Video Of Dotcom Raid Revealed, As NZ Police Admit It Was 'Over The Top'

from the ya-think? dept

Yesterday we noted that government officials were seeking to suppress video and images from the raid on Kim Dotcom's home. As a bunch of folks have been sending in all day, New Zealand's 3NEWS has revealed some of the footage in a video interspersed with video from the courtroom hearings and a tour they did a few months ago of the room in which Dotcom hid. It's interesting to note that, contrary to some reports of law enforcement having to "break in" to a "safe room," the reality turned out to just be a hidden room which Dotcom left unlocked. But, much more telling is the ridiculous level of force that the government used to arrest someone for copyright infringement -- which even New Zealand law enforcement admitted was "over the top."
Other reports have noted that Dotcom's security staff includes a police officer who could have been approached. Police also admitted that the effort was rushed and done with much less planning than they would have liked (which supports the notion floated by some that the timing was designed to happen right after the massive SOPA protests). Oh yeah, you'll notice in the video that two helicopters (and many police vehicles) were used -- but in court it was revealed that NZ law enforcement had said that "a full tactical response was not appropriate."

Perhaps they just wanted to look good on camera for the MPAA folks who were so infatuated with going after Kim Dotcom. Certainly, Americans were on the scene. NZ law enforcement admitted that the FBI came along for the ride...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Mike Martinet (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 12:58pm

    Words Fail

    I haven't seen the video, but the idea that a SWAT team needed to be used for copyright infringement is just sickening.

    Don't the New Zealand police have any grandmothers they can mistakenly shoot for selling pot?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      SujaOfJauhnral (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:06pm

      Re: Words Fail

      Next time they won't bother with a SWAT team, they'll just call the army.

      Tanks and bomber jets surrounding my house after downloading a song, woo buddy! I can't wait!!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:08pm

        Re: Re: Words Fail

        Is there that much of a difference any more?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          SujaOfJauhnral (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:15pm

          Re: Re: Re: Words Fail

          Not yet. Wait until they all start wearing trench-coats with red copyright symbols over the arms as they surround/break into your house.


          Looked alittle bit more believable in my future-bong but after seeing that video I'm willing to believe anything at this point, give it a few years.......

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:27pm

          Re: Re: Re: Words Fail

          No. I once watched a house get raided in a small US town, because they were suspected of growing pot.

          They used a tank.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Jay (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 2:33pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Words Fail

            ... I wish you would tell me you were kidding.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              John Fenderson (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 3:14pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Words Fail

              I'm not. but in fairness, it was a small tank.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Wally (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 3:57pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Words Fail

                I agree a tank may be a tad overkill, but in defense of local law enforcement, they have to be very very careful because they don't know what armaments the perp might be carrying. I wasn't there do I agree to your statement that a tank is overkill.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Wally (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 4:01pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Words Fail

                  Sorry for the Yoda Talk there John Fenderson,


                  * I wasn't there so I do agree with your statement...

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  art guerrilla (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 7:22pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Words Fail

                  grrr...
                  'local law enforcement' is a goon squad for Empire to keep the rabble in line...
                  'on the job deaths' are more for retail clerks than kops...
                  should all store clerks pack a glock ? ? ?
                  cabbies are about 4-5 times more likely to be killed on the job; should every cabbie have a small tank ? ? ?
                  we've been a militaristic nation so long, and most are so thoroughly propagandized, we can't even recognize/admit it is so...
                  authoritarianism is the enemy, not freedom...
                  art guerrilla
                  aka ann archy
                  eof

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Minimum Wage Shill, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 4:40pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Words Fail

                "it was a small tank."

                That's not enough!!! They should have sent in the entire military!!!! DANG PIRATE!!! THOSE BLOODY PIRATES ARE VIOLENT AN DANGEROUS, AND SO IS MIKE, AND THE ENTIRE MILITARY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT TO DETAIN THESE PIRATES BEFORE THEY COST THE ECONOMY MORE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS A SECOND IN INFRINGEMENT THEFT!!!!

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                That Anonymous Coward (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 8:01pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Words Fail

                and Dotcom had his own tank afterall.
                Of course it was an inflatable purchased to annoy the neighbors, but it could have had a real tank hidden inside of it!

