The "Forbidden" Fruit

Real Anarchy? Hah

2006-08-08T12:54:00.000-07:00

For all you "hard-core anarchists" out there, here's a little pop
quiz. #3 pencils only. No cheating, now.

I said NO CHEATING! That means YOU, the little bastard in the
coke-bottle glasses who took a few minutes off from drooling over "Leather
Goddesses of Phobos IX" to read this tfile! We've got your number, pal!

Now that that's been taken care of, let us proceed.

Q: What action from the following list will go further in provoking
a state of anarchy?
A: Blowing up a mailbox with a homemade pipe bomb.
B: Standing in the middle of a shopping mall and singing
"The Star-Spangled Banner" backwards.
C: Sitting at home and playing "Commander Been Versus the
Dildo Monster" for the fortieth time.

Anyone who answered "A" can stop reading now. And while you're
at it, why not burn all your copies of the Anarchist Cookbook, all your
generic tfiles (not the BLaH ones!), and your Loompanics catalog. Then
go get a nice haircut and join the Young Republicans before you get hurt.
Anyone who would have answered "C" probably hasn't even read this
far, having since gone back to trying to run "Wolfenstein 3-D" on a CGA
monitor.
If you answered "B" (and there wasn't much choice after the "A" and
"C" crowd left), this tfile is for you.

ANARCHIST PHILOSOPHY
Anarchy, as a philosophy, means many things to many people. For
some, it is the path to tearing down the old order and erecting a new one.
Others simply delight in pure chaos. Many people just feel that the world
or nation we have now is unlivable, and that anarchy is the purest path
to change. For all its faces, there are a few things that anarchy is NOT.
Anarchy is NOT an excuse for mindless destruction, nor is it an
excuse to shut yourself off from the world ("I don't care about politics,
dude, I'm an ANARCHIST!"). Blowing up a mailbox does nothing to contribute
to the movement-- it just damages property that YOUR taxes pay to replace,
and hurts a lot of people who should have the right to send their mail
without worrying about mad-bomber-geeks.
To distance myself and like-minded people from this rather less-
than-illustrious crowd, I humbly suggest a new name for an old philosophy:
Social Violence.

SOCIAL VIOLENCE PRIMER
Our world, or at least our nation, is stupid. It may have always
been stupid, it may have been a gradual process, it may have been the Cosby
Show or McDonald's hamburgers or the Illuminati for that matter, but the
basic fact is beyond denial: we exist in a society which prizes ignorance
and intolerance.
The majority of people don't LIKE to think. They don't know how
to do it anymore. A publishers' survey revealed that less than 2% of our
nation's population regularly visits a bookstore. Some of the fastest-
growing religions, and the ones with the most political power, are the
Fundementalist sects which decry logic and independant thought as tools
of their "satan" while commanding obedience to a self-contradictory Bible.
Dan Quayle, surely a monarch among morons, recently made a speech denouncing
the "cultural elite" (read: smart people), while prizing "good old-fashioned
values" (read: Christian fundementalism and the degredation of Women).
The process begins at an early age, in our very schools. Children
with sports skills are popular, while those with a scholarly bent are
regarded as "nerds" and outcast. This indoctrination continues through
high school, by which time most Americans are happy, complacent idiots who
would rather pop a brewski and watch Monday Night Football instead of
opening a book and (Gods forbid) learning something about the world they
live in.
Social Violence is a response to this threat. Its motto: if the
people won't think on their own, we must FORCE them to think!

Don't let the name mislead you; the "Violence" part of the name
is not necessarily PHYSICALLY violent-- in fact, physical violence (boom)
is usually counterproductive. The violence in question is directed against
the very fabric of the offending society, with the goal of "killing"
society itself.
This can be accomplished through the disruption of daily routine,
shaking people out of their personal stupors. Picture your average shopping
mall on a Saturday afternoon, packed with shuffling zombies on their way
from one overpriced boutique to the next. Suddenly, in the main concourse,
horns blare, bells ring, and a gigantic sign reading "THINK!" unfurls from
the ceiling.
No, it's not going to cause a revolution, but everyone present
at the time has been shaken up a bit. Their expectations of a regular
day have been shattered, and they will go home to their families with
the story of the strange, funny thing that happened to them that day.
And, with luck, they might just start thinking about what the sign said.
If it sounds like I'm advocating public practical jokes as a
pathway to social change, give yourself two points for listening. That's
EXACTLY what I'm advocating. You don't need bombs, chemicals or guns to
spread anarchy and fight the system; all you need are the things that
already set you apart from the rest-- smarts and creativity. Even without
special equipment (as in the prior example), you can practice social
violence. Take a tip from our pal George Carlin-- rush into a retail
store, looking panicky and out of breath, run up to the clerk and scream,
"IS THIS [day of the week]?" When she says yes, shout "THANK YOU!" and
leave. That's all there is to it.
Of course, if you decide this isn't for you, then that's your
right. In a perfect society, everyone should be able to do what they
wish without interfering with anyone else. But until this IS a perfect
society, there will always be a need for Social Violence.

By the way-- episodes 1 through 6 of "Commander Been Versus the
Dildo Monster" are now available from Weenie Software, $45 for 1-3, $40
for 4-6 (1-3 required), $100 for all six.

SPECIAL SEGMENT by Guido Sanchez

here, for the pleasure of all, are the lyrics to the Star-Spangled Banner
backwards. Remeber, originality doesn't count unless you make people think.

--------------------------------------------
Banner Spangled-Star The

Bra-ave home the and free, the of land the o'er
Wave yet banner spangled, star that does say oh there still
Was flag our that night the, through proof gave air in bursting
Bombs the glare red rock-ets, the and streaming gallantly
So were watched we ram-parts, the o'er fight perilous,
The through stars bright and, stripes broad whose gle-a-ming
Last twilight's the at "hailed we proudly so what?" <ÄÄÄooh! Light early dawn's the by, "see? you can sa-ay oh!" <ÄÄÄdouble ooh!ÄÄ Ball Play! --------------------------------------------- Ok, you can either sing the same tune, these lyrics.. or make the words themselves backwards and pronounce them phonetically.. do whatever turns you and others on.

2006-08-08T12:51:00.000-07:00

CIA Pamphlet on Guerilla Warfare (1980s)

2006-08-08T12:48:00.000-07:00

Nut Busters

2006-08-08T12:46:00.000-07:00

Yeah, yeah, you've probably heard of this one too...boys and girls,
CH is really running short of ideas (well, I have a few left), and need your
help...send him ideas that you don't publish yourself...please? :)

1) Get a shotgun shell, and use a little duct tape to tape a BIG ass
marble to the primer. Or you can get those big, white wrist-rocket shot.
Those should be heavy enuff. Just make sure it weights the shotshell down.

2) Drop out a window (like a .22 bomb) or toss grenade
style (UNlike a .22 bomb)

3) Duck

4) Laugh

BTW-- they call 'em nutbusters cause if you take out the shot (the little
pellets inside the shotshell), and toss 'em out a window during parades, they
can be amusing.

OH YEAH!!!: That's what I almost forgot...it's HIGHLY recommended that you
open up the shell, and dump out all the little lead balls. They are bad
cheese. If you do, they aren't that dangerous, just loud as shit. If you
choose to leave the shot in, then read my file on the shotgun shell mine, and
imagine that happening to anyone standing real close to where the thing
goes off. Could be handy, could be Murder 1. You decide.

--hack

Bedside StunGun

2006-08-08T12:43:00.000-07:00

The danger level on this one is for construction, NOT usage. If you fuck shit
up, it's all you.

Shopping list:

- Radio Hack project box (nice, handheld size)
- Wall plug with a nice long (10') cord
- SPST switch from RS able to handle 120VAC at the HIGHEST amp rating
you can get (at LEAST 4A)
- Some heavy (20 AWG) wire
- 2 Radio Hack banana plugs (they look like little posts)

Easy construction phase:

Drill a hole in the back or bottom of the box for the cord, two in the front
for the banana plugs, and one in the top for the switch (You can use a button
if you want, but make sure it can handle the current listed above)
Mount aforementioned parts in box, and solder one wire from the wall plug
direct to a banana plug, and one to the other banana plug through the SPST.

Shitty ASCII diag:

To wall +==================+
plug | / spst |
-----------|---------/ -----|-DDDDDDDDD <--+
| | |----banana plugs
-----------|------------------|-DDDDDDDDD <--+
| |
+==================+

project box ^

Get it? CLose enuff. Now, MAKE SURE THE SWITCH IS OFF, and put it somewhere
you might want it. Like near your bed or computer. Anytime you need to (how
often is that really, but whatever) you can just grab the thing, switch it
on, and jab the person that is threatening you. NOTE: Don't use this as a
joke. Other stun-guns are harmless, but this could kill. It's HIGH current.
Also, you will most-likely blow the fuse it's plugged into when you use it,
but the kick it'll give your intruder will be plenty for you to beat his ass.

Warnings (Like you guys listen to 'em, eh?) : [1]As mentioned above, this is
VERY powerful, and could kill. It's probably good that the fuse will blow
after a few seconds...

[2]This is not as safe for the user as a normal stungun. If yuo jab some-
one, and they grab you, you'll pro'lly get a zap too. I dunno...I haven't
tried...

Quick addition:
If you don't use the banana plugs, and just connect the plug through the
switch, you have an instant fuse blower. Take it to school, plug it in, and
toss the switch for a few seconds. It'll blow the fuse. Turn it off and move
on to another part of the building...:)

--hack

MAKING POCKET ROCKETS

2006-08-08T12:42:00.000-07:00

## ##
## ##
#######################################
#######################################
## ##
## MAKING POCKET ROCKETS ##
## ##
## \______ ______/ ##
## ______> <______ ##
## / \ ##
## ##
## BY: CHIEF O'HARA ##
## ##
#######################################
#######################################
## ##
## ##

WHAT IS A POCKET ROCKET ?
-------------------------

A DEVICE MEASURING APPROXIMATELY 1 3/4
INCHES LONG, THAT WHEN PROPERLY MADE
WILL FLY 4-8 FEET, IF PROPERLY SET OFF.
ALTHOUGH NOT A POWERFUL DEVICE, IT IS
WELL SUITED TO ANNOYING YOUR DORM-MATE,
OR PERHAPS A CLASSMATE DURING THOSE
OFTEN RECURRING SESSIONS OF BOREDOM.

MATERIALS NEEDED
----------------

1-PACKET OF MATCHES (CARDBOARD MATCHES,
NOT WOODEN ONES)
1-PIN (A SMALL ONE, STEAL IT FROM MOMS
SEWING BASKET)
1-PIECE OF ALUMINUM FOIL, 1 SQUARE
INCH FOR EVERY ROCKET (REYNOLDS WRAP)
1-PAIR OF SCISSORS (OPTIONAL)
1-PAPER CLIP (OPTIONAL)
1-CIGARETTEE LIGHTER (OPTIONAL)

MAKING THE LITTLE BUGGERS
-------------------------

OKAY SO YOU'VE RAIDED THE HOUSE FOR ALL
THE STUFF....
1) TAKE THE PACK OF MATCHES APART BY
REMOVING THE LITTLE STAPLE AT THE
BOTTOM.
2) USE THE SCISORS TO CUT OFF A SINGLE
MATCH FROM THE BUNCH.
3) CUT OUT A 1 INCH SQUARE OF ALUMINUM
FOIL AND FOLD IT IN HALF.
4) PUT THE HEAD OF THE MATCH IN THE
CENTER OF THE CREASE AND PRESS THE
FOIL SO IT FORMS AROUND THE HEAD
5) WRAP THE REST OF THE FOIL AROUND THE
MATCH HEAD AS TIGHTLY AND NEATLY AS
POSSIBLE.

NOW U HAVE A MATCH WITH THE HEAD
WRAPPED UP IN FOIL, WITH THE FOIL
COMING 1/2 INCH DOWN FROM THE HEAD.
THIS IS THE WAY YOU'D STORE THEM IF YOU
WEREN'T GOING TO FIRE THEM IMMEDIATELY.

*NOTE* - NEATNESS COUNTS, TIGHTNESS
COUNTS, YES YOU CAN JUST RIP A MATCH
OUT, AND RIP FOIL, BUT THE END RESULT
WON'T WORK AS WELL.

PREPARATION FOR LAUNCH
----------------------

1) TAKE THE PIN AND PUSH IT UNDER THE

FOIL UNTIL YOU FEEL THE POINT START
TO CRUSH THE HEAD. KEEP THE PIN AS
CLOSE TO THE MATCH AS POSSIBLE WHEN
DOING THIS.
2) BEND THE PAPER CLIP TO FORM A 45 DEG
ANGLE WITH THE HORIZON, AND SET IT
ON A RELATIVELY NON-FLAMMABLE
SURFACE, POINTING IN THE DIRECTION
YOU WISH TO FIRE THE ROCKET.
3) REMOVE THE PIN FROM THE MATCH AND
GINGERLY SET THE MATCH ON THE PAPER
CLIP, BEING CAREFUL NOT TO CRUSH THE
FOIL DOWN (THE PLACE THE PIN WAS IS
NOW THE EXHAUST PORT).

LAUNCH
------

HEAT THE HEAD OF THE MATCH (THE PART
COVERED WITH FOIL) TILL IGNITION.

NOTES
-----

NEATNESS ALWAYS COUNTS ON THESE BUGGERS
, ALWAYS USE SCISSORS WHEN POSSIBLE.
YOU SHOULD USE A LIGHTER INSTEAD OF A
MATCH SO U DONT GET SCORCHED FINGERS.
I HAVE YET TO GET A 2 STAGE ROCKET TO
FLY, IF YOU DO UPDATE THE FILE. IF ALL
OF THIS IS TOO COMPLICATED FOR YOU THEN
PERHAPS PAGE 45 OF 'THE GREAT
INTERNATIONAL PAPER AIRPLANE BOOK' SAID
IT BETTER...

"POCKET ROCKET. INSTRUCTIONS: WRAP
ALUMINUM FOIL AROUND UPPER HALF OF
PAPER MATCH. PUSH STRAIGHT PIN UP
UNDER FOIL TO HEAD OF MATCH AND
REMOVE AGAIN LEAVING EXHAUST
CHANNEL. PLACE MATCH ON OPENED
PAPER CLIP AND HOLD LIGHTED MATCH
TO TIP. STEP BACK."

CALL CHIEF O'HARA'S AE/CATSEND -
DYNAMIC DUO AE/CATSEND (215)269-8303
OR... COMMISSIONER GORDON'S AE -
DYNAMIC DUO AE #2 (215)386-6696

######################################
######################################
FIREWORKS - AN AMERICAN TRADITION!

TEXT FILE CREATED 12/6/84
######################################

DOWNLOADED FROM P-80 SYSTEMS......

Bic Ballistics

2006-08-08T12:37:00.000-07:00

BIBALLIS.TXT
If not, I can be reached on Infinity's Edge bbs. Have fun!

(>BIBALLIS.TXT
__________________
/ /_______________________
/ BIC BALISTICS / /________________ Written By / /
\_______________/ Video Vindicator / /
/ ____/ /
/ SHADOWS OF IGA /\___\/
/ 707-528-7238 / /
/____________________/ /
\____________________\/

INTRODUCTION:

I'm sure all of you are familiar with the Bic lighter, and I'm also sure
you've tried to make the Bic Flamethrower at one time or another. Well...
here's 2 more things you can do, First off is the Bic Rocket, and then the
Bic Sparkler. Both work almost every time! Enjoy...

MATERIALS NEEDED:

2 or more Bic lighters (the big kind)
1 large open parkinglot with noncombustible material surrounding it

DIAGRAM:

- NORMAL TOP AND SIDE - - TOP AND SIDE, FLME BLOCKER REMOVED -

Flame |Flame Blocker /=========\ Striker
\ __ | ___ // \ /
+_/__|<-+->|_+_| ||M +_O== <-+ .0.
|:....| | | ||A |:....| | | |
| : | | | ||G | : | | | |
| : | | | ||N | : | | | |
Fuel --->| : |<-+ | | ||I | : | | | |
Area 1 | : | | | | ||F | : | | | |
|__:__| | |___| ||Y |__:__| | |___|
| || |
|Fuel Area 2 // |Fuel Valve
//
__ //
Striker--> / \ <==========/
\__/
.
Flint--> I
#
Spring--> #

PREPARATION:

First, hit the back side of the flame blocker against something and break
it off. Take off the striker and get the spring and flint. Set them aside
somewhere safe for later use. Next pull off the Fuel Valve, and put your
fingure over the hole where the fuel comes out and shake it up. Leave your
fingure on the hole.

