WTC,9/11,Logan Airport,Boston:Organized Crime Linked MIT Professor Noam Chomsky,Lied About Jstor being to blame for Arron Swartz prosecution-suicide
WTC,9/11:Organized Crime Linked MIT Professor Noam Chomsky,Lied About Jstor being to blame for Arron Swartz prosecution-suicide
Organized Crime Linked MIT Professor Noam Chomsky,Lied About Jstor being to blame for Arron Swartz prosecution-suicide
When I say Noam Chomsky is linked to organized crime I speak from experience. James Dale Davidson fpunder of the NTU or National Taxpayers Union that Noam Chomsky is directly connected with as an adviser of some sort is alsao founder of the CIA and UK Rothschild connected Agora Inc of Baltimore where one of its employees 'mysteriously' fell 14 floors to his death in 2006.......
(NTU,Agora Inc.,James Dale Davidson)
Here you will see Chomsky's claim or bvious lie that it was all jstor's fault that Aaron Swartz was so visciously attacked and outrageously charged by Boston U.S.Attorney Carmen Ortiz who if familiar with the U.S.Constituion and put in logical perspectic would have realised that her and MIT's - and NOT jstor's harrassment who to the contrary of Noam Chomsky's lie had refused to prosecute Aaron Swartz altogether .It was to the contrary MIT and U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortega encouraged by their viscious and aggressivive prosecutorial stance to egged the lieing Zionist U.S.Attorney Carmen Ortega on in the firtst place and NOT jstor as Noam Chomsky lied about being the chief culprit.
In fact it ids obvious from Noam Chomaky's statement below laying all blame on jstor whenin fact they had NO BLAME WHATSOEVER and clarification from Boston Business Journal web editor Galen Moore quoted with link below that you can see that CHOMSKY WHO HAS INTERNATIONAL STOCK FRAUD AND MONEY LAUNDERING CONNECTIOINS BY WAY OF HIS NTU CONNECTIONS WITH National Taxpayers Union and Agora Inc founder James Dale Davidson that through him extend to the UK ROTHSCHILD ZIONIST FINANCIAL CRIME FAMILY WHO IN FACT ARE LINKED TO FINANCING Israel's Mossad conected ICTS INTERNATIONAL of Menachm Atzmon and the deceased Ezra Harel who besides having run huge financial frauds upoon Americans for decades themslves were the Logan Airport Boston security that allowed 9/11 to happen by allowing flights 11 and 175 to take off from there that day on September 11,2001 to hit the WTC in NYC in the first place !
Aaron was a very nice kid, he commited suicide. What happened is that he broke into the MIT system, he freed up jstore, jstore pressed MIT to do something, they didn’t know who he was and they called the police, they identified him. Then the Federal prosecuter got involved, and the State prosecutor and proposed a ridiculous sentence, she said he had to go to jail for 40 years, and he commited suicide. Actually there was an offer, that he should agree for a jail sentence for a cupple of months but they finally didn’t want that and he committed suicide. It is a terrible event, everyone involved should have pressed the prosecutors not to do anythinG.
However, there is another issue that has to do with freedom of information: if you take jstore and make it public, jstore goes out of business. We live in a capitalist society, they can’t survive if they don’t get subscriptions, If jstore goes out of business nobody gets access to the journals. So the next step is, OK, let’s ‘liberate’ the journals. In that case the journals go out of business and nobody has any place to publish. You can’t just ‘liberate’ things pretending you don’t exist in the world.
A lot of young kids think you can do that, they are not thinking it through. There are ways arounfd this, but they involve collective action, of the kind that does not match with the spirit of the age. What ought to have happened is that there ought to be a public subsidy for creative work, and there there would be no copyrights, no patents, a huge savings and everything would be opened. But that requires to do something together and we are not allowed to do that, we have to be out for ourselves… . .-Noam Chomsky
Aaron was a very nice kid, he commited suicide. What happened is that he broke into the MIT system, he freed up jstore, jstore pressed MIT to do something, -Noam Chomsky
Now compare Chomsky's lie above blaming jstor for the whole tragedy and miscarriage of justice with the statement below by Aaaron Swartz partner Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman quoted from Galen Moore's Boston Business Journal article.:
"The fact is that all MIT had to do was say publicly, 'We don’t want this prosecution to go forward' – and (Assistant U.S. Attorney)Steve Heymannand (U.S. Attorney)Carmen Ortizwould have had no case," Stinebrickner-Kauffman wrote. "We have an institution to contrast MIT with – Jstor, who came out immediately and publicly against the prosecution. Aaron would be alive today if MIT had acted as Jstor did. MIT had a moral imperative to do so."