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        william (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:20pm

        Re: Re: Words Fail

        Hey, Dotcom had a inflatable tank! Of course we have to bring the tank of our home. How are we suppose to know if that tank is not going to post a threat to our officers? What if it's filled with hydrogen like the Hindenburg?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          SujaOfJauhnral (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:23pm

          Re: Re: Re: Words Fail

          Don't forget the paper planes he had hanging from his ceiling. Papercuts are pretty nasty, don't want our officers getting any.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Wally (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 3:59pm

          Re: Re: Re: Words Fail

          The only way you couldn't tell the difference is from 10,000 feet in the air. This concept was proven in WWII

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:39pm

        Re: Re: Words Fail

        What's the difference these days? Same equipment, same training, and often enough same people.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        weneedhelp (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 2:09pm

        Re: Re: Words Fail

        Nah too much money. Obama will just send a drone to bomb them. Case closed.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Pseudonym, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 6:13pm

      Re: Words Fail

      It wasn't just copyright infringement. It was a Mega Conspiracy!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 7:36am

      Re: Words Fail

      Yeah, the whole setting should end up with Dot being stuffed with bullets and dumped in the ocean...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Baldaur Regis (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:00pm

    Dotcom: "Within two seconds they were there and all over me. I had a punch to the face, I had boots kicking me down to the floor, I had a knee to the ribs. My hands were on the floor, one man was standing on my hand."

    New Zealand: "Shocking!"

    USA: "That's it?"

    Glad to see not all the world shares Americas' attitude to aggressive police actions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chargone (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 6:31pm

      Re:

      note: if he was Actually a threat holed up in a easily defended area with guns etc. NZ AOS have been known to call in military AFVs (22mm or so auto-cannons as main armament).

      they then, to my understanding, again demand the surrender of the individual in question. the idea being that, at that point, said individual comes out un-armed and with his hands viable or the auto-cannon starts firing (and it'd chew straight through the walls quite happily). though, admittedly, in that instance i believe there was no one else in the building. the incident where this took place involved an individual who had apparently been shooting at random people/objects on the street from inside the house.

      That guy didn't get roughed up as much as Kim Dotcom apparently did. (mind you, i think there were reporters and associated cameras on-site by that point. not sure though.)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:02pm

    Well this is pretty nutty. They really took the FBI over an issue of copyright infringement?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chris Brand (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:28pm

      Re:

      And here's me thinking that because the FBI doesn't have jurisdiction in Canada, I could ignore those FBI warnings at the start of DVDs! Now I see why they make them unskippable.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Chargone (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 6:34pm

        Re: Re:

        the FBI doesn't have jurisdiction in Canada.
        they don't have jurisdiction HERE either (New Zealand).
        doesn't seem to stop them.

        (and aren't they supposed to be limited to domestic stuff? they seem to be getting involved with NZ issues a lot lately. our exchanges already have taps in them ('oh, but we won't USE them, don't worry') which they helped set up... oh, but of Course they didn't leave themselves a back door. eesh. how stupid are the people in charge here? (don't answer that. we already know the answer is 'very' and/or 'corrupt.))

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Another AC, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:05pm

    Maybe the most damning part

    Is that the main objective was to arrest Kim DotCom to prevent destruction of evidence... except that NZ police had already seized all of MegaUpload's servers *before* the raid even happened.

    Sickening indeed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:16pm

      Re: Maybe the most damning part

      The other interesting part is that the operation/threat was considered "low risk" so they didn't bother to wear full tactical gear. However, they still needed 2 helicopters to conduct the raid, assault rifles, and multiple dog teams.

      Clearly a low risk arrest requires these things.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        PaulT (profile), Aug 9th, 2012 @ 1:00am

        Re: Re: Maybe the most damning part

        I think at this point it wasn't the "risk" they were bothered about, it was the showmanship. The way this entire fiasco seems to have played out is down to trying to scare off anyone else who'd dare run a site not 100% corporate approved, rather than actually prosecuting crime or mitigating risk.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 1:56am

        Re: Re: Maybe the most damning part

        @ #11

        i dread to think of what would be used and how many officers would be involved if there were a high level incident to 'take care of'

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That One Guy (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:20pm

      Re: Maybe the most damning part

      I believe it was the FBI that actually seized all the servers, not the NZ LEA's.

      Still, the point remains, and I hope Dotcom's lawyers really hammer at it: if the whole reason to go rambo on the mansion and Dotcom was to 'prevent the destruction of evidence', and they'd already seized everything beforehand, making it impossible for him to do anything to/with the servers... that kinda blows a semi-truck sized hole in their excuse there.

      I can only assume that they are either:

      A. Lying through their teeth when they say that is the reason.

      or

      B. Have watched more B-movies than is healthy, and thought that he would somehow be able to affect a system that had been disconnected, through the magic of hacking or something.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:25pm

        Re: Re: Maybe the most damning part

        Or that the information would be unrecoverable even if "deleted" from a computer.