LAUNCHING:

Find someplace where you can lay the lighter so the bottom faces up. Set it
there, take the other lighter and light the rocket. It should burn just like
it normally does, except the flame should be melting the plastic. It melts
down to the fuel and... one of three things happens: It flies up into the air
and explodes (usually about 10-20 feet up), Skips along the ground, or just
explodes. It usually takes about 2 minutes for it to burn through the plastic.
What every you do, don't go back to the lighter after it's been burning for
more than 1 minute. And only go back if the flame went out!

BIC SPARKLER:

This isn't really a sparkler, but it sure is fun. Take the flint and the
spring you set aside from the rocket and wrap the flint in the spring, like
this, you pull the sprint, put the flint in the middle, like a plus sign, and
then twist the spring once so it looks like this:

Flint
||
."||". <- Spring
." ".
" "
Then hold it over the flame of the one lighter you have left until it starts
to wrinkle up or get red. Then throw it against a wall and whoosh, sparks fly
everywhere and there's a little char mark left on the wall.

CONCLUSION:

Enjoy these, they're lots of fun at parties when everyones drunk, the sparkler
is really trippy then. They are both best at night, but good during the day
as well. If you have any comments about this file, or suggestions for other
files, leave me Feedback on my board (Shadows of Iga).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHADOWS OF IGA...........150 MEGS............H/P/A............707-528-7238
ATLANTIS..................30 MEGS.............H/P.............804-355-7327
RIPCO.....................96 MEGS............H/P/A............312-528-5020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This concludes yet another wonderful ASCII File by... The Video Vindicator
(C)opyright Shadow Systems 1988 SHADOWS OF IGA - 707-528-7238 PW: AMIGOD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

==--------------------------------------------------------------------------==
= SHADOWS OF IGA - 707/528-7238 - 150 Megs - All Bauds! - H/P/A - PW: AmiGOD =
==--------------------------------------------------------------------------==

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// The PIRATES' HOLLOW //
// 415-236-2371 //
// over 12 Megs of Elite Text Files //
// ROR-ALUCARD //
// Sysop: Doctor Murdock //
// C0-Sysops: That One, Sir Death, Sid Gnarly & Finn //
// //
// "The Gates of Hell are open night and day; //
// Smooth is the Descent, and Easy is the way.." //
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////

X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X

Another file downloaded from: NIRVANAnet(tm)

& the Temple of the Screaming Electron Jeff Hunter 510-935-5845
The Salted Slug Strange 408-454-9368
Burn This Flag Zardoz 408-363-9766
realitycheck Poindexter Fortran 510-527-1662
Lies Unlimited Mick Freen 415-583-4102
Tomorrow's 0rder of Magnitude Finger_Man 415-961-9315
My Dog Bit Jesus Suzanne D'Fault 510-658-8078
New Dork Sublime Demented Pimiento 415-566-0126

Specializing in conversations, obscure information, high explosives,
arcane knowledge, political extremism, diverse sexuality,
insane speculation, and wild rumours. ALL-TEXT BBS SYSTEMS.

Full access for first-time callers. We don't want to know who you are,
where you live, or what your phone number is. We are not Big Brother.

"Raw Data for Raw Nerves"

X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X

PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS IN GUERRILLA WARFARE

2006-08-08T12:35:00.000-07:00

Combat Arms
2869 Grove Way
Castro Valley, California 94546-6709
Telephone (415) 538-6544
BBS: (415) 537-1777

---------------------------------------------------
º º
º PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS IN GUERRILLA WARFARE º
º º
º by º
º º
º Tayac n º
º º
º A tactical manual for the revolutionary that º
º was published by the Central Intelligence º
º Agency and distributed to the Contras in º
º Central America. º
º º
º Combat Arms urges gun owners in the United º
º States to become very familiar with the º
º contents of this manual and to discuss it º
º among your family and friends. Liberty knows º
º no peace. º
º º
---------------------------------------------------

PREFACE

Guerrilla warfare is essentially a political war. Therefore, its area
of operations exceeds the territorial limits of conventional warfare, to
penetrate the political entity itself: the "political animal" that
Aristotle defined.

In effect,the human being should be considered the priority objective
in a political war. And conceived as the military target of guerrilla war,
the human being has his most critical point in his mind. Once his mind has
been reached, the"political animal" has been defeated, without necessarily
receiving bullets.

Guerrilla warfare is born and grows in the political environment; in
the constant combat to dominate that area of political mentality that is
inherent to all human beings and which collectively constitutes the
"environment" in which guerrilla warfare moves, and which is where
precisely its victory or failure is defined.

This conception of guerrilla warfare as political war turns
Psychological Operations into the decisive factor of the results. The
target, then, is the minds of the population, all the population: our
troops, the enemy troops and the civilian population.

This book is a manual for the training of guerrillas in psychological
operations, and its application to the concrete case of the Christian and
democratic crusade being waged in Nicaragua by the Freedom Commandos.

Welcome!

INTRODUCTION

1. Generalities

The purpose of this book is to introduce the guerrilla student to the
psychological operations techniques that will be of immediate and practical
value to him in guerrilla warfare. This section is introductory and
general; subsequent sections will cover each point set forth here in more
detail.

The nature of the environment of guerrilla warfare does not permit
sophisticated psychological operations, and it becomes necessary for the
chiefs of groups, chiefs of detachments and squadron leaders to have the
ability to carry out, with minimal instructions from the higher levels,
psychological action operations with the contacts that are thoroughly aware
of the situation, i.e. the foundations.

2. Combatant-Propagandist Guerrillas

In order to obtain the maximum results from the psychological
operations in guerrilla warfare, every combatant should be as highly
motivated to carry out propaganda face to face as he is a combatant. This
means that the individual political awareness of the guerrilla of the
reason for his struggle will be as acute as his ability to fight.

Such a political awareness and motivation is obtained through the
dynamic of groups and self-criticism, as a standard method of instruction
for the guerrilla training and operations. Group discussions raise the
spirit and improve the unity of thought of the guerrilla training and
operations. Group discussions raise the spirit and improve the unity of
thought of the guerrilla squads and exercise social pressure on the weak
members to carry out a better role in future training or in combative
action. Self-criticism is in terms of one's contribution or defects in his
contribution to the cause, to the movement, the struggle, etc.; and gives a
positive individual commitment to the mission of the group.

The desired result is a guerrilla who can persuasively justify his
actions when he comes into contact with any member of the People of
Nicaragua, and especially with himself and his fellow guerrillas in dealing
with the vicissitudes of guerrilla warfare. This means that every guerrilla
will be persuasive in his face-to-face communication - propagandist-
combatant - ins his contact with the people; he should be able to give 5 or
10 logical reasons why, for example, a peasant should give him cloth,
needle and thread to mend his clothes. When the guerrilla behaves in this
manner, enemy propaganda will never succeed in making him an enemy in the
eyes of the people. It also means that hunger, cold, fatigue and insecurity
will have a meaning, psychologically, in the cause of the struggle due to
his constant orientation.

3. Armed Propaganda

Armed propaganda includes every act carried out, and the good
impression that this armed force causes will result in positive attitudes
in the population toward that force; ad it does not include forced
indoctrination. Armed propaganda improves the behavior of the population
toward them, and it is not achieved by force.

This means that a guerilla armed unit in a rural town will not give
the impression that arms are their strength over the peasants, but rather
that they are the strength of the peasants against the Sandinista
government of repression. This is achieved through a close identification
with the people, as follows: hanging up weapons and working together with
them on their crops, in construction, in the harvesting of grains, in
fishing, etc.; explanations to young men about basic weapons, e.g. giving
them an unloaded weapon and letting them touch it, see it, etc.; describing
in a rudimentary manner its operation; describing with simple slogans how
weapons will serve the people to win their freedom; demanding the requests
by the people for hospitals and education, reducing taxes, etc.

All these acts have as their goal the creation of an identification of
the people with the weapons and the guerrillas who carry them, so that the
population feels that the weapons are, indirectly, their weapon to protect
them and help them in the struggle against a regime of oppression. Implicit
terror always accompanies weapons, since the people are internally "aware"
that they can be used against them, but as long as explicit coercion is
avoided, positive attitudes can be achieved with respect to the presence of
armed guerrillas within the population.

4. Armed Propaganda Teams

Armed Propaganda Teams (EPA) are formed through a careful selection of
persuasive and highly motivated guerrillas who move about within the
population, encouraging the people to support the guerrillas and put up
resistance against the enemy. It combines a high degree of political
awareness and the "armed" propaganda ability of the guerrillas toward a
planned, programmed, and controlled effort.

The careful selection of the staff, based on their persuasiveness in
informal discussions and their ability in combat, is more important than
their degree of education or the training program. The tactics of the Armed
Propaganda Teams are carried out covertly, and should be parallel to the
tactical effort in guerrilla warfare. The knowledge of the psychology of
the population is primary for the Armed Propaganda Teams, but much more
intelligence data will be obtained from an EPA program in the area of
operations.

5. Development and Control of the "Front" Organizations

The development and control of "front" (or facade) organizations is
carried out through subjective internal control at group meetings of
"inside cadres," and the calculations of the time for the fusion of these
combined efforts to be applied to the masses.

Established citizens-doctors, lawyers, businessmen, teachers, etc.-
will be recruited initially as "Social Crusaders" in typically "innocuous"
movements in the area of operations. When their "involvement" with the
clandestine organization is revealed to them, this supplies the
psychological pressure to use them as "inside cadres" in groups to which
they already belong or of which they can be members.

Then they will receive instruction in techniques of persuasion over
control of target groups to support our democratic revolution, through a
gradual and skillful process. A cell control system isolates individuals
from one another, and at the appropriate moment, their influence is used
for the fusion of groups in a united national front.

6. Control of Meetings and Mass Assemblies

The control of mass meetings in support of guerrilla warfare is
carried out internally through a covert commando element, bodyguards,
messengers, shock forces (initiators of incidents), placard carriers (also
used for making signals), shouters of slogans, everything under the control
of the outside commando element.

When the cadres are placed or recruited in organizations such as labor
unions, youth groups agrarian organizations or professional associations,
they will begin to manipulate the objectives of the groups. The
psychological apparatus of our movement through inside cadres prepares a
mental attitude which at the crucial moment can be turned into a fury of
justified violence.

Through a small group of guerrillas infiltrated within the masses this
can be carried out; they will have the mission of agitating by giving the
impression that there are many of them and that they have a large popular
backing. Using the tactics of a force of 200-300 agitators, a demonstration
can be created in which 10,000-20,000 persons take part.

7. Support of Contacts with Their Roots in Reality

The support of local contacts who are familiar with the deep reality
is achieved through the exploitation of the social and political weaknesses
of the target society, with propagandist-combatant guerrillas, armed
propaganda, armed propaganda teams, cover organizations and mass meetings.

The combatant-propagandist guerrilla is the result of a continuous
program of indoctrination and motivation. They will have the mission of
showing the people how great and fair our movement is in the eyes of all
Nicaraguans and the world. Identifying themselves with our people, they
will increase the sympathy towards our movement, which will result in
greater support of the population for the freedom commandos, taking away
support for the regime in power.

Armed propaganda will extend this identification process of the people
with the Christian guerrillas, providing converging points against the
Sandinista regime.

The Armed Propaganda Teams provide a several-stage program of
persuasive planning in guerrilla warfare in all areas of the country. Also,
these teams are the "eyes and ears" of our movement.

The development and control of the cover organizations in guerrilla
warfare will give our movement the ability to create a "whiplash" effect
within the population when the order for fusion is given. When the
infiltration and internal subjective control have been developed in a
manner parallel to other guerrilla activities, a comandante of ours will
literally be able to shake up the Sandinista structure, and replace it.

The mass assemblies and meetings are the culmination of a wide base
support among the population, and it comes about in the later phases of the
operation. This is the moment in which the overthrow can be achieved and
our revolution can become an open one, requiring the close collaboration of
the entire population of the country, and of contacts with their roots in
reality.

The tactical effort in guerrilla warfare is directed at the weaknesses
of the enemy and at destroying their military resistance capacity, and
should be parallel to a psychological effort to weaken and destroy their
sociopolitical capacity at the same time. In guerrilla warfare, more than
in any other type of military effort, the psychological activities should
be simultaneous with the military ones, in order to achieve the objectives
desired.

COMBATANT-PROPAGANDIST GUERRILLA

1. Generalities

The objective of this section is to familiarize the guerrilla with the
techniques of psychological operations, which maximizes the social-
psychological effect of a guerrilla movement, converting the guerrilla into
a propagandist, in addition to being a combatant. The nature of the
environment in guerrilla warfare does not permit sophisticated facilities
for psychological operations, so that use should be made of the effective
face-to-face persuasion of each guerrilla.

2. Political Awareness

The individual political awareness of the guerrilla, the reason for
his struggle, will be as important as his ability in combat. This political
awareness and motivation will be achieved:

þ By improving the combat potential of the guerrilla by improving
his motivation for fighting.

þ By the guerrilla recognizing himself as a vital tie between the
democratic guerrillas and the people, whose support is essential
for the subsistence of both.

þ By fostering the support of the population for the national
insurgence through the support for the guerrillas of the locale,
which provides a psychological basis in the population for
politics after the victory has been achieved.

þ By developing trust in the guerrillas and in the population, for
the reconstruction of a local and national government.

þ By promoting the value of participation by the guerrillas and the
people in the civic affairs of the insurrection and in the
national programs.

þ By developing in each guerrilla the ability of persuasion face-
to-face, at the local level, to win the support of the
population, which is essential for success in guerrilla warfare.

3. Group Dynamics

This political awareness-building and motivation are attained by the
use of group dynamics at the level of small units. The group discussion
method and self-criticism are a general guerrilla training and operations
technique.

Group discussions raise the spirit and increase the unity of thought
in small guerrilla groups and exercise social pressure on the weakest
members to better carry out their mission in training and future combat
actions. These group discussions will give special emphasis to:

þ Creating a favorable opinion of our movement. Through local and
national history, make it clear that the Sandinista regime is
"foreignizing," "repressive" and "imperialistic," and that even
though there are some Nicaraguans within the government, point
out that they are "puppets" of the power of the Soviets and
Cubans, i.e. of foreign power.

þ Always a local focus. Matters of an international nature will be
explained only in support of local events in the guerrilla
warfare.

þ The unification of the nation is our goal. This means that the
defeat of the Sandinista armed forces is our priority. Our
insurrectional movement is a pluralistic political platform from
which we are determined to win freedom, equality, a better
economy with work facilities, a higher standard of living, a true
democracy for all Nicaraguans without exception.

þ Providing to each guerrilla clear understanding about the
struggle for national sovereignty against Soviet-Cuban
imperialism. Discussion guides will lead the guerrillas so that
they will see the injustices of the Sandinista system.

þ Showing each guerrilla the need for good behavior to win the
support of the population. Discussion guides should convince the
guerrillas that the attitude and opinion of the population play a
decisive role, because victory is impossible without popular
support.

þ Self-criticism will be in constructive terms that will contribute
to the mission of the movement, and which will provide the
guerrillas with the conviction that they have a constant and
positive individual responsibility in the mission of the group.
The method of instruction will be:

a) division of the guerrilla force into squads for group
discussions, including command and support elements,
whenever the tactical situation permits it. The makeup of
the small units should be maintained when these groups are
designated.

b) Assignment of a political cadre in the guerrilla force to
each group to guide the discussion. The squad leader should
help the cadre to foster study and the expression of
thoughts. If there are not enough political cadres for each
squad or post, leaders should guide the discussions, and the
available cadres visit alternate groups.

c) It is appropriate for the cadre (or the leader) to guide
the discussion of a group to cover a number of points and to
reach a correct conclusion. The guerrillas should feel that
it was their free and own decision. THe cadre should serve
as a private teacher. The cadre or leader will not act as a
lecturer, but will help the members of the group to study
and express their own opinions.

d) The political cadre will at the end of every discussion
make a summary of the principal points, leading them to the
correct conclusions. Any serious difference with the
objectives of the movement should be noted by the cadre and
reported to the comandante of the force. If necessary, a
combined group meeting will be held and the team of
political cadres will explain and rectify the
misunderstanding.

e) Democratic conduct by the political cadres: living,
eating and working with the guerrillas, and if possible,
fighting at their side, sharing their living conditions. All
of this will foster understanding and the spirit of
cooperation that will help in the discussion and exchange of
ideas.

f) Carry out group discussions in towns, and areas of
operations whenever possible with the civilian population,
and not limit them to camps or bases. This is done to
emphasize the revolutionary nature of the struggle and to
demonstrate that the guerrillas identified with the
objectives of the people move about within the population.
The guerrilla projects himself toward the people, as the
political cadre does toward the guerrilla, and they should
live, eat and work together to realize a unity of
revolutionary thought.

