16 Year Old Homeschooler Hauled Away Under PATRIOT Act

[Are_grits_groceries]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFVQ0HZz2mc

Sixteen-year-old Ashton Lundeby's bedroom in his mother's Granville County home is nothing, if not patriotic. Images of American flags are everywhere on the bed, on the floor, on the wall.

But according to the United States government, the tenth-grade home-schooler is being held on a criminal complaint that he made a bomb threat from his home on the night of Feb. 15.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5049867/

This is what it's come to. Every person in the USA should see this. Your rights can be gone in a heartbeat. I don't know what that kid did or said. However, I would like to know what is so heinous that he can't be tried under other laws.

[liberalmuse]

1. How about posting a reliable source for this?

Thanks.

[Cid_B]

2. I'm confused...

What do think is the correct response for calling a bomb threat? The patriot act is existing law btw.

[varelse]

3. Yes, it is existing law

to our everlasting shame and detriment.

It needs to be repealed.

[Are_grits_groceries]

4. I posted an original link. Sorry.

As for the laws, I meant to say under other statutes. I can't believe that a bomb threat couldn't be covered under another law besides the Patriot Act. That kid is just gone. I'm still trying to figure out what he said or did that should have deprived him of his rights. He is a US citizen, but that's also what's scarey about the Patriot Act. You might as well be from Outer Mongolia

[yellowcanine]

5. A bomb threat is a serious crime. Not sure why arresting someone on the allegation is somehow a

threat to the rights of the rest of us, Patriot Act or not. If someone makes bomb threats, I want them arrested, no matter how young they are, how they are schooled, or how many flags they have in their room.

[ixion]

7. but they should be subject to due process, correct?

This is the point of the story. Because of the use of the unPATRIOTic Act, the kid is held w/o due process.

[yellowcanine]

10. We have only the mom's word that there is not due process. Not good enough for me.

Nothing against the mom, but she is not exactly an unbiased source of information. The only lawyer commenting was someone unconnected with the case. There is a gag order - not unusual for a case involving a minor - so reliable information is not going to be available to the public.

[ixion]

11. Interesting take... I wonder if you would feel the same

if it were someone in your family, or whether you might want some answers.

But fair enough. We'll wait for one of the members of the status quo to sound off, and I'll check back with you then.

Until then, I guess the kid can just be tortured at will. :sarcasm:

[sandnsea]

13. 15 year olds aren't usually held like this

This undoes decades of juvenile advocacy to keep teens out of jail because they are a higher risk for assault and suicide. Once they picked up the kid, and I don't really care what law they used in the case of a bomb threat, but once they had the kid and ascertained that he was no threat, they should have stepped back and gone through the regular juvenile procedures.

[yellowcanine]

17. Maybe they did not "ascertain that he was no threat".

[sandnsea]

18. He is clearly NOT a terrorist

Therefore he should be in the regular juvenile system.

[yellowcanine]

And we do not know that he is not in the regular juvenile system. Juveniles do get held in

detention centers.

[sandnsea]

29. From North Carolina to Indiana??

If he was a terrorist, fine. He's not. This defies all common sense. I do not know where it went in this country.

[yellowcanine]

43. A juvenile detention center in Indiana. Where the crimes allegedly occured.

Apparently the bomb threats were made to a site in Indiana, at least according to the TV newscaster, which is not to say it is correct either.

[sandnsea]

49. It is a juvenile facility, I missed that

So that is a little better. It is still not routine procedure to haul juveniles to other states, in fact it's a complicated procedure to get your own kid out of one state system and into another. This really is not normal and not what the Patriot Act was intended to do. This should have been a matter for local police.

[yellowcanine]

55. What if a federal facility was threatened? Also, wouldn't a phone threat

across state lines potentially bring in the FBI anyway? For example, if it was a threat to a school in Indiana from NC, maybe with recent events of school shootings, etc., the FBI would get involved. I don't know. It is a weird case and I think there is a lot of information that is not being made public because the kid is a juvenile that would make a lot more sense if we knew. The news casts made much of the kid's patriotism with flags everywhere in his room. That actually works the other way for me. A 15 year old with American flags all over his room is a red flag for me. And the mom going out of her way to talk about how she hates guns and doesn't even know how to make bombs is also. Something is not right in that house.