        It also seems like he never thought he was violating any laws related to copyright. Mega did comply with takedowns and other issues in a way they thought they were legally required to do. So why would he immediately run and kill "evidence" if he saw police? Would that be your first thought?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        weneedhelp (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 2:11pm

        Re: Re: Maybe the most damning part

        The content industry gave them all the seasons of 24.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        velox (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 4:36pm

        Re: Re: Maybe the most damning part

        " the whole reason to go rambo on the mansion and Dotcom was"...
        Because they're grown up boys who saw an opportunity to demonstrate they're part of something big... And they're tough too.

        Because they own a bunch of cool Rambo shit, and what fun is having it if you never get a chance to use it?

        Oh yeah, and if it wasn't really necessary, at least its 'good training' to be able to use the gear and tactics once in a while.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Chargone (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 6:35pm

        Re: Re: Maybe the most damning part

        gets better when you realise the USG keeps trying to find ways to 'inadvertently' destroy said evidence.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Divide by Zero (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:39pm

      Re: Maybe the most damning part

      Oh but don't forget the FBI told the police that Kim had a device that would let him delete all the servers. What it says about our cops that they believed such a load of crap though...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 3:16pm

        Re: Re: Maybe the most damning part

        Yes, it would be gently amusing and charmingly quaint but for the minor detail of SWAT trolling someone's family home.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 5:22pm

        Re: Re: Maybe the most damning part

        in all fairness that isnt something that would be difficult to script. could even trigger it via an sms alert that was built into his bedside emergency button.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          That One Guy (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 6:25pm

          Re: Re: Re: Maybe the most damning part

          Which might have been an acceptable excuse if they hadn't already seized the servers beforehand.

          Considering they already had the servers, if they were truly worried about him wiping them, they would have(and I'm sure did) simply disconnected the servers so they couldn't be remotely accessed.

          The point was to make an example out of him, the 'we had to send in the swat teams to keep him from destroying evidence' thing is just a sad excuse for after the fact justification.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        aerilus, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 9:10pm

        Re: Re: Maybe the most damning part

        which to me would mean that they should arrest him out in public away from his home just keep an eye on his cell phone possibly grab it first if he had it on the table at a restaurant. you have moved what appears to be a 10-20 officer multiple helicopter urban assault that cost tax payers god only knows how much to a quite arrest that two plain clothes officers could do.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Loki, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:51pm

      Re: Maybe the most damning part

      Perhaps because it seems quite obvious to most free minded people that the raid had nothing whatsoever to do with preventing the destruction of evidence.

      From the general consensus of almost everyone I've talked to who is aware of this case (maybe in the neighborhood of 100 people) the raid was intended to accomplish 2 things:

      1) Prevent to establishment of real competition to the established corporate interests to whom the established political infrastructure of federal government is essentially beholden too, and scare off anyone else who might have ideas of follow suit with plans to compete fairly in the marketplace.

      2) Show quite clearly that the US Federal Government is more than capable of violating the rights of people from other countries (see also the O'Dwyer extradition attempts), so as make Americans aware their rights are even more easily disposed of.

      Of course even if either of these perceptions is proven not to actually be true, the politicians don't really care if they exist at all, or that they are becoming increasingly reviled by their own citizens (much less the rest of the world), because come November most of them are going to retain their positions of power, and the handful that do get removed in most, if not all, cases, simply be replaced by drones from the opposing parties, and will continue on with business as usual.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Sam, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 2:49pm

        Re: Re: Maybe the most damning part

        Loki has summed it all up and as an American I am ashamed at this blatant abuse of power by our goverment and the FBI in particular.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 4:44pm

      Re: Maybe the most damning part

      I should point out that there were also servers at the mansion, including the ones holding the security camera footage (like that shown here). There is a separate complaint about copies of the data off those being supplied to the FBI in the US when there was a clear understanding that they would not leave NZ jurisdiction without permission from a court.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    heyidiot (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:08pm

    I think the FBI reads too many high-tech thriller novels. Apparently they thought they were dealing with Matthew Sobol.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Nigel (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:08pm

    Contrary to popular opinion

    I watched the actual news report this morning. The guy actually seems to be a pretty reasonable fellow.

    Certainly considering what was done to him and the facts surrounding it.

    Nigel

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Gothenem (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:13pm

    Way to go FBI! Now you have shown your true colors. Dotcom will walk free after all of this, not because he is guilty or innocent, but because of the bad decisions made in his arrest.

    This is similar to the reasons OJ Simpson got to walk free for murder. You botch up arresting the suspect (in the OJ Case it was the gathering of the evidence that was botched). And you give the accused all the leverage they need to force the courts to let them walk. And since this is a criminal case, not a civil one, Double Jeopardy applies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    PlagueSD (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:22pm

    I blame violent video game, TV shows, movies, and heavy metal music. If it is good enough excuse for law enforcment to use for us, we can turn the tide...Excuses are a double edged blade.