The principles for guerrilla and political-cadre group discussions
are:

þ Organize discussion groups at the post or squad level. A cadre
cannot be sure of the comprehension and acceptance of the
concepts and conclusions by guerrillas in large groups. In a
group of the size of a squad of 10 men, the judgement and control
of the situation is greater. In this way, all students will
participate in an exchange among them; the political leader, the
group leader, and also the political cadre. Special attention
will be given to the individual ability to discuss the objectives
of the insurrectional struggle. Whenever a guerrilla expresses
his opinion, he will be interested in listening to the opinions
of others, leading as a result to the unity of thought.

þ Combine the different points of view and reach an opinion or
common conclusion. This is the most difficult task of a political
guerrilla cadre. After the group discussions of the democratic
objectives of the movement, the chief of the team of political
cadres of the guerrilla force should combine the conclusions of
individual groups in a general summary. At a meeting with all the
discussion groups, the cadre shall provide the principal points,
and the guerrillas will have the opportunity to clarify or modify
their points of view. To carry this out, the conclusions will be
summarized in the form of slogans, wherever possible.

þ Face with honesty the national and local problems of our
struggle. THe political cadres should always be prepared to
discuss solutions to the problems observed by the guerrillas.
During the discussions, the guerrillas should be guided by the
following three principles:

þ Freedom of thought.

þ Freedom of expression.

þ Concentration of thoughts on the objectives of the democratic
struggle.

The result desired is a guerrilla who in a persuasive manner can
justify all of his acts whenever he is in contact with any member of the
town/people, and especially with himself and with his guerrilla companions
by facing the vicissitudes of guerrilla warfare.

This means that every guerrilla will come to have effective face-to-
face persuasion as a combatant-propagandist in his contact with the people,
to the point of giving 5-10 logical reasons why, e.g. a peasant should give
him a piece of cloth, or a needle and thread to mend his clothes. When
behaves in this manner, no type of propaganda of the enemy will be able to
make a "terrorist" of him in the eyes of the people.

In addition, hunger, cold, fatigue and insecurity in the existence of
the guerrilla acquire meaning in the cause of the struggle due to the
constant psychological orientation.

4. Camp Procedures

Encamping the guerrilla units gives greater motivation, in addition to
reducing distractions, and increases the spirit of cooperation of small
units, relating the physical environment to the psychological one. The
squad chief shall establish the regular camping procedure. Once thy have
divested themselves of their packs, the chief will choose the appropriate
ground for camping. He should select land that predominates over the zone
with two or three escape routes. He will choose among his men and give them
responsibilities such as:

þ Clean the camp area.

þ Provide adequate drainage in case of rain. Also build some
trenches or holes for marksmen in case of emergency. In addition,
he will build a stove, which will be done by making some small
trenches and placing three rocks in place; in case the stove is
built on a pedestal, it will be filled with clay and rocks.

þ Build a windbreaking wall, which will be covered on the sides and
on the top with branches and leaves of the same vegetation of the
zones. This will serve for camouflaging and protecting it from
aerial visibility or from enemy patrols around.

þ Construct a latrine and a hole where waste and garbage will be
buried, which should be covered over at the time of abandoning
the camp.

þ Once the camp has been set up, it is recommended that a watchman
be positioned in the places of access at a prudent distance,
where the shout of alarm can be heard. In the same moment the
password will be established, which should be changed every 24
hours. The commander should establish ahead of time an alternate
meeting point, in case of having to abandon the camp in a hurried
manner, and they will be able to meet in the other already
established point, and they should warn the patrol that if at a
particular time they cannot meet at the established point, the
should have a third meeting point.

These procedures contribute to the motivation of the guerrilla and
improve the spirit of cooperation in the unit. The danger, sense of
insecurity, anxiety and daily concern in the life of a guerrilla require
tangible evidence of belonging in an order for him to keep up his spirit
and morale.

In addition to the good physical conditions in which the guerrilla
should find himself, good psychological conditions are necessary, for which
group discussions and becoming a self=critic are recommended, which will
greatly benefit the spirit and morale of the same.

Having broken camp with the effort and cooperation of everyone
strengthens the spirit of the group. The guerrilla will be inclined then
towards the unity of thought in democratic objectives.

5. Interaction with the People

In order to ensure popular support, essential for the good development
of guerrilla warfare, the leaders should induce a positive interaction
between the civilians and the guerrillas, through the principle of "live,
eat , and work with the people," and maintain control of their activities.
In group discussions, the leaders and political cadres should give emphasis
to positively identifying themselves with the people.

It is not recommendable to speak of military tactical plans in
discussions with civilians. The Communist foe should be pointed out as the
number one enemy of the people, and as a secondary threat against our
guerrilla forces.

Whenever there is a chance, groups of members should be chosen who
have a high political awareness and high disciplinary conduct in the work
to be carried out, in order to be sent to the populous areas in order to
direct the armed propaganda, where they should persuade the people through
dialogue in face-to-face confrontations, where these principles should be
followed:

þ Respect for human rights and others' property.

þ Helping the people in community work.

þ Protecting the people from Communist aggressions.

þ Teaching the people environmental hygiene, to read, etc., in
order to win their trust, which will lead to a better democratic
ideological preparation.

This attitude will foster the sympathy of the peasants for our
movement, and they will immediately become one of us, through logistical
support, coverage and intelligence information on the enemy or
participation in combat. The guerrillas should be persuasive through the
word and not dictatorial with weapons. If they behave in this way, the
people will feel respected, will be more inclined to accept our message and
will consolidate into popular support.

In any place in which tactical guerrilla operations are carried out in
populous areas, the squad should undertake psychological actions parallel
to these, and should proceed, accompany and consolidate the common
objective and explain to all the people about our struggle, explaining that
our presence is to give peace, liberty and democracy to all Nicaraguans
without exception, and explaining that out struggle is not against the
nationals but rather against Russian imperialism. This will serve to ensure
greater Psychological achievements which will increase the operations of
the future.

6. Conclusions

The nature of the environment in guerrilla warfare does not permit
sophisticated facilities for psychological operations, and the face-to-face
persuasion of the guerrilla combatant-propagandists with the people is an
effective and available tool which we should use as much as possible during
the process of the struggle.

ARMED PROPAGANDA

1. Generalities

Frequently a misunderstanding exists on "armed propaganda," that this
tactic is a compulsion of the people with arms. In reality, it does not
include compulsion, but the guerrilla should know well the principles and
methods of this tactic. The objective of this section is to give the
guerrilla student an understanding of the armed propaganda that should be
used, and that will be able to be applied in guerrilla warfare.

2. Close Identification with the People

Armed propaganda includes all acts carried out by an armed force,
whose results improve the attitude of the people toward this force, and it
does not include forced indoctrination. This is carried out by a close
identification with the people on any occasion. For example:

þ Putting aside weapons and working side by side with the peasants
in the countryside: building, fishing, repairing roofs,
transporting water, etc.

þ When working with the people, the guerrillas can use slogans such
as "many hands doing small things, but doing them together."

þ Participating in the tasks of the people, they can establish a
strong tie between them and the guerrillas and at the same time a
popular support for our movement is generated.

During the patrols and other operations around or in the midst of
villages, each guerrilla should be respectful and courteous with the
people. In addition he should move with care and always be well prepared to
fight, if necessary. But he should not always see all the people as
enemies, with suspicions or hostility. Even in war, it is possible to
smile, laugh or greet people. Truly, the cause of our revolutionary base,
the reason why we are struggling, is our people. We must be respectful to
them on all occasions that present themselves.

In places and situations wherever possible, e.g. when they are resting
during the march, the guerrillas can explain the operation of weapons to
the youths and young men. They can show them an unloaded rifle so that they
will learn to load it and unload it; their use, and aiming at imaginary
targets they are potential recruits for our forces.

The guerrillas should always be prepared with simple slogans in order
to explain to the people, whether in an intentional form or by chance, the
reason for the weapons.

"The weapons will be for winning freedom; the are for you."

"With weapons we can impose demands such as hospitals, schools, better
roads, and social services for the people, for you."

"Our weapons are, in truth, the weapons of the people, yours."

"With weapons we can change the Sandino-Communist regime and return to
the people a true democracy so that we will all have economic
opportunities."

All of this should be designed to create an identification of the
people with the weapons and the guerrillas who carry them. Finally, we
should make the people feel that we are thinking of them and that the
weapons are the people's, in order to help them and protect them from a
Communist, totalitarian, imperialist regime, indifferent to the needs of
the population.

3. Implicit and Explicit Terror

A guerrilla armed force always involves implicit terror because the
population, without saying it aloud, feels terror that the weapons may be
used against them. However, if the terror does not become explicit,
positive results can be expected.

In a revolution, the individual lives under a constant threat of
physical damage. If the government police cannot put an end to the
guerrilla activities, the population will lose confidence in the
government, which has the inherent mission of guaranteeing the safety of
citizens. However, the guerrillas should be careful not to become an
explicit terror, because this would result in a loss of popular support.

In the words of a leader of the Huk guerrilla movement of the
Philippine Islands: "The population is always impressed by weapons, not by
the terror that they cause, but rather by a sensation of strength/force. We
must appear before the people, giving them the message of the struggle."
This is, then, in a few words, the essence of armed propaganda.

An armed guerrilla force can occupy an entire town or small city that
is neutral or relatively passive in the conflict. In order to conduct the
armed propaganda in an effective manner, the following should be carried
out simultaneously:

þ Destroy the military or police installations and remove the survivors to
a "public place."

þ Cut all the outside lines of communications: cables, radio, messengers.

þ Set up ambushes in order to delay the reinforcements in all the possible
entry routes.

þ Kidnap all officials or agents of the Sandinista government and replace
them in "public Places" with military or civilian persons of trust to our
movement; in addition, carry out the following:

þ Establish a public tribunal that depends on the guerrillas, and cover the
town or city in order to gather the population for this event.

þ Shame, ridicule and humiliate the "personal symbols" of the government of
repression in the presence of the people and foster popular participation
through guerrillas within the multitude, shouting slogans and jeers.

þ Reduce the influence of individuals in tune with the regime, pointing out
their weaknesses and taking them out of the town, without damaging them
publicly.

þ Mix the guerrillas within the population and show very good conduct by
all members of the column, practicing the following:

Any article taken will be paid for with cash.

The hospitality offered by the people will be accepted and this
opportunity will be exploited in order to carry out face-to-face
persuasion about the struggle.

Courtesy visits should be made to the prominent persons and those with
prestige in the place, such as doctors, priests, teachers, etc.

The guerrillas should instruct the population that with the end of the
operative, and when the Sandinista repressive forces interrogate them,
they may reveal EVERYTHING about the military operation carried out.
For example, the type of weapons they use, ho many men arrived, from
what direction they came and in what direction they left, in short,
EVERYTHING.

In addition, indicate to the population that at meetings or in private
discussion they can give the names of the Sandinista informants, who
will be removed together with the other officials of the government of
repression.

When a meeting is held, conclude it with a speech by one of the
leaders of guerrilla political cadres (the most dynamic), which includes
explicit references to:

The fact that the "enemies of the people" -- the officials or
Sandinista agents -- must not be mistreated in spite of their criminal
acts, although the guerrilla force may have suffered casualties, and that
this is done due to the generosity of the Christian guerrillas.

Give a declaration of gratitude for the "hospitality" of the
population, as well as let them know that the risks that they will run when
the Sandinistas return are greatly appreciated.

The fact that the Sandinista regime, although it exploits the people
with taxes, control of money, grains and all aspects of public life through
associations, which they are forced to become part of, will not be able to
resist the attacks of our guerrilla forces.

Make the promise to the people that you will return to ensure that the
"leeches" of the Sandinista regime of repression will not be able to hinder
our guerrillas from integrating with the population.

A statement repeated to the population to the effect that they can
reveal everything about this visit of our commandos, because we are not
afraid of anything or anyone, neither the Soviets nor the Cubans. Emphasize
that we are Nicaraguans, that we are fighting for the freedom of Nicaragua
and to establish a very Nicaraguan government.

4. Guerrilla Weapons Are The Strength of the People over an Illegal
Government

The armed propaganda in populated areas does not give the impression
that weapons are the power of the guerrillas over the people, but rather
that the weapons are the strength of the people against a regime of
repression. Whenever it is necessary to use armed force in an occupation or
visit to a town or village, guerrillas should emphasize making sure that
they:

þ Explain to the population that in the first place this is being done to
protect them, the people, and not themselves.

þ Admit frankly and publicly that this is an "act of the democratic
guerrilla movement," with appropriate explanations.

þ That this action, although it is not desirable, is necessary because the
final objective of the insurrection is a free and democratic society, where
acts of force are not necessary.

þ The force of weapons is a necessity caused by the oppressive system, and
will cease to exist when the "forces of justice" of our movement assume
control.

If, for example, it should be necessary for one of the advanced posts
to have to fire on a citizen who was trying to leave the town or city in
which the guerrillas are carrying out armed propaganda or political
proselytism, the following is recommended:

þ Explain that if that citizen had managed to escape, he would have alerted
the enemy that is near the town or city, and they could carry out acts of
reprisal such as rapes, pillage, destruction, captures, etc., it this way
terrorizing the inhabitants of the place for having given attention and
hospitalities to the guerrillas of the town.

þ If a guerrilla fires at an individual, make the town see that he was an
enemy of the people, and that they shot him because the guerrilla
recognized as their first duty the protection of citizens.

þ The command tried to detain the informant without firing because he, like
all Christian guerrillas, espouses nonviolence. Firing at the Sandinista
informant, although it is against his own will, was necessary to prevent
the repression of the Sandinista government against innocent people.

þ Make the population see that it was the repressive system of the regime
that was the cause of this situation, what really killed the informer, and
that the weapon fired was one recovered in combat against the Sandinista
regime.

þ Make the population see that if the Sandinista regime had ended the
repression, the corruption backed by foreign powers, etc., the freedom
commandos would not have had to brandish arms against brother Nicaraguans,
which goes against our Christian sentiments. If the informant hadn't tried
to escape he would be enjoying life together with the rest of the
population, because not have tried to inform the enemy. This death would
have been avoided if justice and freedom existed in Nicaragua, which is
exactly the objective of the democratic guerrilla.

5. Selective Use of Violence for Propagandistic Effects

It is possible to neutralize carefully selected and planned targets,
such as court judges, mesta judges, police and State Security officials,
CDS chiefs, etc. For psychological purposes it is necessary to gather
together the population affected, so that they will be present, take part
in the act, and formulate accusations against the oppressor.

The target or person should be chosen on the basis of:

þ The spontaneous hostility that the majority of the population feels
toward the target.

þ Use rejection or potential hatred by the majority of the population
affected toward the target, stirring up the population and making them see
all the negative and hostile actions of the individual against the people.

þ If the majority of the people give their support or backing to the target
or subject, do not try to change these sentiments through provocation.

þ Relative difficulty of controlling the person who will replace the
target.

The person who will replace the target should be chosen carefully,
based on:

þ Degree of violence necessary to carry out the change.

þ Degree of violence acceptable to the population affected.

þ Degree of predictable reprisal by the enemy on the population affected or
other individuals in the area of the target.

The mission to replace the individual should be followed by:

þ Extensive explanation within the population affected of the reason why it
was necessary for the good of the people.

þ Explain that Sandinista retaliation is unjust, indiscriminate, and above
all, a justification for the execution of this mission.

þ Carefully test the reaction of the people toward the mission, as well as
control this reaction, making sure that the populations reaction is
beneficial towards the Freedom Commandos.

6. Conclusions

Armed propaganda includes all acts executed and the impact achieved by
an armed force, which as a result produces positive attitudes in the
population toward this force, and it does not include forced
indoctrination. However, armed propaganda is the most effective available
instrument of a guerrilla force.