In his letter introducing the report, MIT President L. Rafael Reif wrote that it dispels "myths" about how the university handled a case in which Swartz was accused of illegally downloading peer-reviewed articles from publisher Jstor (Ithaka Harbors) by hacking into the MIT network. A news release stated the report found "no wrongdoing" on MIT's part.
In fact, the report delivers more awkwardness than clarity, as its authors acknowledge the university leaned toward the prosecution against an activist for Internet freedom of information, whom one of its own leaders has suggested should be called a member of the MIT "family."
MIT "did not 'target' Aaron Swartz," "did not seek federal prosecution," and "did not oppose a plea bargain," Reif wrote.
"The fact is that all MIT had to do was say publicly, 'We don’t want this prosecution to go forward' – and (Assistant U.S. Attorney) Steve Heymann and (U.S. Attorney) Carmen Ortizwould have had no case," Stinebrickner-Kauffman wrote. "We have an institution to contrast MIT with – Jstor, who came out immediately and publicly against the prosecution. Aaron would be alive today if MIT had acted as Jstor did. MIT had a moral imperative to do so."
(Page 2 of 3)
The report itself, led by MIT Prof. Harold Abelson, MIT Prof. Emeritus Peter Diamondand former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Grosso, details how the university decided to make no intervention on Swartz's behalf, despite an entreaty from its newly appointed Media Lab director, Joichi Ito. "I wonder if there is any way that MIT might consider this a 'family matter' and consider helping to try to limit the extent of the punishment and at least prevent Aaron from going to prison on a felony charge," Ito wrote to MIT's Office of the General Counsel in June 2011, according to the report. "Obviously it (Swartz's alleged hack) was a stupid thing to do, but the weight of the possible sentence seems quite harsh in my personal opinion."
MIT could have handled Swartz's case as it did that of David LaMacchia in 1994. LaMacchia, a student, had used university computers to share games and other copyrighted material. The U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston wanted to charge him using the same statute it would later use to prosecute Swartz. The university protected LaMacchia by simply stating that his activity was authorized under its internal policies.
MIT decided not to do the same for Swartz as it had for LaMacchia, because Swartz was not a student – despite Ito's letter, which noted that Swartz's brother was an MIT student, and his father was an employee of the Media Lab. Swartz also, the report makes clear, was a frequent participant in MIT institutions and activities.
Instead, MIT chose to remain "neutral" and stay quiet. In July 2011, Jstor issued a statement to the effect that it had "no interest in this becoming an ongoing legal matter." MIT did not issue any statement. "The time of Jstor’s statement was a particular opportunity for MIT to issue its own statement," the report notes
Even "neutral" required some qualification in the report. The authors acknowledge the university's interests were aligned against Swartz's legal defense, once his lawyers filed motions to suppress evidence that accused the university of violating federal law and Swartz's constitutional rights.
From well before those motions, MIT had worked more closely with prosecution attorneys than with the defense – for example, allowing prosecutors and investigators to directly telephone and email MIT employees – according to the report. The defense was never given permission to interview any MIT employee without an MIT lawyer present.
MIT also voluntarily gave the prosecution copies of documents it had provided to the defense. It never did the same for the defense, although Swartz's attorneys had subpoenaed documents provided to the prosecution. MIT lawyers were operating under the assumption that the defense was able to get those documents from the prosecution, according to the report.
What emerges from this report is a picture of an institution that was more eager to cooperate with prosecutors than it was to hear the sentiments of those within its own community who questioned whether the punishment fit the crime. Meanwhile, we're still waiting to see Department of Homeland Security documents FOIA'd by Wired editor Kevin Poulsen but blocked by a request from MIT. So far, this report only highlights the awkward position the university finds itself in.