    Oh, and I almost forgot...For the children!!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Baldaur Regis (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:43pm

      Re:

      Ironically, three children AND a pregnant woman were "secured" during The "op". I just thank god they were rescued from the clutches of this......um.....copyright infringer....?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 5:10pm

        Re: Re:

        The mother watches a movie...some part of that experience is passed to the unborn child.

        THIS FOETUS NEEDS TO GO ON TRIAL FOR INFRINGEMENT...quick! someone step on its hands.....

        I think the damages should be $150,000 per infringement plus immediate seizure of all network/placental equipment.....

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    cosmicrat, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:22pm

    Clearly he was a high level "cyberthreat"

    Mention the word "cyber" in front of anything (like, say, parking violations) and some tools' minds instantly flash to images of Mission Impossible style terrorist plots or satellites crashing into the NZ parliament or something. Thus the justified response.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:31pm

    this raid was executed to be similar to TPB 'spectrial'. it was done intentionally how it was to instill as much fear, intimidation and theatrics as possible, not just in Dotcom as Megaupload founder/operator but in as many other site operators that the entertainment industries dont like. it didn't/doesn't matter whether Mega was legal or not or whether the other sites were or not. what is more scary is the level the US government had in the instigation and execution of the raid and the level of lies told to get the NZ government and law enforcement agencies involved as well. as admitted by NZ officers, it was well OTT, all over so-called but unproven file sharing and copyright infringement accusations. hell, there isn't this level of cooperation between countries, let alone the respective law enforcement agencies over anything that is truly illegal!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:46pm

      Re:

      If they want to centralize our support to the half decent services still left or yet to come, let them.........would be pretty stupid of them to do so, or arrogant, no wait, stupid......no, wait, arrogant ?????*shrugs

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:37pm

    I have a basic question here?

    Was the arrest over the top?

    Or, is there something going on in which the police actions are appropriate and that we are unaware and ignorant of?

    Or. is is both?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:47pm

      Re:

      "Or, is there something going on in which the police actions are appropriate and that we are unaware and ignorant of?"

      No indication of such in the video.

      Is the AC who asked the question an idiot who has no idea of police procedure or an MPAA apologist?

      Or is he both?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      fiestachickens (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:48pm

      Re:

      I'd say it's a certainty that somebody is being ignorant here... And I'm not so sure that it's the general Internet population

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 2:32pm

      Re:

      "I have a basic question here?"

      I'm guessing the answer is yes since you're asking one.

      "Or, is there something going on in which the police actions are appropriate and that we are unaware and ignorant of?"

      The problem is not whether or not we know that there was something that in our minds would make us think that the police actions were appropriate.

      The problem is that the search warrants were invalid, so they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Assaulting the guy when they find him, unarmed and not resisting, is definitely inappropriate and should be actionable by Dotcom if NZ's laws have any true force of justice.

      And worst of all, they admit that the entire thing was driven by the FBI and the DOJ has shown that they act on the unverified claims of the media companies.

      Even if you could argue that the police actions were appropriate, you can't legitimately argue that NZ's police should be puppets for the US DOJ who are themselves puppets for media companies.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 3:31pm

      Re:

      The arrest was over the top.

      We know this for a fact because if such violence was actually necessary because the kind of threat that would make it necessary would have made for much better PR for the cops involved. They would be shouting from the hilltops about the clearly dangerous threat they protected the public from.

      That they aren't doing this but are instead sitting back and looking like stupid, overbearing thugs, says that there was no such threat.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 4:48pm

      Re: Was the arrest over the top?

      As was clear from the footage and from the testimony by the STG cop:

      1) They came armed and prepared to shoot.
      2) They didnít come with body armour. In other words, they were not prepared to be shot at.

      Draw your own conclusions about what the threat level was, and from where.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 7:18pm

        Re: Re: Was the arrest over the top?

        Tactical gear that SWAT teams wear is different than the bulletproof vests worn by traffic cops. They easily (and likely) could have been wearing those. And in terms of weapons, these aren't crossing guards, they're an arrest team set to apprehend an armed felon. I suppose you think they should have brought slingshots instead?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 8:14pm

          Re: Was the arrest over the top?

          >Tactical gear that SWAT teams wear is different than the
          >bulletproof vests worn by traffic cops.

          Your traffic cops wear bulletproof vests!? What country do you live in?

          >They easily (and likely) could have been wearing those.

          The STG cop testified that they were not.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Ninja (profile), Aug 9th, 2012 @ 3:50am

            Re: Re: Was the arrest over the top?

            Every police officer is wearing bulletproof vests here in Brazil because they are constantly at risk of being shot due to a lame judicial system that allows criminals to be released very early among other absurds. Security is an issue here. Not as bad as the rest of the world thinks but worse than it could be.