ARMED PROPAGANDA TEAMS (APTs)

1. Generalities

In contact with the very reality of their roots, in a psychological
operation campaign in guerrilla warfare, the comandantes will be able to
obtain maximum psychological results from an Armed Propaganda program. This
section is to inform the guerrilla student as to what Armed Propaganda
Teams are in the environment of guerrilla warfare.

2. Combination: Political Awareness and Armed Propaganda

The Armed Propaganda Teams combine political awareness-building with
armed propaganda, which will be carried out by carefully selected
guerrillas (preferably with experience in combat), for personal persuasion
within the population.

The selection of the staff is more important than the training,
because we cannot train guerrilla cadres just to show the sensations of
ardor and fervor, which are essential for person-to-person persuasion. More
important is the training of persons who are intellectually agile and
developed.

An Armed Propaganda Team includes from 6 to 10 members; this number or
a smaller number is ideal, since there is more camaraderie, solidarity and
group spirit. The themes to deal with are assimilated more rapidly and the
members react more rapidly to unforeseen situations.

In addition to the combination as armed propagandist-combatant each
member of the team should be well prepared to carry out permanent person-
to-person communication, face-to-face.

The leader of the group should be the commando who is the most highly
motivated politically and the most effective in face-to-face persuasion.
The position, hierarchy or range will not be decisive for carrying out that
function, but rather who is best qualified for communication with the
people.

The source of basic recruitment for guerrilla cadres will be the same
social groups of Nicaraguans to whom the psychological campaign is
directed, such as peasants, students, professionals, housewives, etc. The
campesinos (peasants) should be made to see that they do not have lands;
the workers that the State is putting an end to factories and industries;
the doctors, that they are being replaced by Cuban paramedics, and that as
doctors they cannot practice their profession due to lack of medicines. A
requirement for recruiting them will be their ability to express themselves
in public.

The selection of the personnel is more important than the training.
The political awareness-building and the individual capabilities of
persuasion will be shown in the group discussions for motivation of the
guerrilla as a propagandist-combatant chosen as cadres to organize them in
teams, that is, those who have the greatest capacity for this work.

The training of guerrillas for Armed Propaganda Teams emphasizes the
method and not the content. A two-week training period is sufficient if the
recruitment is done in the form indicated. If a mistaken process of
recruitment has been followed, however good the training provided, the
individual chosen will not yield a very good result.

The training should be intensive for 14 days, through team
discussions, alternating the person who leads the discussion among the
members of the group.

The subjects to be dealt with will be the same, each day a different
theme being presented, for a varied practice.

The themes should refer to the conditions of the place and the meaning
that they have for the inhabitants of the locality, such as talking of
crops, fertilizers, seeds, irrigation of crops, etc. They can also include
the following topics:

þ Sawed wood, carpenters' tools for houses or other buildings.

þ Boats, roads, horses, oxen for transportation, fishing,
agriculture.

þ Problems that they may have in the place with residents, offices
of the regime, imposed visitors, etc.

þ Force labor, service in the militia.

þ Forced membership in Sandinista groups, such as women's clubs,
youth associations, workers' groups, etc.

þ Availability and prices of consumer articles and of basic needs
in the grocery stores and shops of the place.

þ Characteristics of education in the public schools.

þ Anxiety of the people over the presence of Cuban teachers in the
schools and the intrusion of politics, i.e. using them for
political ends and not educational ones as should be.

þ Indignation over the lack of freedom of worship, and persecution,
of which priests are victims; and over the participation of
priests such as Escoto and Cardenal in the Sandinista government,
against the explicit orders of his Holiness, the Pope.

NOTE: Members of the team can develop other themes.

The target groups for the Armed Propaganda Teams are not the persons
with sophisticated political knowledge, but rather those whose opinion are
formed from what they see and hear. The cadres should use persuasion to
carry out their mission. Some of the persuasive methods that they can use
are the following:

Interior Group/Exterior Group. It is a principle of psychology that we
humans have the tendency to form personal associations from "we" and "the
others," or "we" and "they", "friends" and "enemies," "fellow countrymen"
and "foreigners," "mestizos" and "gringos."

The Armed Propaganda Team can use this principle in its activities, so
that it is obvious that the "exterior" groups ("false" groups) are those of
the Sandinista regime, and that the "interior" groups ("true" groups) that
fight for the people are the Freedom Commandos.

We should inculcate this in the people in a subtle manner so that
these feelings seem to be born of themselves, spontaneously.

"Against" is much easier that "for." It is a principle of political
science that it is easier to persuade the people to vote against something
or someone than to persuade them to vote in favor of something or someone.
Although currently the regime has not given the Nicaraguan people the
opportunity to vote, it is known that the people will vote in opposition,
so that the Armed Propaganda Teams can use this principle in favor of our
insurrectional struggle. They should ensure that this campaign is directed
specifically against the government or its sympathizers, since the people
should have specific targets for their frustrations.

Primary Groups and Secondary Groups. Another principle of sociology is
that we humans forge or change our opinions from two sources: primarily,
through our association with our family, comrades, or intimate friends; and
secondarily, through distant associations such as acquaintances in
churches, clubs or committees, labor unions or governmental organizations.
The Armed Propaganda Team cadres should join the first groups in order to
persuade them to follow the policies of our movement, because it is from
this type of group that the opinions or changes of opinion come.

Techniques of Persuasion in Talks or Speeches:

Be Simple and Concise. You should avoid the use of difficult words or
expressions and prefer popular words and expressions, i.e. the language of
the people. In dealing with a person you should make use of concise
language, avoiding complicated words. It is important to remember that we
use oratory to make our people understand the reason for our struggle, and
not to show off our knowledge.

Use Lively and Realistic Examples. Avoid abstract concepts, such as
are used in universities in the advanced years, and in place of them, give
concrete examples such as children playing, horses galloping, birds in
flight, etc.

Use Gestures to Communicate. Communication, in addition to being
verbal, can be through gestures, such as using our hands expressively, back
movements, facial expressions, focusing of our look and other aspects of
"body language," projecting the individual personality in the message.

Use the Appropriate Tone of Voice. If, on addressing the people, you
talk about happiness, a happy tone should be used. If you talk of something
sad, the tone of the voice should be one of sadness; on talking of a heroic
or brave act, the voice should be animated, etc.

Above All, Be Natural, Imitation of others should be avoided, since
the people, especially simple people, easily distinguish a fake. The
individual personality should be projected when addressing the population.

3. "Eyes and Ears" Within the Population

The amount of information for intelligence that will be generated by
the deployment of the Armed Propaganda Teams will allow us to cover a large
area with out commandos, who will become the eyes and ears of our movement
within the population:

The combined reports of an Armed Propaganda Team will provide us with
exact details on the enemy activities.

The intelligence information obtained by the Armed Propaganda Teams
should be reported to the chiefs. However, it is necessary to emphasize
that the first mission of the Armed Propaganda Teams is to carry out
psychological operations, not to obtain data for intelligence.

Any intelligence report will be made through the outside contact of
the Armed Propaganda Team, in order not to compromise the population.

The Armed Propaganda cadres are able to do what others in a guerrilla
campaign cannot do: determine personally the development or deterioration
of the popular support and the sympathy or hostility that the people feel
toward our movement.

The Armed Propaganda Team program, in addition to being very effective
psychologically, increases the guerrilla capacity in obtaining and using
information.

In addition, the Armed Propaganda cadre will report to his superior
the reaction of the people to the radio broadcasts, the insurrectional
flyers, or any other means of propaganda of ours.

Expressions or gestures of the eyes, or face, the tone and strength of
the voice, and the use of the appropriate words greatly affect the face-to-
face persuasion of the people.

With the intelligence reports supplied by the Armed Propaganda Teams,
the comandantes will be able to have exact knowledge of the popular
support, which they will make use of in their operations.

4. Psychological Tactics, Maximum Flexibility

Psychological tactics will have the greatest flexibility within a
general plan, permitting a continuous and immediate adjustment of the
message, and ensuring that an impact is caused on the indicated target
group at the moment in which it is the most susceptible.

Tactically, an Armed Propaganda Equipment program should cover the
majority and if possible all of the operational area. The communities in
which this propaganda is carried out should not necessarily form political
units with an official nature. A complete understanding of their structure
or organization is not necessary because the cadres will work by applying
socio-political action and not academic theory.

The target populations of the Armed Propaganda Teams will be chosen
for being part of the operational area, and not for their size or amount of
land.

The objective should be the people and not the territorial area.

In this respect, each work team will be able to cover some six towns
approximately, in order to develop popular support for our movement.

The Team should always move in a covert manner within the towns of
their area.

They should vary their route radically, but not their itinerary,. This
is so that the inhabitants who are cooperating will be dependent on their
itinerary, i.e., the hour in which they can frequently contact them to give
them the information.

The danger of betrayal or an ambush can be neutralized by varying the
itinerary a little, using different routes, as well as arriving or leaving
without previous warning.

Whenever the surprise factor is used, vigilance should be kept in
order to detect the possible presence of hostile elements.

No more than three consecutive days should be spent in a town.

The limit of three days has obvious tactical advantages, but it also
has a psychological effect on the people, on seeing the team as a source of
current and up-to-date information. Also, it can overexpose the target
audience and cause a negative reaction.

Basic tactical precautions should be taken. This is necessary for
greater effectiveness, as was indicated in dealing with the subject of
"Armed Propaganda," and when it is carried out discreetly, it increases the
respect of the people for the team and increases their credibility.

The basic procedures are: covert elements that carry out vigilance
before and after the departure and in intervals. There should be two at
least, and they should meet at a predetermined point upon a signal, or in
view of any hostile action.

The team's goal is to motivate the entire population of a place, but
to constantly remain aware that defined target groups exist within this
general configuration of the public.

Although meetings may be held in the population, the cadres should
recognize and keep in contact with the target groups, mixing with them
before, during and after the meeting. The method for holding this type of
meeting was included in the topic "Armed Propaganda," and will be covered
in greater detail under the title "Control of Mass Meetings and
Demonstrations."

The basic focus of the Armed Propaganda cadres should be on the
residents of the town,where their knowledge as formers of opinion can be
applied.

In the first visits of identification with the inhabitants, the
guerrilla cadres will be courteous and humble. They can work in the fields
or in any other form in which their abilities can contribute to the
improvement of the living style of the inhabitants of the place, winning
their trust and talking with them; helping to repair the fences of their
cattle; the cleaning of the same, collaborating in the vaccination of their
animals; teaching them to read, i.e., closely together in all the tasks of
the peasant or the community.

In his free time, our guerrilla should mix in with the community
groups and participate with them in pastoral activities, parties,
birthdays, and even in wakes or burials of the members of said community;
he will try to converse with both adults and adolescents. |He will try to
penetrate to the heart of the family, in order to win the acceptance and
trust of all of the residents of that sector.

The Armed Propaganda Team cadres will give ideological training,
mixing these instructions with folkloric songs, and at the same time he
will tell stories that have some attraction, making an effort to make them
refer to heroic acts of our ancestors. He will also try to tell stories of
heroism of our combatants in the present struggle so that listeners try to
imitate them. It is important to let them know that there are other
countries in the world where freedom and democracy cause those governing to
be concerned over the well-being of their people, so that the children have
medical care and free education; where also they are concerned that
everyone have work and food, and all freedoms such as those of religion,
association and expression; where the greatest objective of the government
is to keep its people happy.

The cadres should not make mention of their political ideology during
the first phase of identification with the people, and they should orient
their talks to things that are pleasing to the peasants or the listeners,
trying to be as simple as possible in order to be understood.

The tactical objectives for identification with the people are the
following:

To establish tight relations through identification with the people,
through their very customs.

To determine the basic needs and desires of the different target
groups.

To discover the weaknesses of the governmental control.

Little by little, to sow the seed of democratic revolution, in order
to change the vices of the regime towards a new order of justice and
collective well-being.

In the motivation of the target groups, by the Armed Propaganda Teams,
the cadre should apply themes of "true~ groups and themes of "false"
groups. The true group will correspond to the target group and the false
one to the Sandinista regime.

For the economic interest groups, such as small businessmen and
farmers, it should be emphasized that their potential progress is "limited"
by the Sandinista government, that resources are scarcer and scarcer, the
earnings/profits minimal, taxes high, etc. This can be applied to
entrepreneurs of transportation and others.

For the elements ambitious for power and social positions, it will be
emphasized that they will never be able to belong to the governmental
social class, since they are hermetic in their circle of command. Example,
the nine Sandinista leaders do not allow other persons to participate in
the government, and they hinder the development of the economic and social
potential of those like him, who have desires of overcoming this, which is
unjust and arbitrary.

Social and intellectual criticisms. They should be directed at the
professionals, professors, teachers, priests, missionaries, students and
others. Make them see that their writings, commentaries or conversations
are censored, which does not make it possible to correct these problems.

Once the needs and frustrations of the target groups have been
determined, the hostility of the people to the "false" groups will become
more direct, against the current regime and its system of repression. The
people will be made to see that once this system or structure has been
eliminated, the cause of their frustration s would be eliminated and they
would be able to fulfill their desires. It should be shown to the
population that supporting the insurrection is really supporting their own
desires, since the democratic movement is aimed at the elimination of these
specific problems.

As a general rule, the Armed Propaganda teams should avoid
participating in combat. However, if this is not possible, they should
react as a guerrilla unit with tactics of "hit and run," causing the enemy
the greatest amount of casualties with aggressive assault fire, recovering
enemy weapons and withdrawing rapidly.

One exception to the rule to avoid combat will be when in the town
they are challenged by hostile actions, whether by an individual or whether
by a number of men of an enemy team.

The hostility of one or two men can be overcome by eliminating the
enemy in a rapid and effective manner. This is the most common danger.

When the enemy is equal in the number of its forces, there should be
an immediate retreat, and then the enemy should be ambushed or eliminated
by means of sharp-shooters.

In any of the cases, the Armed Propaganda Team cadres should not turn
the town into a battleground. Generally, our guerrilla will be better
armed, so that they will obtain greater respect from the population if they
carry out appropriate maneuvers instead of endangering their lives, or even
destroying their houses in an encounter with the enemy within the town.

5. A Comprehensive Team Program - Mobile Infrastructure

The psychological operations through the Armed Propaganda Teams
include the infiltration of key guerrilla communicators (i.e., Armed
Propaganda Team cadres) into the population of the country, instead of
sending messages to them through outside sources, thus creating our "mobile
infrastructure."

A "mobile infrastructure" is a cadre of our Armed Propaganda Team
moving about, i.e., keeping in touch with six or more populations, from
which his source of information will come; and at the same time it will
serve so that at the appropriate time they will become integrated in the
complete guerrilla movement.

In this way, an Armed Propaganda Team program in the operational area
builds for our comandantes in the countryside constant source of data
gathering (infrastructure) in all the area. It is also a means for
developing or increasing popular support, for recruiting new members and
for obtaining provisions.

In addition, an Armed Propaganda Team program allows the expansion of
the guerrilla movement, since they can penetrate areas that are not under
the control of the combat units. In this way, through an exact evaluation
of the combat units they will be able to plan their operations more
precisely, since they will have certain knowledge of the existing
conditions.

The comandantes will remember that this type of operation is similar
to the Fifth Column, which was used in the first part of the Second World
War, and which through infiltration and subversion tactics allowed the
Germans to penetrate the target countries before the invasions. They
managed to enter Poland, Belgium, Holland and France in a month, and Norway
in a week. The effectiveness of this tactic has been clearly demonstrated
in several wars and can be used effectively by the Freedom Commandos.

The activities of the Armed Propaganda Teams run some risks, but no
more than any other guerrilla activity. However, the Armed Propaganda Teams
are essential for the success of the struggle.

6. Conclusions

In the same way that the explorers are the "eyes and "ears" of a
patrol, or of a column on the march, the Armed Propaganda Teams are also
the source of information, the "antennas" of our movement, because they
find and exploit the sociopolitical weaknesses in the target society,
making possible a successful operation.

DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROL OF FRONT ORGANIZATIONS

1. Generalities

The development and control of front organizations (or "facade"
organizations) is an essential process in the guerrilla effort to carry out
the insurrection. That is, in truth, an aspect of urban guerrilla warfare,
but it should advance parallel to the campaign in the rural area. This
section has as its objective to give the guerrilla student an understanding
of the development and control of front organizations in guerrilla warfare.

2. Initial Recruitment

The initial recruitment to the movement, if it is involuntary, will be
carried out through several "private" consultations with a cadre (without
his knowing that he is talking to a member of ours). Then, the recruit will
be informed that he or she is already inside the movement, and he will be
exposed to the police of the regime if he or she does not cooperate.