[sandnsea]

57. And how do we handle that in this country?

The local juvenile authorities. That's how. We do not haul screwed up kids across the country when they were likely just saying stupid shit on the internet.

[seabeyond]

59. this is what happens when people are just so friggin afraid.

as if the only way... of such a dire threat.... take away any reasonableness or constitutional law, cause otherwise, standing frozen.

i dont get it. i dont get why all the repugs manly men, oh so tough, and shakin in their boots with fear. makes no sense to me

[yellowcanine]

60. Well, again, we don't know the details of the threats or much about the kid involved.

Or the mom for that matter. So maybe we need to cool our jets until we know instead of making all kinds of assumptions about how the Patriot Act is or is not being used in this case. For example, if a 15 year old were to say, make threatening phone calls to a federal courthouse, do you still think local juvenile authorities in North Carolina should handle it? And what if the kid has been communicating on the internet with a right wing groups who might have the capability of carrying out said threats? And what if the kid was moved to a juvenile facility in Indiana for his own protection from some group that he might have agreed to testify against? All speculation of course, but the point is we don't know. I also think it is likely a bit more than "just saying stupid shit on the internet", though. Even the mom says that the allegation is that threatening phone calls were made from a computer. She just denies that her kid did it. Not very convincingly either, imo. Almost makes me wonder if the mom knows a lot more than what she is letting on. Maybe law enforcement wanted to get the kid away from HER.

[benEzra]

64. Exactly. (n/t)

[Are_grits_groceries]

8. I am NOT saying he shouldn't be dealt with by the authorities.

I AM asking why the Patriot Act was invoked. His rights just got eaten up. How would you like it if that happened to a child of yours? You would have no idea what is happening to them or what the exact evidence or charges may be. What could he have done or said that should enable him to be treated like that instead of in a regular criminal court? Does he have some secret friends or info? Who knows? It should be out in the light of day.

[yellowcanine]

15. I don't KNOW that the Patriot Act was invoked. And neither do you.

The link you posted does not make that clear. It is not unusual to have difficulty getting information about a case involving a minor. It will not be "out in the light of day", Patriot Act of no Patriot Act. The mother is not doing her son any favors by blabbing about the case. Law enforcement cannot comment because they are under a judge's gag order as is usually the case with a minor. These principles applied long before the Patriot Act when dealing with minors accused of serious crimes. I suspect the law enforcement reaction has more to do with recent school shootings and the like than with the Patriot Act anyway, regardless of what the mom is saying. And frankly, her behavior makes me wonder how much she really knows about her son and his possible involvement in a crime. She seems a bit clueless to me.

[seabeyond]

16. wigglin out of your position? n/t

[yellowcanine]

20. How so? My "position" is that bomb threats are serious and there is a lot about this case we don't

know about, regardless of what the mom is saying - who, as far as I can tell, based on the links provided, is the only source of information that this has anything to do with the Patriot Act. Listen to the lawyer who is talking. He is speaking hypothetically - he has no real knowledge of the case.

[seabeyond]

21. your postition was patriot act or no patriot act. n/t

[yellowcanine]

34. And it still is. That is my point. A juvenile could be held for a bomb threat without

the Patriot Act. That I would point out that the only source we have that the Patriot Act is being used is the mom doesn't change that fact. I fail to follow your logic here.

[seabeyond]

36. nope... think you are wigglin. think you didnt give a shit the patriot act was used on kid per

first post and think now you are trying to get out of that. whatever....

post as you please. just not gonna condone stupid

[yellowcanine]

37. Think what you like. And I think you are logic challenged.

[Are_grits_groceries]

19. He got hauled away to a detention

center in Indiana. I don't think the mother made up this story out of whole cloth. In addition, if it isn't the Patriot Act then why can't a defense attorney have access to him.