            Also, it's interesting to note that a while back there was a statement of participants of the raid that they were not expecting women and children, they didn't have details on the operation. I need citations for that but I remember reading about this.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 2:02am

        Re: Re: Was the arrest over the top?

        @ #66

        1) They came armed and prepared to shoot.
        2) They didnít come with body armour. In other words, they were not prepared to be shot at.

        2) should read: They didnít come with body armour. In other words, they were not expecting to be shot at.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 1:53pm

    Well there is a reason they did this to prevent him from destroying evidence. Have any of you ever seen Andrew Dice Clay - I'm over here now?
    If you have you would know it's very easy to be in one spot then a distance away in a matter of seconds. How is this done? Fuck if I know... All I know was one second he was there and then he was over there O_O

    Could we really afford to give Dotcom a chance to use such witchery?

    In conclusion from watching that I learned three things.
    1. It's easy to be here and then over there.
    2. It looks like Bozo between a redheads legs.
    3. I can put my hand around the back of my head and light my smoke like I'm from Jersey. What's up with that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 2:00pm

    I'm still waiting for you guys to explain why the show of force used when arresting him matters? Who cares? It's got nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. It's just whining.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      surfer (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 2:17pm

      Re:

      After I punch you in the face you can stop whining.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      fiestachickens (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 2:20pm

      Re:

      Ah the 'ol end justifies the means argument? So as long as we get the terrorists, who cares if we nuke the entire country right?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 2:21pm

      Re:

      uhmm, assault is a criminal violation and copyright is only a civil issue.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      weneedhelp (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 2:21pm

      Re:

      "It's just whining."

      Lemme bust down your door with 30-40 of my friends, terrorize your family, destroy your property, beat you, and just for shits and giggles I will kick your dog.

      What is it you have done that deserves such treatment?
      Must be a child molester or murderer; right?

      Ohhh I ran a website the may or may not be involved in copyright infringement. Ohhhh nooooossssss!!!!!!
      Give him death.

      "It's just whining." - I know but i answered you anyway.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 2:45pm

        Re: Re:

        @weneedhelp

        And just to add, you and your friends would also be protected from any repercussions from it.........yep, seems fair

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Coyote (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 2:41pm

      Re:

      Any logical person cares; typical procedure doesn't indicate the punching and such were necessary. If a man or woman surrenders, you cuff them; you do not punch them, you do not kick them, none of that. You do not use force when it is unnecessary and in fact, in cases where police use unnecessary force, people have gotten off because of the botched arrest attempt.

      Guilty or innocent, Dotcom was treated like shit by the police, and constitutes unnecessary force; he did nothing threatening to the police, he held up his hands like you would when you were being seized as per police proecure, and he surrendered peacefully. If after the fact, they punched and kicked him, it shows use of unnecessary force. That's pretty important factor. It's not 'whining' when the police uses completely unnecessary amounts of violence against an unarmed man.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 6:48am

        Re: Re:

        You weren't there. I think its just as likely that fat boy was ordered to hit the deck and didn't comply so he required some assistance. Christ, he didn't have any cuts, bruises or broken bones. This feigned outrage is all about your man crush on Fat Bastard. There are people all over the world who are treated far more harshly than this big pussy- why no outrage on their behalf. Why are you hyperventilating over Kimmy? Couldn't have anything to do with him running one of the largest copyright infringing sites in the world could it?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Michael, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 7:01am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Why are you hyperventilating over Kimmy? Couldn't have anything to do with him running one of the largest copyright infringing sites in the world could it?"

          By that same measure, YouTube should be considered ten times worse than Megaupload ever was as it features far, FAR more copyrighted content, easily accessible to anyone. As a matter of fact, record labels/artists, film studios, TV networks and everyone inbetween upload content all the time to YouTube, content which can EASILY be downloaded or recorded by anyone with even rudimentary understanding of how the internet works. Tell me, how can the legacy groups compain on the one hand about MU being a haven for copyright infringement just for providing a data-storage service (despite having a system in place allowing content holders free reign to take stuff down), yet on the other hand upload content to YouTube of their own accord and say nothing about it? They're busy doing the very thing they're accusing MU of.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Aug 9th, 2012 @ 7:20am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "You weren't there."

          Neither were you, yet you seem almost as single-minded in attacking him as those you criticise are in defending him. Interesting, don't you think?

          "There are people all over the world who are treated far more harshly than this big pussy- why no outrage on their behalf."