When the guerrillas carry out missions of armed propaganda and a
program of regular visits to the towns by the Armed Propaganda Teams, these
contacts will provide the commandos with the names and places of persons
who can be recruited. The recruitment, which will be voluntary, is done
through visits by guerrilla leaders or political cadres.

After a chain of voluntary recruitments has been developed, and the
trustworthiness of the recruits has been established by their carrying out
small missions, they will be instructed about increasing/widening the chain
by recruiting in specific target groups, in accordance with the following
procedure:

From among their acquaintances or through observation of the target
groups - political parties, workers' unions, youth groups, agrarian
associations, etc. - finding out the personal habits, preferences and
biases, as well as the weaknesses of the "recruitable" individuals.

Make an approach through an acquaintance, and if possible, develop a
friendship, attracting him through his preferences or weaknesses: it might
be inviting him for lunch in the restaurant of his choice or having a drink
in his favorite cantina or an invitation to dinner in the place he prefers.

Recruitment should follow one of the following guidelines:

þ If in an informal conversation the target seems susceptible to
voluntary recruitment based on his beliefs and personal values, etc.,
the political cadre assigned to carry out the recruitments will be
notified of this. The original contact will indicate to the cadre
assigned, in detail, all he knows of the prospective recruit, and the
style of persuasion to be used, introducing the two.

þ If the target does not seem to be susceptible to voluntary
recruitment, meetings can be arranged which seem casual with the
guerrilla leaders or with the political cadres (unknown by the target
until that moment). The meetings will be held so that "other persons"
know that the target is attending them, whether they see him arrive at
a particular house, seated at the table in a particular bar or even
seated on a park bench. The target, then, is faced with the fact of
his participation in the insurrectional struggle and it will be
indicated to him also that if he fails to cooperate or to carry out
future orders, he will be subjected to reprisals by the police or
soldiers of the regime.

þ The notification of the police, denouncing a target who does not
want to join the guerrillas, can be carried out easily, when it
becomes necessary, through a letter with false statements of citizens
who are not implicated in the movement. Care should be taken that the
person who recruited him covertly is not discovered.

þ With the carrying out of clandestine missions for the movement, the
involvement and handing over of every recruit is done gradually on a
wider and wider scale, and confidence increases. This should be a
gradual process, in order to prevent confessions from fearful
individuals who have been assigned very difficult or dangerous
missions too early.

Using this recruitment technique, our guerrillas will be able to
successfully infiltrate any key target group in the regime, in order to
improve the internal control of the enemy structure.

3. Established Citizens, Subjective Internal Control

Established citizens, such as doctors, lawyers, businessmen,
landholders, minor state officials, etc., will be recruited to the movement
and used for subjective internal control of groups and associations to
which they belong or may belong.

Once the recruitment/involvement has been brought about, and has
progressed to the point that allows that specific instructions be given to
internal cadres to begin to influence their groups, instructions will be
given to them to carry out the following:

þ The process is simple and only requires a basic knowledge of the
Socrates dialectic: that is the knowledge that is inherent to another
person or the established position of a group, some theme, some word
or some thought related to the objective of persuasion of the person
in charge of our recruitment.

þ The cadre then must emphasize this theme, word or thought in the
discussions or meetings of the target group, through a casual
commentary, which improves the focus of other members of the group in
relation to this. Specific examples are:

Economic interest groups are motivated by profit and generally feel
that the system hinders the use of their capability in this effort in some
way, taxes, import-export tariffs, transportation costs, etc. The cadre in
charge will increase this feeling of frustration in later conversations.

Political aspirants, particularly if the are not successful, feel that
the system discriminates against them unfairly, limiting their
capabilities, because the Sandinista regime does not allow elections. The
cadres should focus political discussions towards this frustration.

Intellectual social critics (such as professors, teachers, priests,
missionaries, etc.), generally feel that the government ignores their valid
criticism or censors their comments unjustly, especially in a situation of
revolution. This can easily be shown by the guerrilla cadre at meetings and
discussions, to be an injustice of the system.

For all the target groups, after they have established frustrations,
the hostility towards the obstacles to their aspirations will gradually
become transferred to the current regime and its system of repression.

The guerrilla cadre moving among the target groups should always
maintain a low profile, so that the development of hostile feelings towards
the false Sandinista regime seems to come spontaneously from the members of
the group and not from suggestions of the cadres. This is internal
subjective control.

Antigovernmental hostility should be generalized, and not necessarily
in our favor. If a group develops a feeling in our favor, it can be
utilized. But the main objective is to precondition the target groups for
the fusion in mass organizations later in the operation, when other
activities have been successfully undertaken.

4. Organizations of Cells for Security

Internal cadres of our movement should organize into cells of three
persons, only one of them maintaining outside contact.

The cell of three persons is the basic element of the movement, with
frequent meetings to receive orders and pass information to the cell
leader. These meetings are also very important for mutually reinforcing the
members of the cell, as well as their morale. They should exercise
criticism of themselves on the realization or failures in carrying out
individual subjective control missions.

The coordination of the three-member cell provides a security net for
reciprocal communication, each member having contact with only an
operational cell. The members will not reveal at the cell coordination
meetings the identity of their contact in an operational cell; they will
reveal only the nature of the activity in which the cell is involved, e.g.,
political party work, medical association work, etc.

There is no hierarchy in cells outside of an element of coordination,
who is the leader, who will have direct but covert contact with our
guerrilla comandante in the zone or operational area. The previous diagram
does not indicate which new operational cell is the limit, but it indicates
that for every three operational cells, we need a coordination cell.

5. Fusion in a "Cover" Organization

The fusion of organizations recognized by the Sandinista government,
such as associations and other groups, through internal subjective control,
occurs in the final stages of the operation, in a tight connection with
mass meetings.

When the guerrilla armed action has expanded sufficiently, armed
propaganda missions will be carried out on a large scale: propaganda teams
will have clearly developed open support of the institutions; the enemy
system of target groups will be well infiltrated and preconditioned. At the
point at which mass meetings are held, the internal cadres should begin
discussions for the "fusion" of forces into an organization - this
organization will be a "cover" source of our movement.

Any other target group will be aware that other groups are developing
greater hostility to the government., the police and the traditional legal
bases of authority. The guerrilla cadres tn that group - for example,
teachers - will cultivate this awareness-building, making comments such as
"So-and-so, who is a farmer, said that the members of his cooperative
believe that the new economic policy is absurd, poorly planned and unfair
to the farmers."

When the awareness-building is increased, in the sense that other
groups feel hostility towards the regime, the group discussions are held
openly and our movement will be able to receive reports that the majority
of their operatives are united in common, greater hostility against the
regime. This will be developed and the order to fuse/join will come about.
The fusion into a "cover" front is carried out thusly:

þ Internal cadres of our movement will meet with people such as
presidents, leaders, and others, at organized meetings chaired by the
group chief of our movement. Two or three escorts can assist the
guerrilla cadre if it becomes necessary.

þ Publish a joint communique on this meeting, announcing the creation
of the "cover" front, including names and signatures of the
participants, and names of the organizations that they represent.

After releasing this communique, mass meetings should be initiated,
which should have as a goal the destruction of the Sandinista control.

6. Conclusions

The development and control of the "cover" organizations in a
guerrilla war will give our movement the ability to create the "whiplash"
effect within the population, when the order for fusion is gives. When the
infiltration and internal subjective control have been developed parallel
with other guerrilla activities, a democratic guerrilla commander will
literally be able to shake up the Sandinista structure and replace it.

CONTROL OF MASS CONCENTRATIONS AND MEETINGS

1. Generalities

In the last stages of a guerrilla war, mass concentrations and
meetings are a powerful psychological tool for carrying out the mission.
This section has as its objective giving the guerrilla student training on
techniques for controlling mass concentrations and meetings in guerrilla
warfare.

2. Infiltration of Guerrilla Cadres

Infiltration of guerrilla cadres (whether a member of our movement or
outside element) in workers' unions, student groups, peasant organizations,
etc., preconditioning these groups for behavior within the masses, where
they will have to carry proselytism for the instructional struggle in a
clandestine manner.

þ Our psychological war team should prepare in advance a hostile
mental attitude among the target groups so that at the decisive moment
they can turn their furor into violence, demanding their rights that
have been trampled upon by the regime.

þ These preconditioning campaigns must be aimed at the political
parties, professional organizations, students, laborers, the masses of
the unemployed, the ethnic minorities and any other sector of society
that is vulnerable or recruitable; this also includes the popular
masses and sympathizers of our movement.

þ The basic objective of a preconditioning campaign is to create a
negative "image" of the common enemy, e.g.:

Describe the managers of collective government entities as trying
to treat the staff the way "slave foremen" do.

The police mistreat the people like the Communist "Gestapo" does.

The government officials of National Reconstruction are puppets
of Russian-Cuban imperialism.

Our psychological war cadres will create compulsive obsessions of
a temporary nature in places of public concentrations, constantly
hammering away at the themes pointed out or desired, the same as
in group gatherings; in informal conversations expressing
discontent; in addition passing out brochures and flyers, and
writing editorial articles both on the radio and in newspapers,
focused on the intention of preparing the mind of the people of
the decisive moment, which will erupt in general violence.

In order to facilitate the preconditioning of the masses, we
should often use phrases to make the people see, such as:

The taxes that they pay the government do not benefit the people
at all, but rather are uses as a form of exploitation in order to
enrich those governing.

Make it plain to the people that they have become slaves, that
they are being exploited by privileged military and political
groups.

þ The foreign advisers and their counseling programs are in reality
"interveners" in our homeland, who direct the exploitation of the
nation in accordance with the objectives of the Russian and Cuban
imperialists, in order to turn our people into slaves of the hammer
and sickle.

3. Selection of Appropriate Slogans

The leaders of the guerrilla warfare classify their slogans in
accordance with the circumstances with the aim of mobilizing the masses in
a wide scale of activities and at the highest emotional level.

When the mass uprising is being developed, our covert cadres should
make partial demands, initially demanding, e.g. "We want food," "We want
freedom of worship," "We want union freedom" - steps that will lead us
toward the realization of the goals of our movement, which are: GOD,
HOMELAND and DEMOCRACY.

If a lack of organization and command is noted in the enemy authority,
and the people find themselves in a state of exaltation, advantage can be
taken of this circumstance so that our agitators will raise the tone of the
rallying slogans, taking them to the most strident point.

If the masses are not emotionally exalted, our agitators will continue
with the "partial" slogans, and the demands will be based on daily needs,
chaining them to the goals of our movement.

An example of the need to give simple slogans is that few people think
in terms of millions of cordobas, but any citizen, however humble he may
be, understands that a pair of shoes is necessary. The goals of the
movement are of an ideological nature, but our agitators must realize that
food - "bread and butter," "the tortilla and red beans" - pull along the
people, and it should be understood that this is their main mission.

4. Creation of Nuclei

This involves the mobilization of a specific number of agitators of
the guerrilla organization of the place. This group will inevitably attract
an equal number of curious persons who seek adventures and emotions, as
well as those unhappy with the system of government. The guerrillas will
attract sympathizers, discontented citizens as a consequence of the
repression of the system. Each guerrilla subunit will be assigned specific
tasks and missions that they should carry out.

Our cadres will be mobilized in the largest number possible, together
with persons who have been affected by the Communist dictatorship, whether
their possessions have been stolen from them, they have been incarcerated,
or tortured, or suffered from any other type of aggression against them.
They will be mobilized toward the areas where the hostile and criminal
elements of the FSLN, CDS and others live, with an effort for them to be
armed with clubs, iron rods, placards and if possible, small firearms,
which they will carry hidden.

If possible, professional criminals will be hired to carry out
specific selected "jobs."

Our agitators will visit the places where the unemployed meet, as well
as the unemployment offices, in order to hire them for unspecified "jobs."
The recruitment of these wage earners is necessary because a nucleus is
created under absolute orders.

The designated cadres will arrange ahead of time the transportation of
the participants, in order to take them to meeting places in private or
public vehicles, boats or any other type of transportation.

Other cadres will be designated to design placards, flags and banners
with different slogans or key words, whether they be partial, temporary or
of the most radical type.

Other cadres will be designated to prepare flyers, posters, signs and
pamphlets to make the concentration more noticeable. This material will
contain instructions for the participants and will also serve against the
regime.

Specific tasks will be assigned to others, in order to create a
"martyr" for the cause, taking the demonstrators to a confrontation with
the authorities, in order to bring about uprisings or shootings, which will
cause the death of one or more persons, who would become the martyrs, a
situation that should be made use of immediately against the regime, in
order to create greater conflicts.

5. Ways to Lead an Uprising at Mass Meetings

It can be carried out by means of a small group of guerrillas
infiltrated within the masses, who will have the mission of agitating,
giving the impression that there are many of them and that they have
popular backing. Using the tactics of a force of 200-300 agitators, a
demonstration can be created in which 10,00-20,00 persons take part.

The agitation of the masses in a demonstration is carried out by means
of sociopolitical objectives. In this action one or several people of our
convert movement should take part, highly trained as mass agitators,
involving innocent persons, in order to bring about an apparent spontaneous
protest demonstration. They will lead all of the concentration to the end
of it.

Outside Commando. This element stays out of all activity, located so
that they can observe from where they are the development of the planned
events. As a point of observation, they should look for the tower of a
church, a high building, a high tree, the highest level of the stadium or
an auditorium, or any other high place.

Inside Commando. This element will remain within the multitude. Great
importance should be given to the protection of the leaders of these
elements. Some placards or large allusive signs should be used to designate
the Commando Posts and to provide signals to the subunits. This element
will avoid placing itself in places where fights or incidents come about
after the beginning of the demonstration.

These key agitators of ours will remain within the multitude. The one
responsible for this mission will assign ahead of time the agitators to
remain near the placard that he will indicate to them, in order to give
protection to the placard from any contrary element. In that way the
commander will know where our agitators are, and will be able to send
orders to change passwords or slogans, or any other unforeseen thing, and
even eventually to incite violence if he desires it.

At this stage, once the key cadres have been dispersed, they should
place themselves in visible places such as by signs, lampposts, and other
places which stand out.

Our key agitators should avoid places of disturbances, once they have
taken care of the beginning of the same.

Defense Posts. These elements will act as bodyguards in movement,
forming a ring of protection for the chief, protecting him from the police
and the army, or helping him to escape if it should be necessary. They
should be highly disciplined and will react only upon a verbal order from
the chief.

In case the chief participates in a religious concentration, a funeral
or any other type of activity in which they have to behave in an organized
fashion, the bodyguards will remain in the ranks very close to the chief or
to the placard or banner carriers in order to give them full protection.

The participants in this mission should be guerrilla combatants in
civilian clothes, or hired recruits who are sympathizers in our struggle
and who are against the oppressive regime.

These members must have a high discipline and will use violence only
on the verbal orders of the one in charge of them.

Messengers. They should remain near the leaders, transmitting orders
between the inside and outside commandos. They will use communication
radios, telephones, bicycles, motorcycles, cars, or move on foot or
horseback, taking paths or trails to shorten distances. Adolescents (male
and female) are ideal for this mission.

Shock Troops. These men should be equipped with weapons (Knives,
razors, chains, clubs, bludgeons) and should march slightly behind the
innocent and gullible participants. They should carry their weapons hidden.
They will enter into action only as "reinforcements" if the guerrilla
agitators are attacked by the police. They will enter the scene quickly,
violently and by surprise, in order to distract the authorities, in this
way making possible the withdrawal or rapid escape of the inside commando.

Carriers of Banners and Placards. The banners and placards used in
demonstrations or concentrations will express the protests of the
population, but when the concentration reaches its highest level of
euphoria or popular discontent, our infiltrated persons will make use of
the placards against the regime, which we manage to infiltrate in a hidden
fashion, an don them slogans or key words will be expressed to the benefit
of our cause. The one responsible for this mission will assign the
agitators ahead of time to keep near the placard of any contrary element.
In that way, the comandante will know where the agitators are, and will be
able to send orders to change slogans and eventually to incite violence if
he wishes.

Agitators of Rallying Cries and Applause. They will be trained with
specific instructions to use tried rallying cries. They will be able to use
phrase such as "WE ARE HUNGRY, WE WAND BREAD," and "WE DON'T WANT
COMMUNISM." There work and their technique for agitating the masses is
quite similar to those of the leaders of applause and slogans at the high
school football or baseball games. The objective is to become more adept
and not just to shout rallying cries.