[yellowcanine]

23. Again - facts not in evidence, as it were. We don't know what the mom made up and what she

didn't. We can be pretty sure that her son was taken away and accused of a crime. That's about it. We don't know that he doesn't have access to a defense attorney. We don't know that he was denied habeus corpus but the existence of the gag order suggests that he was not and also suggests the boy has an attorney. There must have been some kind of hearing before a judge to have a gag order. We don't know what laws he is being charged under. We don't know the nature of evidence that was found in the house and taken away by law enforcement.

[ixion]

6. The unPATRIOTic Act is unconstitutional, and should be repealed

immediately.

If the kid made a bomb threat, charge him with something and give him a trial. Otherwise, cut out the Nazi BS and let him go.

[yellowcanine]

28. Yes, and it may not have anything to do with this case either. The "Nazi BS" you talk about is

the allegation of the mom. Take it with a grain of salt. She does not appear to be a reliable source.

[ixion]

33. I believe this legislation to be a piece of garbage

no matter who it gets used for.

[T Wolf]

9. Bad laws have bad consequences. But would this be a story if the kid was a "leftie" with

a Che poster on the wall?

Doubt it.

That said, anything that deals with this future repuke-fascist is fine by me. Save him from turning into another McVeigh.

[Are_grits_groceries]

12. I don't care if it is James Dobson or Rush Limbaugh that gets hauled away like this.

They are US citizens. Nobody should have their rights denied like this. You might want to look up Pastor Martin Niemöller's quote about not speaking up. What you are suggesting is that it's fine because you don't like their views. What happens when it happens to somebody you agree with?

It should be in the light of day where all can see what has been charged.

[seabeyond]

14. thank you for at least being consistent. to be outraged for 8 yrs and then endorse this now

is pure hypocrisy. or if it is because of the flags. whatever reason people on this thread try to justify this is shameful and cannot be taken seriously

[rocktivity]

22. Someone allegedly stole his IP address and used it to make the phone calls?

Is that possible?

:shrug:
rocktivity

[Are_grits_groceries]

24. I don't have any idea about that.

It is one of the issues that should be looked at along with whatever other evidence there is. I don't believe either side. I have no info to judge the merits of the case. Apparently his mother doesn't either. He's a juvenile so it may be under seal from the general public, but it shouldn't be hidden because of the Patriot Act.

[sandnsea]

26. Absolutely

If your internet isn't secure, anybody can connect to your wireless and use it for all sorts of things. Seems logical if you have VOIP that you could use it to make a bomb threat on somebody elses IP.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

40. It could be, but my cousin told his mom a similar story when he got caught

visiting 18+ chatrooms.

She believed him because she's a fundie and couldn't believe her darling son would ever be interested in that type of thing.

[sandnsea]

44. True enough

But that's not really the issue. The issue is why law enforcement cannot discern a terrorist from a mixed-up kid, if the kid is even guilty of anything.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

46. This is true, but I was only responding to the part about the possibility he did it.

Someone might have hacked into his ISP, but my bet would be that he was just being a dumb teenager and saying dumb things on the internet.

[yellowcanine]

52. The allegation was that phone calls were made from his IP address.

If true, that implies a level of motivation and organization that goes beyond a dumb teenager saying dumb things on the internet. And it also means there might be physical evidence (voice prints) that could fairly quickly put to rest the question of whether the the kid made the phone calls. Of course if the voice was altered, maybe not.

[benEzra]

63. It's not even necessary to "hack" if your router isn't encrypted...

All someone would need to do would be to drive around the neighborhood with their laptop on, looking for an open WiFi connection, and when they find one, make the call.

A good reason to use strong encryption (not WEP) and MAC address filtering on your home router, BTW.

But the wierd thing about this case isn't that he was arrested on suspicion of making a bomb threat; it's that the kid was hauled out of state where his parents and local lawyers could not easily visit him. The gulag aspect is the most troubling part, I think.

Could it have have been intended to shake the kid up for an interrogation? I don't know. But it's troubling.

[rocktivity]

25. Mom says the cops came into her house with guns, which she doesn't allow

around her children. What did she expect the cops to bring, marshmallows?