          There's plenty of sites that do just that, along with many national and international organisations that people take part in. This is a tech blog, not the place to complain about atrocities carried out by your government and others in the name of other crusades. The outrage is taking place at the appropriate venues - go there if you wish to see it rather than trying to distract from the discussion that's actually relevant here.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          techflaws (profile), Aug 9th, 2012 @ 7:25am

          Re: Re: Re:

          You weren't there

          Neither were you.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Baldaur Regis (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 2:46pm

      Re:

      I'm still waiting for you guys to explain why the show of force used when arresting him matters? Who cares? It's got nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. It's just whining.
      Thank you for this definitive illustration of "troll". And for the insight into a sociopathic mind.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 3:01pm

      Re:

      Wait no longer, the level of force used, timing and others factors clearly demonstrates that this was not a criminal issue but a political action, which should get everybody worried about.

      This was not a criminal investigation, this was not your over the mill criminal being caught red handed, this was a show of political force, a disgraceful display of anti-democratic values and the true rule of law.

      That is why it matters.

      When Dotcom walks free, people will still wonder why all that was needed to nab that guy, who is not recognized as dangerous, have no history of violence, was at home with his wife and children and had his rights violated because of political reasons. Yes political, because since then the criminal charges and other legal proceedings have not gone well for the governments involved showing the many shortcomings in the way this whole things was conducted.

      Then some idiot will say "we need to brainwash the masses with more BS, throw enough and they will believe it" forgeting that people believe almost anything IF they trust the source.

      Good luck trying to fabricate trusted sources that the people will believe now.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 5:03pm

      Re:

      Wow, you really are oblivious.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 7:42pm

      Re:

      Aren't you asking the wrong question? Rather, why is there a trial? Just chop off his hands and be done with it. No need to inconvenience lawyers, judges, or members of the public.

      Seriously. How whiny do you have to be to demand things like a trial, evidence, or a verdict?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), Aug 9th, 2012 @ 3:55am

      Re:

      I was wondering where were the trolls and there you are!

      You usually use force proportional to the threat. You don't get a full tactical team to serve a guy that has no violent criminal record and is at home with his wife and kids.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 6:39am

        Re: Re:

        He was known to be a felon and armed. And, as anticipated he was found with a gun.

        Even if it was Mr. Rogers (with multiple felony convictions and known to have guns), the cops will always come in with overwhelming force rather than risk being shot themselves.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Ninja (profile), Aug 10th, 2012 @ 3:37am

          Re: Re: Re:

          He was convicted for very light crimes. In the US specifically you can probably be a felon for urinating on the street.

          And yes, he had a gun but as pointed out he never took it out. Many Americans have guns and it's virtually impossible to know if some1 is armed or not. Are you implying police should use tactics force and smack every suspect down to the ground? I hope you aren't.

          Nice try but that doesn't justify the excessive power used.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 7:52am

      Re:

      The end does not justify the means...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 2:40pm

    A whiner calling others a whiner, how ironic

    A pre question setting up the follow up of "why didnt you answer my question" reply, with the classic obligatory insult thrown in, which nullifies the question........this species is getting well documented and easier to identify it seems

    Who will win.........we decide.......that means you too monkey boy..........hey, fairs fair

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 8:28pm

      Re:

      A whiner calling someone being a whiner over an alleged whiner; that's worse.

      Did you feel that hurricane head was showing you up, darryl, that you had to return here and post in non-grammar again?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 3:35pm

    I'm still unclear on why all his stuff that was removed from the mansion, hasn't been returned to him. The court ruled that the warrants for the raid were invalid, which means that anything removed from his home was done illegally, so why haven't they been ordered to give it all back? Exactly what does having the warrants ruled illegal mean if absolutely nothing changes?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      G Thompson (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 9:33pm

      Re:

      It hasn't been returned since there are appeals and also the better reason, it is no longer physically in the control of the Crown any more since it was given to the FBI without consent who took it out of the country.

      At the minimum the chain of custody was broken and the authenticity of the evidence is now destroyed, at the worst the FBI individual officers have committed criminal acts that could result in warrants for arrest and are punishable by gaol terms

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Minimum Wage Shill, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 4:12pm

    See, I told you everything is nothing but fear mongering, but you wouldn't believe me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Aug 8th, 2012 @ 4:18pm

    My conclusions

    I have come to a few conclusions from the video on this case that I hope to point out to anyone who wishes to imply the actions employed by the US DOJ, the FBI, and the police acted entirely appropriate.


    The simple fact that the mansion was raided AFTER the FBI went in on an ILLEGAL warrant was infact, revealed in the video. It was VERY unessecery to carry an M4 A1 Semi Automatic Assult Rifle to arrest and kindly, rather large, eccentric man who happens to be a very compliant person.

    Earlier in his trial Kim Dotcom clearly stated his compliance by saying if he had been faced with a proper and legal DCMA takedown notice in a fax or other legal documentation.