6. Conclusions

In a revolutionary movement of guerrilla warfare, the mass
concentrations and protest demonstrations are the principle essential for
the destruction of the enemy structures.

MASSIVE IN-DEPTH SUPPORT THROUGH PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS

1. Generalities

The separate coverage in these sections could leave the student with
some doubts. Therefore, all sections are summarized here, in order to give
a clearer picture of this book.

2. Motivation as Combatant-Propagandist

Every member of the struggle should know that his political mission is
as important as, if not more important than, his tactical mission.

3. Armed Propaganda

Armed propaganda in small towns, rural villages, and city residential
districts should give the impression that our weapons are not for
exercising power over the people, but rather that the weapons are for
protecting the people; that they are the power of the people against the
FSLN government of oppression.

4. Armed Propaganda Teams

Armed Propaganda Teams will combine political awareness building and
the ability to conduct propaganda for ends of personal persuasion, which
will be carried out within the population.

5. Cover ("Facade") Organizations

The fusion of several organizations and associations recognized by the
government, through internal subjective control, occurs in the final stages
of the operation, in close cooperation with mass meetings.

6. Control of Mass Demonstrations

The mixture of elements of the struggle with participants in the
demonstration will give the appearance of a spontaneous demonstration,
lacking direction,which will be used by the agitators of the struggle to
control the behavior of the masses.

7. Conclusion

Too often we see guerrilla warfare only from the point of view of
combat actions. This view is erroneous and extremely dangerous. Combat
actions are not the key to victory in guerrilla warfare but rather form
part of one of the six basic efforts. There is no priority in any of the
efforts, but rather they should progress in a parallel manner. The emphasis
or exclusion of any of these efforts could bring about serious
difficulties, and in the worst of cases, even failure. The history of
revolutionary wars has shown this reality.

APPENDIX

The purpose of this appendix is to complement the guidelines and
recommendations to the propagandist-guerrillas expressed under the topic of
"Techniques of Persuasion in Talks and Speeches," to improve the ability to
organize and express thoughts for those who wish to perfect their
oratorical abilities. After all, oratory is one of the most valuable
resources for exercising leadership. Oratory can be used, then, as an
extraordinary political tool.

2. The Audience

Oratory is simultaneous communication par excellence, i.e., the orator
and his audience share the same time and space. Therefore, every speech
should be a different experience at "that" moment or particular situation
which the audience is experiencing and which influences them. So the
audience must be considered as "a state of mind." Happiness, sadness,
anger, fear, etc., are states of mind that we must consider to exist in our
audience, and it is the atmosphere that affects the target public.

The human being is made up of a mind and soul; he acts in accordance
with his thoughts and sentiments and responds to stimuli of ideas and
emotions. In that way there exist only two possible focuses in any plan,
including speeches: the concrete, based on rational appeals, i.e., to
thinking; and the idealized, with emotional appeals, i.e., to sentiment.

For his part the orator, although he must be sensitive to the existing
mass sentiment, he must at the same time keep his cold judgment to be able
to lead and control effectively the feelings of an audience. When in the
oratorical momentum the antithesis between heart and brain comes about,
judgment should always prevail, characteristic of a leader.

3. Political Oratory

Political oratory is one of the various forms of oratory, and it
usually fulfills one of three objectives: to instruct, persuade, or move;
and its method is reduced to urging (asking), ordering, questioning and
responding.

Oratory is a quality so tied to political leadership that it can be
said that the history of political orators is the political history of
humanity, an affirmation upheld by names such as Cicero, Demosthenes,
Danton, Mirabeau, Robespierre, Clemenceau, Lenin, Trotsky, Mussolini,
Hitler, Roosevelt, etc.

4. Qualities in a Speech

In general terms, the most appreciated qualities of a speech, and
specifically a political speech in the context of the psychological action
of the armed struggle, are the following:

þ Be brief and concise
A length of five minutes [line missing in Spanish text]...that of
the orator who said: "If you want a two-hour speech, I'll start
right now; if you want a two-minute one, let me think awhile."

þ Centered on the theme
The speech should be structured by a set of organized ideas that
converge on the theme. A good speech is expressed by concepts and
not only with words.

þ Logic
The ideas presented should be logical and easily acceptable.
never challenge logic in the mind of the audience, since
immediately the main thing is lost - credibility. As far as
possible, it is recommended that all speeches be based on a
syllogism, which the orator should adjust in his exposition. For
example: "Those governing get rich and are thieves; the
Sandinistas have enriched themselves governing; then, the
Sandinistats are thieves." This could be the point of a speech on
the administrative corruption of the regime. When an idea or a
set of guiding ideas do not exist in a speech, confusion and
dispersion easily arise.

5. Structure of a Speech

Absolute improvisation does not exist in oratory. All orators have a
"mental plan" that allows them to organize their ideas and concepts
rapidly; with practice it is possible to come to do this in a few seconds,
almost simultaneously with the expression of the word.

The elements that make up a speech are given below, in a structure
that we recommend always putting into practice, to those who wish to more
and more improve their oratorical abilities:

þ Introduction or Preamble
One enters into contact with the public, a personal introduction
can be made or one of the movement to which we belong, the reason
for our presence, etc. In these first seconds it is important to
make an impact, attracting attention and provoking interest among
the audience. For that purpose, there are resources such as
beginning with a famous phrase or a previously prepared slogan,
telling a dramatic or humorous story, etc.

þ Purpose or Enunciation
The subject to be dealt with is defined, explained as a whole or
by parts.

þ Appraisal or Argumentation
Arguments are presented, EXACTLY IN THIS ORDER: First, the
negative arguments, or against the thesis that is going to be
upheld, and then the positive arguments, or favorable ones to our
thesis, immediately adding proof or facts that sustain such
arguments.

þ Recapitulation or Conclusion
A short summary is made and the conclusions of the speech are
spelled out.

þ Exhortation
Action by the public is called for, i.e., they are asked in and
almost energetic manner to do or not to do something.

6. Some Literary Resources

Although there exist typically oratorical devices of diction, in
truth, oratory has taken from other literary genres a large number of
devices, several of which often, in an unconscious manner, we use in our
daily expressions and even in our speeches.

Below we enunciate many of their literary devices in frequent use in
oratory, recommending to those interested moderate use of them, since an
orator who over-uses the literary device loses authenticity and sounds
untrue.

The devices that are used the most in oratory are those obtained
through the repetition of words in particular periods of the speech, such
as:

Anaphora, or repetition of a word at the beginning of each sentence,
e.g., "Freedom for the poor, freedom for the rich, freedom for all." In the
reiteration, repetition is of a complete sentence (slogan) insistently
through the speech, e.g., "With God and patriotism we will overcome
Communism because...:

Conversion is the repetition at the end of every phrase, e.g.:
"Sandinismo tries to be about everyone, dominate everyone, command
everyone, and as an absolute tyranny, do away with everyone."

In the emphasis, repetition is used at the beginning and at the end of
the clause, e.g., "Who brought the Russian-Cuban intervention? The
Sandinistas. And who is engaged in arms trafficking with the neighboring
countries? The Sandinistas. And who is proclaiming to be in favor of
nonintervention? The Sandinistas."

Reduplication, when the phrase begins with the same word that ends the
previous one. For example: "We struggle for democracy, democracy and social
justice." The concatenation is a chain made up of duplications. For
example: "Communism transmits the deception of the child to the young man,
of the young man to the adult, and of the adult to the old man."

In the antithesis or word play, the same words are used with a
different meaning to give an ingenious effect: e.g., "The greatest wealth
of every human being is his own freedom, because slaves will always be poor
but we poor can have the wealth of our freedom."

Similar cadences, through the use of verbs of the same tense and
person, or nouns of the same number and case. For example: "Those of us who
are struggling we will be marching because he who perseveres achieves, and
he who gives up remains."

Use of synonyms, repetition of words with a similar meaning. For
example: "We demand a Nicaragua for all, without exceptions, without
omissions."

Among the figures of speech most used in oratory are:

Comparison or simile, which sets the relationship of similarity
between two or more beings or things. For example: "Because we love Christ,
we love his bishops and pastors," and "Free as a bird."

Antithesis, or the counterposition of words, ideas, or phrases of an
opposite meaning. For example: "They promised freedom and gave slavery;
that they would distribute the wealth and they have distributed poverty;
that they would bring peace, and they have brought about war."

Among the logic figures are the following:

Concession, which is a skillful way to concede something to the
adversary in order to better emphasize the inappropriate aspects, through
the use of expressions such as: but, however, although, nevertheless, in
spite of the fact that, etc. For example: "The mayor here has been honest,
but he is not the one controlling all the money of the nation." It is an
effective form of rebuttal when the opinion of the audience is not entirely
ours.

Permission, in which one apparently accedes to something, when in
reality it is rejected. For example: "Do not protest, but sabotage them."
"Talk quietly, but tell it to everyone."

Prolepsis is an anticipated refutation. For example: "Some will think
that they are only promises; they will say, others said the same thing, but
no. We are different, we are Christians, we consider God a witness to our
words."

Preterition is an artifice, pretending discretion when something is
said with total clarity and indiscretion. For example: "If I were not
obligated to keep military secrets, I would tell all of you of the large
amount of armaments that we have so that you would feel even more
confidence that our victory is assured."

Communication is a way to ask and give the answer to the same
question. For example: "If they show disrespect for the ministers of God,
will they respect us, simple citizens? Never."

Rhetorical questions are a way in which one shows perplexity or
inability to say something, only as an oratorical recourse. For example: "I
am only a peasant and can tell you little. I know little and I will not be
able to explain to you the complicated things of politics. Therefore, I
talk to you with my heart, with my simple peasant's heart, as we all are."

Litotes is a form of meaning a lot by saying little. For example: "The
nine commanders have stolen little, just the whole country."

Irony consists of getting across exactly the opposite of what one is
saying. For example: "The divine mobs that threaten and kill, they are
indeed Christians."

Amplification is presenting an idea from several angles. For example:
"Political votes are the power of the people in a democracy. And economic
votes are their power in the economy. Buying or not buying something, the
majorities decide what should be produced. For something to be produced or
to disappear. That is part of economic democracy."

The most usual plaintive figures of speech are:

Deprecation or entreaty to obtain something. For example: "Lord, free
us from the yoke. Give us freedom."

Imprecation or threat, expressing a sentiment in view of the unjust or
hopeless. For example: "Let there be a Homeland for all or let there be a
Homeland for no one."

Conmination, similar to the previous one, presents a bad wish for the
rest. For example, "Let them drown in the abyss of their own corruption."

The apostrophe consists of addressing oneself towards something
supernatural or inanimate as if it were a living being. For example:
"Mountains of Nicaragua, make the seed of freedom grow."

Interrogation consists of asking a question of oneself, to give
greater emphasis to what is expressed. It is different from communication,
since it gives the answer and is of a logical and not a plaintive nature.
For example: "If they have already injured the members of my family, my
friends, my peasant brothers, do I have any path other than brandishing a
weapon?"

Reticence consists of leaving a thought incomplete, intentionally, so
that mentally the audience completes it. For example, "They promised
political pluralism and gave totalitarianism. They promised political
pluralism and gave totalitarianism. They promised social justice, and they
have increased poverty. They offered freedom of thought, and they have
given censorship. Now, what they promise the world are free elections..."

=================================

This completes the text of the CIA's manual and you are encouraged to
upload other materials similar to this.
.

1997 REPORT ON THE AVAILABILITY OF BOMBMAKING INFORMATION

2006-08-08T12:31:00.000-07:00

1997 REPORT ON THE AVAILABILITY OF BOMBMAKING INFORMATION

PREPARED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 709(a) IF THE
ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996
SUBMITTED TO:
THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND THE UNITED STATES SENATE
APRIL 1997

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

I. THE PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION ON THE MANUFACTURE
OF BOMBS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

A. Books, Pamphlets and Other Printed Material

B. The Internet

C. Summary

II. THE EXTENT TO WHICH PUBLISHED BOMBMAKING INFORMATION HAS
FACILITATED THE MANUFACTURE AND USE OF EXPLOSIVES IN ACTS OF
TERRORISM AND OTHER CRIMINAL ACTIVITY

III. THE LIKELIHOOD THAT PUBLISHED BOMBMAKING INFORMATION WILL
CONTINUE TO BE USED TO FACILITATE ACTS OF TERRORISM AND OTHER
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY

IV. APPLICABILITY OF CURRENT FEDERAL LAW TO THE PUBLICATION AND
DISSEMINATION OF BOMBMAKING INFORMATION

A. Conspiracy

B. Solicitation

C. Aiding and Abetting

1. 18 U.S.C. § 2

2. AEDPA Section 323

D. 18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(1)

V. THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL LAWS RELATING TO THE DISSEMINATION OF
BOMBMAKING INFORMATION

VI. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF RESTRICTING OR PENALIZING THE
PUBLICATION OR DISSEMINATION OF BOMBMAKING INFORMATION

A. First Amendment Principles

1. Advocacy of Unlawful Action

2. Disclosure or Publication of Lawfully Obtained Information

3. "Speech Acts," such as Aiding and Abetting

B. Application of First Amendment Principles To Dissemination of Bombmaking
Information

1. Dissemination with the "Intent" to Facilitate Unlawful Conduct

2. Dissemination with the "Knowledge" that a Particular Recipient of the
Information Intends to Use it in Furtherance of Unlawful Conduct

C. Proposed Modification of the Feinstein Amendment

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

In section 709(a) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ["the AEDPA"], Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, 1297 (1996), Congress provided that, in consultation with such other officials and individuals as she considers appropriate, the Attorney General shall conduct a study concerning --

(1) the extent to which there is available to the public material in any medium (including print, electronic, or film)
that provides instruction on how to make bombs, destructive devices, or weapons of mass destruction;

(2) the extent to which information gained from such material has been used in incidents of domestic
or international terrorism;

(3) the likelihood that such information may be used in future incidents of terrorism;

(4) the application of Federal laws in effect on the date of enactment of this Act to such material;

(5) the need and utility, if any, for additional laws relating to such material; and

(6) an assessment of the extent to which the first amendment protects such material and its
private and commercial distribution.

Section 709(b) of the AEDPA, in turn, requires the Attorney General to submit to the Congress a report containing the results of the study, and to make that report available to the public.

Following enactment of the AEDPA, a committee was established within the Department of Justice ["the DOJ Committee"], comprised of departmental attorneys as well as law enforcement officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The committee members divided responsibility for undertaking the tasks mandated by section 709. Some members canvassed reference sources, including the Internet, to determine the facility with which information relating to the manufacture of bombs, destructive devices and other weapons of mass destruction could be obtained. Criminal investigators reviewed their files to determine the extent to which such published information was likely to have been used by persons known to have manufactured bombs and destructive devices for criminal purposes. And legal experts within the Department of Justice reviewed extant federal criminal law and judicial precedent to assess the extent to which the dissemination of bombmaking information is now restricted by federal law, and the extent to which it may be restricted, consistent with constitutional principles. This Report summarizes the results of these efforts.

As explained in this Report, the DOJ committee has determined that anyone interested in manufacturing a bomb, dangerous weapon, or a weapon of mass destruction can easily obtain detailed instructions from readily accessible sources, such as legitimate reference books, the so-called underground press, and the Internet. Circumstantial evidence suggests that, in a number of crimes involving the employment of such weapons and devices, defendants have relied upon such material in manufacturing and using such items. Law enforcement agencies believe that, because the availability of bombmaking information is becoming increasingly widespread (over the Internet and from other sources), such published instructions will continue to play a significant role in aiding those intent upon committing future acts of terrorism and violence.

While current federal laws -- such as those prohibiting conspiracy, solicitation, aiding and abetting, providing material support for terrorist activities, and unlawfully furthering civil disorders -- may, in some instances, proscribe the dissemination of bombmaking information, no extant federal statute provides a satisfactory basis for prosecution in certain classes of cases that Senators Feinstein and Biden have identified as particularly troublesome. Senator Feinstein introduced legislation during the last Congress in an attempt to fill this gap. The Department of Justice agrees that it would be appropriate and beneficial to adopt further legislation to address this problem directly, if that can be accomplished in a manner that does not impermissibly restrict the wholly legitimate publication and teaching of such information, or otherwise violate the First Amendment.