:eyes:
rocktivity

[sandnsea]

27. Yes, see #26 n/t

[aikoaiko]

31. I chuckled at that. Makes me think the mom is one short of six pack.

[yellowcanine]

39. She "doesn't even know how to make bombs" either, another non sequitur.

As she was not accused of making bombs, her son was accused of making bomb threats. Almost makes one wonder if she knows more than what she is letting on.

[Cid_B]

32. These reeks of stupid...

"I was terrified," Lundeby's mother said. "There were guns, and I don't allow guns around my children. I don't believe in guns."

___________________________________________


Durrr

[sandnsea]

42. Why'd you change your post?

:crazy:

[rocktivity]

45. Because I accidentally double-posted

See #22. Your answer is appreciated, of course.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[sandnsea]

51. Ooooh, my bad

I have just now had my first drink of coffee. Oops.

[aikoaiko]

30. Not surprising that a mother said her darlin son didn't do it and is being hounded by leo

According to the article there was a search warrant so due process was employed to search.

Having said that, unless there was other obvious conspiratorial evidence of a grand scheme for terroristic acts, it seems overblown to use the Patriot Act instead of other laws to investigate this issue.

[Ilsa]

35. So we only want to use this shitty law on immigrants and muslims, according

to the mother: "It wasn't intended to drag your barely 16-year-old, 120-pound son out in the middle of the night on a charge that we can't even defend."

The Patriot Act is crap and unconstitutional. Repeal the damn thing.

[Are_grits_groceries]

38. She didn't say that or even

mention immigrants or muslims. She may very well be a flaming racist, but that's a big assumption.

[Ilsa]

62. I didn't mean to accuse her specifically, but what she said is probably what

alot of hatemongerers consider: that law is only supposed to be applied to certain other people. Since it wouldn't be applied to them, they can go on not being "inconvenienced" by our so-called national security laws.

Sorry about the confusion. You're right, she may not have meant for her words to be interpreted that way.

[polmaven]

41. I agree the Patriot Act

should never have been enacted to begin with, but I am going to need a little more on this case before I am ready to say I believe this story 100%.

No doubt though, the Patriot Act should be repealed.

[seabeyond]

47. for me, the op argument has nothing to do with truth in the story.

none of us have any idea about the specifics and what happened and didnt.

i wanted to clarify that from my posts....

for me, the argument is, IF this has happened and patriot act was used on this kid, then in my book, a wrong was committed.

[polmaven]

53. I agree with you....

I want more specifics on this case.....All I am saying is that the Patriot Act should NEVER be used, and should not be the law of the land in the first place.

[seabeyond]

54. yup. n/t

[Birdiesmom]

48. If the kid is getting habeas corpus and due process, fine.

If not, it's not fine, no matter what.

The "Patriot" Act has to go. One of my major disappointments in the Obama Administration is that the "Patriot" Act still exists. I know he can't do everything at once, but everyone in this country is entitled by our Constitution to habeas corpus. That we were ever denied it is one of the greatest travesties of justice that this country has ever produced.

[seabeyond]

50. that and nsa/at&t spying. n/t

[tjwash]

56. Betcha right now that kid misses pay-phones being everywhere

nt

[konnichi wa]

58. Here's another story on it, more recent. This whole thing is bizarre

http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w93.html

[yellowcanine]

61. That is from a liberterian website - some fairly bizarre stuff there also.

For example, this from one of their mentors, Rothbard on children's rights.

In the Ethics of Liberty Rothbard explores in terms of self-ownership and contract several contentious issues regarding childrens' rights. These include womens' right to abortion, proscriptions on parents aggressing against children once they are born, and the issue of the state forcing parents to care for children, including those with severe health problems. He also holds children have the right to "run away" from parents and seek new guardians as soon as they are able to choose to do so. He suggested parents have the right to put a child out for adoption or even sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract, which he feels is more humane than artificial governmental restriction of the number of children available to willing and often superior parents.

If it sounds a little like Ayn Rand it may be because Rothbard was an associate of hers until they had a falling out.