    That being said, it's safe to say that this should not have happened. The DOJ and FBI here at the federal level are in the pocket of the MPAA and I'm getting tired of the current US Administration's blind eye towards the matter.

    I will SAFELY say that the previous administration was a TON better for blocking this kind of shit behavior.

    Oh, just so you all know, the people if the United States that know of this case are just as pissed off as I am about it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 4:34pm

    What's even more outrageous is that the govt. established media cartels are practically ignoring this whole issue. This is unconstitutional itself, the govt. established media cartels receive their exclusive broadcasting and cableco distribution position from the government and they are wrongfully abusing the power of the state to censor what's going on from the public. The government is effectively being used to censor information from various information distribution platforms.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2012 @ 8:56pm

    With police like these....

    ...who needs criminals?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 12:07am

    All this, and you guys still forget:

    The fat fucker built a safe room exactly because he thought he would get taken down. He wanted to hide and sneak away when nobody was looking, but got caught out apparently because he can't move his carcass fast enough.

    For a seemingly nnocent guy, he sure does act guilty!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 12:08am

    All this, and you guys still forget:

    The fat fucker built a safe room exactly because he thought he would get taken down. He wanted to hide and sneak away when nobody was looking, but got caught out apparently because he can't move his carcass fast enough.

    For a seemingly nnocent guy, he sure does act guilty!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Aug 9th, 2012 @ 1:10am

      Re:

      "For a seemingly nnocent guy, he sure does act guilty!"

      Luckily, there's courts of law that can determine that status, despite your attempts to bypass them due to your "feeling" he's guilty.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 5:02am

        Re: Re:

        Don't be snide Paul. I am not claiming he is guilty or innocent, just pointing out the this repeat felon seemed really concerned with his safety, and seemed to really want to be able hide.

        Why would you think that is? Most people don't have hidey holes in their house, unless they have some reason to hide, right? So what do you think he was hiding from? The cholesterol police?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Aug 9th, 2012 @ 5:37am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "I am not claiming he is guilty or innocent, just pointing out the this repeat felon seemed really concerned with his safety, and seemed to really want to be able hide."

          A concern that seems to have been totally justified, don't you think?

          "Most people don't have hidey holes in their house, unless they have some reason to hide, right?"

          A lot of rich people have them to protect themselves in case of burglary, death threats or kidnapping. Are you saying everybody who has one installed has something to hide from law enforcement, or are you only applying that in this case?

          You do seem to be launching a lot of attacks in his direction based on your own assumptions. They may be justified, maybe not, but that';s exactly what you're doing. Stop pretending otherwise.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          techflaws (profile), Aug 9th, 2012 @ 7:31am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Don't be snide Paul

          The fat fucker

          Oh the irony.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 8:12am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I hope to God that you don't have a bomb shelter in your basement. A good number of apartments of flats now have one built into the central pillar; one of my uncles lives in such a flat. So you're going to SWAT team every person whose house has a little armour?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      techflaws (profile), Aug 9th, 2012 @ 7:29am

      Re:

      The fat fucker built a safe room exactly because he thought he would get taken down

      Right. Being a RICH fat fucker did not at all make him susceptible to say, a home invasion/kidnapping by criminals which he and his family could survive by hiding in the safe room.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Aug 9th, 2012 @ 3:56am

    Well, if we needed further evidence to support Dotcom it seems here we got them. The whole case is a disgusting display of how rotten the MAFIAA and the US have become.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Kevin (profile), Aug 9th, 2012 @ 5:41am

    Meanwhile

    No wonder that there is little respect for the law and it's upholders.
    Other questions are did the FBI agents have visas, if so what type and who arranged the granting of them? If they didn't have any how did they get pass Customs?
    External law enforcement officers can only enter a country by invitation. Who invited them.
    Was there trade threats made if NZ did not cooperate with USA?
    No wonder the USA has move to being the most admired to the most despised country in the world.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michael, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 6:35am

    So when do they begin raiding the owners of YouTube? After all, same as Megaupload, they provide a service where anyone can upload content accessible to others.

    It's apparent that the corporate agenda of the **AA groups overlap with law enforcement agencies. That is to say, both have an interest in rounding up anyone who in any way threaten their entrenched money-making schemes.