The First Amendment would impose substantial constraints on any attempt to proscribe indiscriminately the dissemination of bombmaking information. The government generally may not, except in rare circumstances, punish persons either for advocating lawless action or for disseminating truthful information -- including information that would be dangerous if used -- that such persons have obtained lawfully. However, the constitutional analysis is quite different where the government punishes speech that is an integral part of a transaction involving conduct the government otherwise is empowered to prohibit; such "speech acts" -- for instance, many cases of inchoate crimes such as aiding and abetting and conspiracy -- may be proscribed without much, if any, concern about the First Amendment, since it is merely incidental that such "conduct" takes the form of speech.

Accordingly, we have concluded that Senator Feinstein's proposal can withstand constitutional muster in most, if not all, of its possible applications, if such legislation is slightly modified in several respects that we propose at the conclusion of this Report. As modified, the proposed legislation would be likely to maximize the ability of the Federal Government -- consistent with free speech protections -- to reach cases where an individual disseminates information on how to manufacture or use explosives or weapons of mass destruction either (i) with the intent that the information be used to facilitate criminal conduct, or (ii) with the knowledge that a particular recipient of the information intends to use it in furtherance of criminal activity.

BACKGROUND

In order fully to understand the issues we have been asked to address, it is helpful first to describe the legislative proceedings that prompted enactment of section 709 of the AEDPA.

On May 11, 1995, less than one month after the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing, in testimony before the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Robert Litt, of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, explained that "how to" guides for the manufacture of explosives are readily available on the Internet, in bookstores and even in public libraries¹. To illustrate the point, he observed that, according to a news article, only hours after the Oklahoma City bombing, someone posted on the Internet directions -- including a diagram -- explaining how to construct a bomb of the type that was used in that tragic act of terrorism. Another Internet posting offered not only information concerning how to build bombs, but also instructions as to how the device used in the Oklahoma City bombing could have been improved.

Mr. Litt explained that "expansion of the scope of federal criminal laws dealing with the violent, terrorist activity will permit the Department of Justice to prosecute those who engage in efforts to assist violence and terrorism over the Internet." Mr. Litt observed, however, that despite the dangers posed by the dissemination of such information and the callous disregard of human life shown by those who are responsible for such action, the First Amendment imposes significant constraints on the ability of the federal government to proscribe and penalize such activity.

On June 5, 1995, Senator Feinstein proposed an amendment to a bill (S. 735) that later became the AEDPA. 141 Cong. Rec. S7682 (daily ed. June 5, 1995). The purpose of the amendment was to address the problem of the increasingly widespread "distribution of bombmaking information for criminal purposes." Id. Following some debate in the Senate, Senator Feinstein's amendment was slightly modified, and the full Senate unanimously approved it by voice vote. Id. at S7686. The Senate passed S. 735 on June 7, 1995. 141 Cong. Rec. S7857 (daily ed.). As passed by the Senate, the Feinstein amendment would have amended 18 U.S.C. § 842 to add a new prohibition:

It shall be unlawful for any person to teach or demonstrate the making of explosive materials, or to distribute by any
means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture of explosive materials, if the person intends or
knows, that such explosive materials or information will likely be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that
constitutes a Federal criminal offense or a criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce.

Id. at S7875. In conference committee, this prohibition ["the Feinstein Amendment"] was removed from the bill and was replaced with section 709 of the AEDPA -- the requirement for the Attorney General's study and report, quoted above. 142 Cong. Rec. H3336 (daily ed. Apr. 15, 1996). Senator Biden then moved to recommit the conference report to the conference committee with instructions to the Senate managers to insist on insertion of the Feinstein Amendment. 142 Cong. Rec. S3448 (daily ed. Apr. 17, 1996). Senator Hatch moved to table Senator Biden's motion, and Senator Hatch's motion was agreed to by a vote of 51 to 48. Id. at S3450.

Two months later, Senator Feinstein revived her proposal, and the Senate unanimously agreed to include it as an amendment to a bill that later became the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997. 142 Cong. Rec. S7271-74 (daily ed. June 28, 1996). Once again, however, the Feinstein Amendment was removed in conference. 142 Cong. Rec. H9303 (daily ed. July 30, 1996).

I. THE PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION ON THE MANUFACTURE OF BOMBS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

The first question that section 709 required the Attorney General to study concerns the availability of instructional information describing the fabrication of explosives, destructive devices and other weapons of mass destruction. Our study confirms that any member of the public who desires such information can readily obtain it.

A. Books, Pamphlets and Other Printed Material. Most strikingly, a cursory search of the holdings of the Library of Congress located at least 50 publications substantially devoted to such information, all readily available to any member of the public interested in reading them and copying their contents. The titles of a number of these publications are indicative of their contents.² They include:

-- Guerrilla's Arsenal: Advanced Techniques For Making Explosives and Time- delay Bombs (Paladin Press, 1994);

-- The Anarchist Arsenal (Harber, 1992);

-- Deadly Brew: Advanced Improvised Explosives (Paladin Press, 1987);

-- The Anarchist's Handbook (J. Flores, 1995);

-- Improvised Explosives: How To Make Your Own (Paladin Press, 1985); and

-- Ragnar's Guide to Home and Recreational Use of High Explosives (Paladin Press, 1988).

Other texts, intended for military training, agricultural and engineering use, contain information equally useful to individuals bent upon constructing bombs and other dangerous weapons. Publications in this category include:

-- Explosives In Roadworks: User's Guide (Assoc. of Australian State Road Authorities, 1982);

-- Explosives and Blasting Procedures Manual (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1982);

-- Military Chemical and Biological Agents: Chemical and Toxicological Properties (Telford Press, 1987); and

-- Clearing Land Of Rocks for Agricultural and Other Purposes (Institute of Makers of Explosives, 1918).

Another collection of some 48 different "underground publications" dealing with bombmaking, contained in the library of the FBI Explosives Unit, reflects a similar diversity of such published material. All of this literature was easily obtainable from commercial sources.

The ready accessibility of such literature is further illustrated by reference to a single page in a recent 70-page catalog of Delta Press, Ltd., of El Dorado, Arizona, captioned "Homemade Explosives." Among the texts featured on that page are Improvised Shape Charges, Two Component High Explosive Mixtures, Improvised Radio Detonation Techniques, and the Anarchists Handbook Series. Another page, captioned "poisons," advertises The Poisoner's Handbook, which it touts as "a complete handbook of poisons, both natural and manmade," including poisonous gases, lethal drugs, poisonous explosive compounds and a "list of sources and some additional chemistry." A number of the titles featured in this publication are commonly featured, along with firearms publications, at local gun shows.

With respect to weapons of mass destruction, there are a number of readily available books, pamphlets, and other printed materials that purport to provide information relating to the manufacture, design and fabrication of nuclear devices. The Department is aware of many publications that claim to provide some fundamentals necessary for the understanding of nuclear weapons, e.g., physics, design, manufacture, or fabrication. They include:

-- The Curve of Binding Energy (J. McPhee, 1974);

-- U.S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History (C. Hansen, 1966); and

-- The Swords of Armageddon (C. Hansen, 1986).³

Stories of crimes contained in popular literature and magazines also constitute a rich source of bombmaking information. For example, the August 1993 edition of Reader's Digest contains an account of efforts by law enforcement officers to track down the killer of United States Court of Appeals Judge Robert S. Vance and attorney Robert Robinson. That article contained a detailed description of the explosive devices used by the bomber in committing the murders, including such information as the size of the pipe bombs, how the bombs were constructed, and what type of smokeless powder was used in their
construction.⁴ According to the Arson and Explosives Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, in a bombing case originating in Topeka, Kansas, the devices were patterned after the bomb used to kill Judge Vance. Upon questioning, the suspect admitted to investigators that he constructed the bomb based on information contained in the Reader's Digest article.

B. The Internet. Bombmaking information is literally at the fingertips of anyone with access to a home computer equipped with a modem.⁵ To demonstrate such availability, a member of the DOJ Committee accessed a single website on the World Wide Web and obtained the titles to over 110 different bombmaking texts, including "Calcium Carbide Bomb," "Jug Bomb," "How To Make a CO2 Bomb," "Cherry Bomb," "Mail Grenade," and "Chemical Fire Bottle." The user could access and print the text of each of the listed titles.⁶

One of the texts, captioned "Nifty Things That Go Boom," appears to be a computer adaptation of The Terrorist's Handbook (purportedly edited at Michigan State University). The publication contains chapters that describe and address the procurement (legal and otherwise) of necessary explosives, chemicals and other ingredients, the preparation of chemicals, techniques for transforming such substances into bombs and explosives, and the manufacture of fuses and other ignition systems.

Another of the accessed texts purports to consist of the "Bomb Excerpts" from Anarchy Cookbook. This text explains in minute detail how to construct dozens of different types of bombs and explosive devices, including fertilizer bombs, dynamite and other explosives made with chemicals and other substances that "can be bought at Kmart, and various hardware supply shops." The text also details the ways that such devices can be employed following their fabrication. For example, discussing the use of a bomb constructed from a CO2 cartridge and black powder, it explains:

Insert a fuse. . . . Now, light it and run like hell! It does wonders for a row of mailboxes (like the ones in apartment
complexes), a car (place under the gas tank), a picture window (place on window sill), a phone booth (place right under
the phone), or any other devious place. This thing throws shrapnel, and can make quite a mess!

Similarly, after explaining how to build a thermite bomb, the manual explains:

Now when you see your victim's car, pour a fifty-cent sized pile onto his hood, stick the [magnesium] ribbon in it,
and light it with a blow torch. Now chuckle as you watch it burn through the hood, the block, and axle, and the
pavement. BE CAREFUL! The ideal mixtures can vaporize CARBON STEEL! Another idea is to use thermite
to get into pay phone and cash boxes. HAVE FUN!

And, in discussing how to construct a thermite letter bomb using an insulated, padded mailing envelope, the author explains that, when the detonating "explosive is torn or even squeezed hard it will ignite the powdered magnesium . . . and then it will burn the mild thermite. If the thermite didn't blow up, it would at least burn the fuck out of your enemy (it does wonders on
human flesh!)."⁷

Our review of material accessible on the Internet also reveals the frequent use of "Usenet" newsgroups to facilitate the exchange of information concerning the fabrication and use of explosives and other dangerous weapons. For example, on August 28, 1996, one participant of a Usenet newsgroup inquired whether anyone had a recipe for C-4 and detonation techniques. The following day, someone responded to the inquiry by posting a detailed formula, explaining that "[t]he production of C-4 is probably beyond what can [be] done in the kitchen, but here is something to get you started." On August 16, 1996, another Usenet participant complained that he had "recently attempted to follow the recipe [for an explosive] posted earlier . . . and nearly blew my arms off!" This prompted the following response:

So what do you want, sympathy? Let me clue you in here. Actually building any of this stuff is illegal, immoral,
anti-social, and just plain wrong. But then, so are a lot of other fun things. The point is, if you do it, and you blow
yourself up, it's your own fault. So quit sniveling. [N]ext time, don't cook at home.

C. Summary. It is readily apparent from our cursory examination that anyone interested in manufacturing a bomb, dangerous weapon or weapon of mass destruction can easily obtain detailed instructions for fabricating and using such a device. Available sources include not only publications from the so-called underground press but also manuals written for legitimate purposes, such as military, agricultural, industrial and engineering purposes. Such information is also readily available to anyone with access to a home computer equipped with a modem.

II. THE EXTENT TO WHICH PUBLISHED BOMBMAKING INFORMATION HAS FACILITATED THE MANUFACTURE AND USE OF EXPLOSIVES IN ACTS OF TERRORISM AND OTHER CRIMINAL ACTIVITY

Recent law enforcement experience demonstrates that persons who attempt or plan acts of terrorism often possess literature that describes the construction of explosive devices and other weapons of mass destruction (including biological weapons). Although in some cases there is no hard evidence demonstrating that such individuals actually employed such information in furtherance of their crimes, possession of such information often is strong circumstantial evidence from which such usage can be inferred.

During the execution of a search warrant at the Rex, Georgia residence of Walter Leroy Moody, Jr., the convicted bombing murderer of Judge Robert S. Vance and attorney Robert Robinson, investigators discovered a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook.

In November 1995, Oklahoma residents Ray and Cecilia Lampley, along with one John "J.D." Baird, began construction of an ammonium nitrate bomb, utilizing a manual for the making of "Homemade C-4," a military plastic explosive. The group intended to destroy either the Jewish Anti-Defamation League building in Houston, Texas, or the Southern Poverty Law Center in Birmingham, Alabama. Following the recipe from the manual, the Lampleys "cooked" the ammonium nitrate, and obtained accelerants, such as nitromethane and powdered aluminum. Additionally, Ray Lampley learned that he needed an initial detonating charge to properly detonate the "homemade C-4," and attempted to make a triacetone triperoxide detonator utilizing instructions from Ragnar's Big Book of Explosives. When the three co-conspirators were arrested by the FBI, law enforcement agents recovered the Anarchist's Cookbook and Homemade Weapons, in addition to the "homemade C-4" text, from the Lampley residence.⁸

Following the February 26, 1993, terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City, investigators discovered bombmaking manuals in the possession of individuals connected with that crime. Although it is believed that those individuals brought those particular manuals into the United States from a foreign country, the manuals had been copied from books written and printed in the United States and available for purchase from publishers like Paladin Press. The presence of these manuals suggests that the conspirators consulted them in effecting their deadly terrorist scheme.

Between January 1994 and January 1996, a string of some 18 bank robberies occurred across the Midwest. The robberies were committed by individuals brandishing automatic weapons, wearing disguises, and using hoax-bomb devices, apparently to delay pursuit and investigation. Following the arrests of two individuals linked to the series of robberies, investigators conducted searches of safehouses and other locations used by the defendants. Execution of the search warrants resulted in the discovery of numerous weapons, explosives, grenades, and components for manufacturing improvised explosive devices. Additionally, the investigators discovered a library of literature describing neo-guerrilla techniques, including the manufacture and use of explosives.

Beginning in 1991, four members of the "Patriots Council," a Minnesota tax protest group, began to develop a castor-bean derivative known as "ricin," which is one of the most toxic known substances. The members involved learned the process of manufacturing ricin from a mail-order pamphlet. The group planned to suspend the substance in a toxic gel capable of transmission through a skin barrier, and then to place the impregnated gel on doorknobs, handles, and steering wheels. They were considering whether to target IRS agents, U.S. Marshals, or local sheriffs for ricin attacks when the FBI arrested them.⁹

In 1993, Thomas Lavy attempted to cross the Canadian border carrying 130 grams of ricin -- an amount that, if administered in individual doses, would be sufficient to kill over 32,000 people -- as well as four guns and $89,000 in cash. Canadian officials returned Lavy to the United States because of the amount of cash he was carrying. A search of Lavy's cabin by law enforcement officers revealed that he possessed mail-order books, such as The Poisoner's Handbook, Silent Death, and Get Even: The Complete Book of Dirty Tricks, which, among other things, describe how to make and use ricin. Lavy committed suicide before he could be tried.

To the Department's knowledge, no devices producing a nuclear yield have been constructed based on published bombmaking information. However, the Department is aware of approximately 117 threats since 1970 involving detonations of nuclear devices. Approximately half of these nuclear extortion threats have been accompanied by sketches, information, or descriptive phrases gleaned from information in the public domain, including technical reference materials and fictional nuclear "thrillers."

In addition to the incidents recounted above, reported federal cases involving murder, bombing, arson, and related crimes, reflect the use of bombmaking manuals by defendants and the frequent seizure of such texts during the criminal investigation of such activities. See, e.g., United States v. Prevatte, 66 F.3d 840, 841 (7th Cir. 1995) (bombmaker read Anarchist's Cookbook); United States v. Johnson, 9 F.3d 506, 510 (6th Cir. 1993) (search of bombmaker's residence revealed presence of books on explosive devices), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1212 (1994); United States v. Talbott, 902 F.2d 1129, 1131 (4th Cir. 1990) (execution of search warrant at residence of bombmaker revealed presence of books on bombmaking); United States v. Michael, 894 F.2d 1457, 1459 (5th Cir. 1990) (bombmaker bought books at gun shows to determine how to make bombs, booby traps and silencers); United States v. Levasseur, 816 F.2d 37, 41 (2d Cir. 1987) (execution of search warrant at bomber's residence revealed presence of bombmaking instructions); United States v. Arocena, 778 F.2d 943, 947 (2d Cir. 1985) (members of "Omega 7" group, who conducted terrorist bombings in New York metropolitan area, possessed bombmaking manuals), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1053 (1986); United States v. Williams, 775 F.2d 1295, 1298 (5th Cir. 1985) (bomb murderer used Marine Corps training manual to construct "mouse trap" bomb), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1089 (1986); United States v. Bergner, 800 F. Supp. 659, 663 (N.D. Ind. 1992) (bomber consulted Anarchist's Cookbook and other bombmaking texts available at police academy library).

