Aaron Swartz: Suicide Or Murder?
01 January 2013
By Stephen Lendman
Advocates of online openness and freedom lost a
committed champion. The Economist said to call him
"gifted would be to miss the point. As far as the
internet was concerned, he was the gift."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation called him an
"Internet freedom rock star."
An official family statement called him "(o)ur beloved
brother, son, friend, and partner….We are in shock,
and have not yet come terms with his passing."
His "insatiable curiosity, creativity, and brilliance;
his reflexive empathy and capacity for selfless,
boundless love; his refusal to accept injustice as
inevitable - these gifts made the world, and our
lives, far brighter."
"Aaron's commitment to social justice was profound,
and defined his life. He was instrumental to the
defeat of an Internet censorship bill; he fought for a
more democratic, open, and accountable political
system; and he helped to create, build, and preserve a
dizzying range of scholarly projects that extended the
scope and accessibility of human knowledge."
"He used his prodigious skills as a programmer and
technologist not to enrich himself but to make the
Internet and the world a fairer, better place."
"His deeply humane writing touched minds and hearts
across generations and continents. He earned the
friendship of thousands and the respect and support of
millions more."
"Aaron's death is not simply a personal tragedy. It is
the product of a criminal justice system rife with
intimidation and prosecutorial overreach."
"Decisions made by officials in the Massachusetts US
Attorney's office and at MIT contributed to his death.
The US Attorney's office pursued an exceptionally
harsh array of charges, carrying potentially over 30
years in prison, to punish an alleged crime that had
no victims."
"Meanwhile, unlike JSTOR, MIT refused to stand up for
Aaron and its own community's most cherished
principles."
"Today, we grieve for the extraordinary and
irreplaceable man that we have lost."
Lawrence Lessig is an academic, political activist,
online freedom proponent, former University of
Chicago/Harvard Law School Professor, and current
Professor of Law at Stanford. He founded the school's
Center for Internet and Society.
He knew Aaron as a friend and lawyer. On January 13,
he headlined "Prosecutor as Bully," saying:
Whatever Aaron did wasn't for personal gain. He did
what he thought right. JSTOR understood. "They
declined to pursue their own action against Aaron."
They asked prosecutors to drop charges. "MIT, to its
great shame, was not as clear."
Prosecutors took full advantage. They got the excuse
they wanted to target Aaron. They wrongfully
criminalized him.
"From the beginning, the government worked as hard as
it could to characterize what Aaron did in the most
extreme and absurd way."
It suggested he downloaded academic and scholarly
articles for profit.
"But anyone who says that there is money to be made in
a stash of ACADEMIC ARTICLES is either an idiot or a
liar. It was clear what this was not, yet our
government continued to push as if it had caught the
9/11 terrorists red-handed."
"Aaron had literally done nothing in his life 'to make
money.' " Whatever he earned wasn't by intent.
"(W)e live in a world where the architects of the
financial crisis, (notorious despots, and other
scoundrels) regularly dine at the White House."
"(W)hy (was) Aaron labeled a 'felon?' " Prosecutors
bled him dry. "(W)e need to get beyond the 'I'm right
so I'm right to nuke you' ethics that dominates our
time."
"That begins with one word: shame. One word, and
endless tears."
A previous article questioned the official suicide
story. It quoted Aaron extensively in his own words.
It asked if he sounded like someone planning suicide.
He advocated online openness and freedom. He called
information "power." He wanted it in the public
domain. He wanted everyone able to share it freely and
openly. Failure is "too high a price to pay," he said.
It's "outrageous and unacceptable," he added.
Possessors of information are obligated to share it.
They're morally bound not to "keep this privilege for
(them)selves."
"(S)haring isn't immoral - it's a moral imperative.
Only those blinded by greed would refuse to let a
friend make a copy."
"Large corporations….are blinded by greed."
Politicians are "bought off to back them." Legislation
follows. It's immoral and unjust.
"There is no justice in following unjust laws. It's
time to come into the light and, in the grand
tradition of civil disobedience, declare our
opposition to this private theft of public culture."
Aaron advocated open access. He wanted information
everyone has the right to know made public. Download
them from scientific journals, he urged. Upload them
to file sharing networks.
Make privatization of knowledge a thing of the past.
He asked everyone to join him in a struggle for what's
right. He did it because it matters.
He paid with his life. New York's medical examiner
allegedly conducted an autopsy. He pronounced death by
"hang(ing) himself in his Brooklyn apartment."
A previous article said lingering suspicions remain.
Why would someone with so much to give end it all this
way? Why would he throw it away?
Why was no private autopsy and forensic examination
done? Why aren't questions raised about a potential
coverup? Why isn't independently determined full
disclosure demanded?
