this guy.
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
His explicitly stated goal was to affect the conduct of the government and coerce the civilian population via mass destruction.
I'm not confident to which side I am on: I think the government is mostly stupid, not draconian to the people at large. It's hard for me to believe they are innocent at times.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Political_divisio...; sentence #2
He was angry and violent, but he didn't have any objective he was trying to achieve through the act. The objective in terrorism isn't the violence, it's a means to an intended end (such as changes in policy, release of prisoners, etc.).
While this is an act of terrorism for sure, this is not the Terrorism that originates from those we are supposedly fighting in the War on Terror, therefore we should not raise our country's alertness level, have reason to panic, or mobilize our armed forces in response.
(my 2 cents)
He may not be linked to the international Islamic terrorist networks, like the underpants bomber or the guy who shot up Fort Hood. But just because he's not a Muslim terrorist doesn't mean he isn't a terrorist.
"premeditated politically motivated violence, perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."
I'd say it's clear he fits the government's own definition quite clearly.
"This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work."
(this was cited in the letter)
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/25870.html
1) Because of how governments deal in collective punishment, private aviation is likely to suffer further regulatory decimation even though events of this type are extremely rare, statistically speaking.
2) His rambling, narcissistic screed will be broadcast widely, and his immature and senseless actions used to paint those with legitimate and sensible criticisms of our tax system or systems of governance.
Maybe to you. Most of his rant just sounded honest and true to me.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30177.html
Like many people on HN, I am pretty close to the guy's profile. I've been negatively effected by SEC. 1706 - now, I'm far to cynical to think such things can be changed, and I'm not really the murder/suicide type but, uh, I certainly fit the profile.
I just want to say that there are other routes to explore before taking it this far.
http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/0,1518,562570,00.html
Yes, but they are much less effective. E.g., I have never ever heard of him or his protest before.
"Federal and state officials, many facing record budget deficits, are starting to aggressively pursue companies that try to pass off regular employees as independent contractors. President Obama’s 2010 budget assumes that the federal crackdown will yield at least $7 billion over 10 years."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/business/18workers.html?em
If you look deep and examine what is happening here, 106 comments later, you see that people are thinking. A great thing.
Another question I stop to ask myself: His method was poor and for a lot of people that disqualifies his perspective. But should it?
His obsession with, and resentment of, the IRS started when he and others tried to create their own religious organization, ostensibly to draw attention to the capricious laws exempting religious organizations from taxes. How this plan was supposed to work is unclear. L. Ron Hubbard saw the same opportunity and was better at exploiting it.
People don't respond well to acts of violence directed against them or those with whom they empathize. Timothy McVeigh's act caused shock and anger yet achieved nothing. Whatever message Stack wanted to convey has been utterly discredited by attempting to murder people going about their day. And if he wanted to give the government a way to dismiss him, he couldn't have made it any easier.