    Regardless whether or not Kim Dotcom is guilty of copyright infringement, this raid serves to prove how overly aggressive the US has become over pathetic copyright laws and how weak-kneed New Zealand is when it comes to protecting its own citizens against foreign aggressors. Should the US allow other sovereign states to send in tactical squads to go after our own citizens?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 6:59am

      Re:

      1. Fat Bastard is not a citizen of NZ.
      2. There's no evidence that the FBI took any tactical role in the arrest. They may have been present but clearly it was the NZ police who played the tactical role in the arrest.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Michael, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 7:19am

        Re: Re:

        Even if that's the case, they're still overstepping their bounds. Copyright is treated like some untouchable gold herring which everyone absolutely must bend over to appease. In reality it is construed as a means to regulate media/internet, grant certain corporate entities an unfair monopoly and stifle innovation, to say nothing of all the arrests and seizures committed for its sake. It creates far more problems than it does good.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 8:56am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Even if that's the case, they're still overstepping their bounds.

          Says who, you? That seems like a matter between governments.

          Copyright is treated like some untouchable gold herring which everyone absolutely must bend over to appease. In reality it is construed as a means to regulate media/internet, grant certain corporate entities an unfair monopoly and stifle innovation, to say nothing of all the arrests and seizures committed for its sake. It creates far more problems than it does good.

          Well, there's also the matter of racketeering, money laundering, wire fraud, etc. I guess those slipped your mind.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 8:57am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Well, there's also the matter of racketeering, money laundering, wire fraud, etc. I guess those slipped your mind.

            You mean those things that only exist by virtue of the premise of criminal copyright infringement?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 9:41am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Yes, just like an underlying charge of cultivation of marijuana is made a far more serious when the conspiracy also entails racketeering, money laundering, wire fraud, etc.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 9:51am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                The charge is no more or less serious for the existance of other charges. And all those other charges have no real impact on whether or not the laws surrounding the first charge make sense. Which is what the person you responded to was discussing.

                Saying "Oh, we need this to be illegal, otherwise we couldn't also slap them with this other stuff." is sort of silly.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 10:10am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  And all those other charges have no real impact on whether or not the laws surrounding the first charge make sense.

                  Make sense? I'm not sure that marijuana cultivation laws makes sense, but they are laws nonetheless. I doubt your (or fat boy's) agreement with the law making sense has any bearing on the trial.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 10:36am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    I doubt your (or fat boy's) agreement with the law making sense has any bearing on the trial.

                    Perhaps not, but the way this whole scenario has unfolded does raise questions about the nature of the laws and the lengths that are apparently required to uphold them. I think a discussion about whether or not things have gotten out of hand, and whether or not these laws are a net benefit to society is certainly valid, though.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 10:12am

          Re: Re: Re:

          BTW, what's a gold herring?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        techflaws (profile), Aug 9th, 2012 @ 7:32am

        Re: Re:

        There's no evidence that the FBI took any tactical role in the arrest.

        So no need whatsoever for them to be there on site, right?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Bergman (profile), Aug 9th, 2012 @ 3:13pm

    The news anchor keeps using the phrase "semi-automatic weapons". If that's really a Colt M4 the cop was carrying, that's not a semi-automatic weapon. An M4 is a FULLY automatic weapon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2012 @ 4:43pm

      Re:

      Mercy me, not that. Who fucking cares what the weapon of choice in NZ is? Would you feel better if they burst in with Pappy's old 12 gauge? Given that it wasn't used it could have just as easily been a slingshot or a Gatling gun.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 2012 @ 7:34am

      Re:

      What type of M4 do you play with? I've never seen one with an Auto setting. They have Semi and Burst. Granted, I'm pretty sure I haven't seen EVERY version of the M4. Same with the M16. Only the M16A1 had automatic. Every other version I ever played with (ex-army) only had Semi and Burst. So at best, it's only partially automatic :D

      The next point to raise is, in the hands of law enforcement/soldiers, Semi is better than Auto. Automatic LOOKS impressive, but is very ineffectual unless you're in a situation where you need LOTS of bullets fast and can't possibly miss. Unlike machineguns, the recoil from assault rifles throws your aim off far too fast to be useful. Even 3-round bursts are wasteful. Semi-Automatic is for professionals, Automatic is for fools.

      Lastly, who cares how accurate the description of the weapons by the news anchor is? News Anchors are almost always wrong on technical details anyways. It's like raging at the ocean for being wet.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    dxloat, Aug 10th, 2012 @ 7:03am

    You will bow to the whims of the US or else.
    I am a US citizen and it saddens me to see we have perverted our democracy beyond repair. We will try to impose our will on every country we can, when things don't go our way we will ignore the UN and any other governing body to reach our goals. We firmly believe that might makes right, that the end justifies the means. I am ashamed to be American. We have more of our own people incarcerated than any other country in history, including the Nazis. Get the hell out then you might say, well guess what I looked into that but other countries don't want American immigrants. The sooner the rest of the world distances its self from the US and lets this evil empire die and become the very short footnote in history it is destined to become the better off we all will be.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This