Prosecutors notoriously lie. Medical examiners help
them. So do media scoundrels.
Did Aaron take his own life or was he murdered?
America has a dark history of eliminating noted
figures it wants silenced.
Aaron perhaps is the latest. His death raises obvious
suspicions. He appears a victim of capitalist greed.
His open access advocacy had to be silenced. What
better way than by making murder look like suicide.
Was he drugged and then hanged? Was eliminating him
planned long ago? Was it done to avoid protracted
headline-making trial proceedings?
Many of Aaron's global followers would have reported
them daily. Doing so would have revealed prosecutorial
injustice. Dark forces perhaps decided not to risk it.
Prosecutors hounded him. His attorney, Elliot Peters,
accused them of doing it to gain publicity. They
cooked up alleged computer crimes against him.
They targeted his advocacy for what's right. They
wanted him silenced. They wanted him put away for
decades. They wanted him out of sight and mind.
They crossed ethical and moral lines, said Lessig.
They did what they did because they can. They made him
a martyr in the process. He's internationally
recognized for fighting for what's right.
Internet freedom is at stake. In 2008, candidate Obama
promised to "(s)upport the principle of network
neutrality to preserve the benefits of open
competition on the Internet."
As president he's waged war to destroy it. He wants
open access advocates criminalized. He calls doing so
investing in America's future. He wants censorship
replacing First Amendment rights.
He and likeminded Washington extremists support an
alphabet soup of federal and international
freedom-destroying measures.
Various cybersecurity acts threaten constitutional
freedoms. SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, ACTA, and TPP are stealth
pro-corporate, anti-populist schemes.
Secrecy and misbranding conceal their harshness.
Activists know what's going on and say so. At issue is
unchallenged global corporate empowerment regulation
free.
Internet freedom, popular rights, and national
sovereignty are too important to lose. They're on the
chopping block for elimination.
Profits alone matter. Compromising civil liberties is
a small price to pay. So are public knowledge,
privacy, and other fundamental rights free societies
should champion. Democratic values are too important
to lose.
Obama has other ideas in mind. Aaron and likeminded
open access advocates challenged him. Doing so
targeted him for elimination. Others are likewise
threatened.
Doing the right thing is dangerous. Everyone involved
is closely monitored. FBI, CIA and other national
security files are maintained.
Lawless warrantless surveillance watches like Big
Brother. Phones are tapped. Emails and other private
communications are monitored, collected and stored.
Stealth videos at times are used. There's no place to
hide.
Doing the right thing is hazardous. America's unfit to
live in. For many, it's dangerous. Other Western
societies operate the same way. The best, brightest
and most dedicated are targeted.
Some are marked for elimination. Odds suggest Aaron
was one. A fitting epitaph should read killed by
capitalist greed.
He's gone but by no means forgotten. Others continue
his struggle for open access justice. Doing so is the
only chance to have it. The alternative is too
intolerable to accept.
A Final Comment
On January 15, Russia Today said Massachusetts federal
court charges were dropped. Why pursue a dead man. A
simple statement read:
"DISMISSAL"
"Pursuant to FRCP 48(a), the United States Attorney
for the District of Massachusetts, Carmen M. Ortiz,
hereby dismisses the case presently pending against
Defendant Aaron Swartz."
"In support of this dismissal, the government states
that Mr. Swartz died on January 11, 2013."
Omitted was full disclosure about how and most
important why. Aaron was no ordinary Internet freedom
advocate. His prominence made him a marked man. It
cost him his life.
JSTOR didn't press charges. MIT pursued a civil suit.
Repercussions remain ongoing.
On January 14, the global hacktivist collective,
Anonymous, broke into MIT's website. It replaced its
front page. A simple line read: "In Memoriam, Aaron
Swartz."
A statement followed. It called the Justice
Department's prosecution "a grotesque miscarriage of
justice" and "a distorted and perverse shadow of the
justice that Aaron died fighting for."
"We call for this tragedy to be a basis for a renewed
and unwavering commitment to a free and unfettered
Internet, spared from censorship with equality of
access and franchise for all," it added.
Aaron grew up in suburban Chicago. On January 11, he
died in his Brooklyn apartment. He was 26 years old.
On January 15, suburban Chicago's Highland Park
Central Avenue Synagogue was filled to capacity.
Family, friends and supporters came to honor him.
Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman spoke for others, saying
"Aaron wanted so badly to change the world. He wanted
it more than money. He wanted it more than fame."
"When things are hard - and he said it is the
important things that are hard - you have to lean into
the pain."
Does that sound like someone planning suicide?
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be
reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book
is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized
Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html Visit his
blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to
cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on
the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive
Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and
Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are
archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments