Anonymous is being hypocritical again, but, in a "good" way.

Anonymous is being hypocritical again, demanding a free Internet while they work to censor the Internet.  This time though they are going after a government website and not a University or an individual and that makes a difference to me.

There are times when violence and breaking the law are the only methods that can be used.  The United States fought a war against slavery.

I know people claim it was a tariff war, or a war about states rights.  That makes no sense.  The South wanted tariffs to make their cotton competitive with cotton from North Africa and Europe.  Who did the South want to buy their cotton?  The textile mills in the North and in England.  If the South formed a new nation and charged tariffs on imported cotton, how would that help them sell cotton to textile mills in the North?  How was states rights going to help them sell their product?

John Brown had it right, a couple years later the nation fought a war against slavery.

Lincoln fought a war oppressing the South to relieve the oppression of slavery.  Sometimes hypocrisy is a must, but, I don't believe burning Atlanta helped the cause.  In fact Southern landowners made fortunes selling lumber to rebuild the city and went right back to oppressing Blacks after Atlanta was rebuilt.

Disrupting communication is censorship.  Trying to pretend that attacks on communication resources are anything but censorship is stupid.

The difference between Lincoln or John Brown and Anonymous is that Anonymous is being very hypocritical, demanding a censor free web and then becoming the censors.  Who they censor is very important.

I understand the thought behind the action.  These people are not fighters, they are hiders.  People who can't fight in the open, not even guerrillas.

They feel they need to do something and since the only thing they know is communications technology they are going to disrupt communications.  A group against censorship that can fight using forms of censorship, disrupting communications and creating chaos.

They can also release data and allow people to study and learn for themselves.  I doubt if people will, but, releasing data, the way wikileaks did, can help.  My nephew was on a corporate security watch list released by wikileaks.

Like anyone else who commits an act of terrorism, a massacre at a theater or a school or an embassy or an office building, these people believe they have no other choice.

As long as Anonymous can focus on the disruption of government communications operations, like actual soldiers attacking an opposing force instead of terrorists attacking civilians or bullies preying on the weak, I believe that people can support them.  It is an attack, a specific and well targeted attack.

The government has unlimited resources, but, we are not talking about quantity here.  We are talking about quality.  It won't matter how much money is tossed at Anonymous, they can be a multi-headed hydra.

There is a story of a king who hired a man to walk behind him during parades to remind the king that the king is only a man, subject to the rules of men.  Against a decadent, immoral and disgustingly corrupt institution like the DOJ Anonymous is the reminder that the DOJ is not above the moral intent of law.

Laws written to create an adversarial system of justice that
protects the rights of people, not an adversarial system using money and power to usurp those rights.

A court clerk once told me, "we make the rules".  Courts don't make rules, courts interpret rules.  Attorneys with deep pockets count on money to prevent people from fighting them.  These attorneys bully people who can't match government resources.  Government attorneys break laws knowing the accused can't afford the fight and people without resources are railroaded into prison.

Guerrilla snipers target high ranking officers of the opposing forces.  I believe that Anonymous would get the most mileage by hacking high ranking D.O.J attorneys as well as the DOJ institution.  Not legal secretaries or their families or talking heads vomiting their political ideologies, Anonymous needs to launch specific attacks on the officers of as well as the opposing force.

It is hypocritical, somewhat.  All wars are.  Carpet bombing creates enemies.  Specific targeting can reduce collateral damage and increase support.  The less collateral damage, the more support.

Every target Anonymous chooses has to be specific and they have to get a handle on the scumbags in the ranks raping and pillaging the countryside, creating opportunities for the opposing force to re-establish themselves.

I love this attack.  It is specific, it has goals, it is against an opposing force that has been deliberately misusing its authority for many, many years.

One again Anonymous has done something I believe in.  I'm not saying it was right any more than I believed releasing the rape video was right.  I'm saying that the USSC was a legitimate target in a guerrilla war against the misuse of government authority.