Finally, information furnished by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reveals that such literature is frequently used by individuals bent upon making bombs for criminal purposes. ATF statistics reflect that, between 1985 and June 1996, the investigations of at least 30 bombings and four attempted bombings resulted in the recovery of bombmaking literature that the suspects had obtained from the Internet. Most recently, on August 6, 1996, ATF investigators participated in the investigation of two North Attleboro, Massachusetts, juveniles, aged 11 and 14, who were injured while attempting to make an improvised explosive device. The youths had retrieved from the Internet information on how to make napalm, and were badly burned when a mixture being heated on a kitchen stove ignited.¹⁰

In sum, it is fair to conclude from scenarios such as those we have described that the availability of bombmaking literature may play a significant role in aiding those intent on using explosives and other weapons of mass destruction for criminal purposes, including acts of terrorism. Moreover, the availability of this information might contribute to youthful experimentation with explosive devices, which could result in serious injury.

III. THE LIKELIHOOD THAT PUBLISHED BOMBMAKING INFORMATION WILL CONTINUE TO BE USED TO FACILITATE ACTS OF TERRORISM AND OTHER CRIMINAL ACTIVITY

It is, of course, impossible to prognosticate with any measure of certainty the extent to which persons wishing to engage in acts of terrorism and other criminal activity will rely upon printed and computer-based information instructing them how to manufacture bombs, other dangerous weapons, and weapons of mass destruction. A statistical survey conducted by the FBI concerning bombing incidents occurring in the United States shows that between 1984 and 1994, the frequency of such incidents has increased almost four-fold. The study, however, did not attempt to correlate the trend with the increased availability of bombmaking information. Therefore, we have no empirical data on what percentage, if any, of the recent increase in the number of bombings is attributable to the increased availability of bombmaking information. However, based upon the recent experiences recounted above, both the FBI and ATF expect that because the availability of such information is becoming increasingly widespread, such bombmaking instructions will continue to play a significant role in aiding those intent upon committing future acts of terrorism and violence.

IV. APPLICABILITY OF CURRENT FEDERAL LAW TO THE PUBLICATION AND DISSEMINATION OF BOMBMAKING INFORMATION

Presently there are four basic ways in which dissemination of bombmaking information could be punished under federal criminal law, depending on the circumstances of the case.¹¹ The first three bases for culpability -- federal statutes prohibiting (i) conspiracy, (ii) solicitation, and (iii) aiding and abetting -- do not single out information concerning bombmaking for special treatment. The fourth basis for culpability -- 18 U.S.C. § 231 -- is directed specifically at the "teaching or demonstrating" of techniques related to the use or manufacture of firearms and explosives.¹²

A. Conspiracy. A conspiracy to use an explosive to commit "any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States," 18 U.S.C. § 844(h), is explicitly proscribed under 18 U.S.C. § 844(m); and a conspiracy to commit any offense defined in Chapter 40 of Title 18, U.S. Code -- entitled "Importation, Manufacture, Distribution, and Storage of Explosive Materials" -- is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 844(n). In addition, the general federal criminal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371 -- which prohibits conspiring "to commit any offense against the United States" -- makes it unlawful to conspire to commit other federal crimes involving explosives. A person may not, as part of a conspiracy to commit an independently defined criminal offense, transmit information to a coconspirator concerning how to make or use explosive devices.¹³ Indeed, such transmission of information could be an overt act in support of a conspiracy.¹⁴

In order to prove that a person disseminating bombmaking information did so as part of a conspiracy to commit a substantive offense, the government need not prove that the substantive offense occurred; however, the government must show, at the very least, that the disseminator (i) knew of the intended unlawful use of the information and (ii) agreed with other conspirators that an offense would be committed.¹⁵ And, as a general matter, the requisite agreement cannot be proved simply by demonstrating that a person has provided a product to another person knowing that the product would be used in the commission of a crime, where the provider of the product is indifferent to its subsequent use.¹⁶ "[A] conspiracy requires agreement, and there is a difference between knowing that something will occur [by virtue of one's sale of a product] -- even as an absolute certainty -- and agreeing to bring that same `something' about." United States v. Lechuga, 994 F.2d 346, 362 (7th Cir.) (Cudahy, J., concurring in pertinent part), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 982 (1993). It follows that "an isolated sale is not the same thing as enlisting in the venture." United States v. Blankenship, 970 F.2d 283, 287 (7th Cir. 1992).¹⁷

B. Solicitation. The federal criminal solicitation statute, 18 U.S.C. § 373, provides in pertinent part:

Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use,
attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation
of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands,
induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not
more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half
of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable
by life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years.

Id. § 373(a). Solicitation proscribed by this statute often will take the form of speech, including written speech.¹⁸ Indeed, Congress intended that the statutory phrase "otherwise endeavors to persuade" be construed broadly to cover any situation "`where a person seriously seeks to persuade another person to engage in criminal conduct.'" United States v. Buckalew, 859 F.2d 1052, 1054 (1st Cir. 1988) (Breyer, J.) (quoting S. Rep. No. 307, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 183-84 (1982)) (emphasis added). In the prototypical solicitation case, the "persuasion" is accompanied by some form of inducement, such as a money payment, or a threat. Such a case raises no First Amendment issues, for reasons we explain infra at 35-38.¹⁹ However, insofar as Congress also intended § 373 to cover cases of "persuasion" taking the form of mere advocacy or urging of unlawful action -- without any threat or inducement -- many such cases could be subject to significant First Amendment constraints under the Brandenburg doctrine. Seeinfra at 29-30 (discussing Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)).²⁰ Therefore, for purposes of this discussion, we will assume that § 373 would be used principally in the case of "persuasion" accompanied by an inducement (e.g., murder for hire²¹) or an explicit or implicit threat or "command" (e.g., an organized crime boss "asking" an associate to commit a crime).

In such cases, the solicitation itself would not likely be in the form of a transmission of bombmaking information. However, as part of a solicitation scheme, it is conceivable that the solicitor would transmit such information so as to facilitate the crime being solicited. Indeed, such facilitation could provide circumstances that "strongly corroborate" a solicitor's improper intent, thereby satisfying § 373's scienter requirement: Congress indicated that it would be "highly probative" of improper intent if the solicitor "acquired . . . information suited for use by the person solicited in the commission of the offense, or made other apparent preparations for the commission of the offense by the person solicited." S. Rep. No. 307, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 183 (1982).

Although § 373 does not require either actual agreement (like conspiracy), nor that the crime be committed (like aiding and abetting), it nonetheless could provide a means of addressing dissemination of bombmaking information in only a limited set of cases. For one thing, the statute requires more than mere dissemination of information: there must be some solicitation, command, inducement or other endeavor to persuade. (And the First Amendment might exclude cases of "persuasion" absent any threat, command or inducement.) More importantly, the government must prove "circumstances strongly corroborative" of the solicitor's intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony.

C. Aiding and Abetting. Two different "aiding and abetting" statutes might have some application in cases where bombmaking information is disseminated: (i) the general federal aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2, and (ii) section 323 of the AEDPA, which concerns provision of material support or resources for use in certain crimes of terrorism.

1. 18 U.S.C. § 2. In 1909 Congress enacted what is now 18 U.S.C. § 2, a general aiding and abetting statute applicable to all federal criminal offenses. That statute in essence provides that "those who provide knowing aid to persons committing federal crimes, with the intent to facilitate the crime, are themselves committing the crime." Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 181 (1994) (citing Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 619 (1949)).²² Not infrequently, aiding and abetting can take the form of speech, including providing instructions on how to commit a crime to a particular person or to a discrete audience.²³ Section 2 nonetheless is somewhat ineffectual as a tool to address dissemination of information on how to manufacture explosives, for three reasons.

First, there is some question whether aiding and abetting culpability ever can rest solely on the basis of general publication of instructions on how to commit a crime, or undifferentiated sale to the public of a product that some purchaser is likely to use for unlawful ends, or whether, at a minimum, the person supplying the aid must know that a particular recipient thereof will use it in commission of a crime.²⁴

Second, even assuming that aiding and abetting could under some circumstances be established by virtue of a publisher's knowledge that unknown recipients of generally published information would use it to commit crimes, § 2 requires that the accomplice have engaged in intentional wrongdoing, rather than mere recklessness. Central Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. at 190. That is to say, the aider must not only know that her assistance will be in the service of a crime; she also must share in the criminal intent. The defendant must "`participate in [the venture] as in something that he wishes to bring about, that he seek by his action to make it succeed.'" Nye & Nissen, 336 U.S. at 619 (quoting United States v. Peoni, 100 F.2d 401, 402 (2d Cir. 1938)).²⁵ As Judge Hand explained in the seminal Peoni case, the intent standard for criminal aiding and abetting is not the same as the "natural consequences of one's act" test that is the touchstone for "intent" in the civil tort context; criminal intent to aid the crime has "nothing whatever to do with the probability that the forbidden result [will] follow upon the accessory's conduct." Peoni, 100 F.2d at 402. Rather, the aider must have a "purposive attitude" toward the commission of the offense. Id.²⁶

Finally, under the plain terms of § 2, the underlying offense must in fact be committed (though the government need not prove by whom it was committed); section 2 merely makes aiders and abettors culpable for their principals' commission of an offense.²⁷ There is no federal statute generally proscribing an attempt to aid and abet a federal offense (though the Model Penal Code recommended that such a prohibition be codified).²⁸ Therefore, if a crime has not been committed, the general federal aiding and abetting statute cannot be invoked.

2. AEDPA Section 323. Section 323 of the AEDPA, 110 Stat. at 1255 (to be codified as amended section 2339A(a) of Title 18) makes it unlawful to provide "material support or resources" to another person, "knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out," various federal offenses relating to terrorism, or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment from the commission of any such violation. Id. (to be codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(a)).²⁹ Notably, the statute defines the term "material support or resources" to include, inter alia, "training, . . . and other physical assets." Id. (to be codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)).³⁰

Section 323 essentially is a prohibition on certain forms of knowing or intentional facilitation of particular terrorist crimes. In two respects, it is broader in scope than the general aiding and abetting statute. First, the facilitator can be culpable even if the underlying offense is not in fact committed. Second, the scienter provision is a bit broader than the "intent" requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 2. Under AEDPA section 323, specific intent to facilitate the underlying offense is not necessary:³¹ the person providing the support or resources can be culpable so long as he "know[s]" that the resources provided "are to be used" to prepare for or commit a specified offense. In effect, however, this "knowledge" provision will rarely be of use to a prosecutor, because where -- as in section 323 -- the element of "knowledge" refers to a possible future result of a defendant's conduct, typically the government must prove that the defendant was "aware `that that result is practically certain to follow from his conduct.'" United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 404 (1980) (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 445 (1978) (internal citation omitted)).³²

Furthermore, whatever the scope of the "knowledge" provision, the use of section 323 to address distribution of bombmaking information might nonetheless be limited, for two other reasons. First, section 323 covers facilitation of only certain enumerated crimes. Seesupra note 29. Second, it is not clear whether courts would find that information on how to manufacture or use explosives is "material support or resources." In the case of an actual physical demonstration of the techniques in question, or a one-to-one sale of printed information to someone who purports to be planning a crime, transfer of such information might constitute "training." Otherwise, it is open to question whether a manual on explosives would constitute a "physical asset[]" under § 2339A.³³

D. 18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(1). For the most part, the federal statutes discussed in the previous sections are not directed at dissemination of information, as such. Instead, they are general prohibitions on conduct that can, in particular cases, be violated by providing information to another person.

By contrast, 18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(1) -- like the proposed Feinstein Amendment -- arguably could be characterized as a prohibition on certain forms of speech. Section 231(a)(1) provides that:

Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm or explosive or
incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or
intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder which may in any
way or degree obstruct, delay, or adversely affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in
commerce or the conduct or performance of any federally protected function . . . [s]hall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

"Civil disorder," in turn, is defined as "any public disturbance involving acts of violence by assemblages of three or more persons, which causes an immediate danger of or results in damage or injury to the property or person of any other individual." 18 U.S.C. § 232(1).

This prohibition applies, not to all forms of speech that could cause a civil disorder, but solely to a discrete type of conduct involving expression -- namely, the "teach[ing]" or "demonstrat[ion]" of the use, application, or making of any firearm or explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons.³⁴

It appears that this statute has been used sparingly; there are only two reported decisions involving it.³⁵ In those two cases, the courts of appeals narrowly construed the scienter provisions of § 231(a)(1) so as to avoid serious constitutional questions. National Mobilization Comm. to End the War in Viet Nam v. Foran, 411 F.2d 934 (7th Cir. 1969); United States v. Featherston, 461 F.2d 1119 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 991 (1972). In both cases, the persons charged under § 231(a)(1) were alleged to have instructed discrete groups of students on techniques of violence, with the intent that such techniques would be used in furtherance of civil disorders. The defendants nonetheless complained that the statute was impermissibly vague or overbroad, because its plain terms are not limited to cases of bad intent. Read literally, § 231(a)(1) also could be construed to prohibit well-intentioned persons from teaching techniques of self-defense and sporting activities where such persons have a "reason to know" that some pupils might put the skills they acquire to unlawful use. The defendants in Foran and Featherston argued that this apparent reach of § 231(a)(1) rendered the statute facially invalid under the First Amendment.

In order to avoid the substantial constitutional questions raised by the "reason to know" language, both courts of appeals construed the scienter element of § 231(a)(1) narrowly. The Seventh Circuit, somewhat cryptically, concluded that "[t]he requirement of intent of course `narrows the scope of the enactment by exempting innocent or inadvertent conduct from its proscription." Foran, 411 F.2d at 937 (citation omitted). The Fifth Circuit, relying upon the Supreme Court's narrowing construction of similar language in an espionage statute, held that proof of "`bad faith'" is required under § 231(a)(1). Featherston, 461 F.2d at 1121 (quoting Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19, 27-28 (1941)). The court concluded that "the statute does not cover mere inadvertent conduct. It requires those prosecuted to have acted with intent or knowledge that the information disseminated would be used in furtherance of a civil disorder." Id. at 1122 (emphasis added).

The potential use of § 231(a)(1) to reach cases involving dissemination of bombmaking information is limited in three ways. First, as construed in Featherston and Foran, § 231(a)(1) can apply only where the person doing the teaching or demonstrating either (i) intends that the information will be used in furtherance of a civil disorder or (ii) "knows" that the information will be so used. As explained supra at 21, as a practical matter the "or knows" prong will rarely be useful: since the knowledge in question is of a possible future result of a defendant's conduct, the government must prove that the defendant was "aware `that that result is practically certain to follow from his conduct.'" Bailey, 444 U.S. at 404 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).³⁶ Accordingly, the vast majority of cases in which § 231(a)(1) could successfully be invoked will involve defendants who intend that their teaching be used to facilitate or assist in a civil disorder.

Second, it is questionable whether the operative verbs -- "teaches or demonstrates" -- could be read to cover an arms-length sale of a manual to an anonymous or unknown customer. Finally, the intended or known use of the information conveyed must be "in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder which may in any way or degree obstruct, delay, or adversely affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or the conduct or performance of any federally protected function." And a "civil disorder" requires a public disturbance involving violence by assemblages of three or more persons. Section 231(a)(1) would not, therefore, apply to uses of the information by merely one or two felons.

V. THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL LAWS RELATING TO THE DISSEMINATION OF BOMBMAKING INFORMATION

During the Senate debate on the Feinstein Amendment, Senators Feinstein and Biden identified two sets of circumstances in which the dissemination of bombmaking information ideally should be prohibited:

(i) where the person disseminating the information intends that it be used for unlawful ends;³⁷and

(ii) where the person disseminating the information has good reason to know that a particular potential recipient thereof
plans to use that information to engage in unlawful activities.³⁸

On the other hand, Senator Feinstein made it plain that she did not wish to prohibit the "legitimate" publication of information about explosives contained in, for instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica (despite the fact that such information certainly could be used by persons who wished to commit violent crimes);³⁹ and Senator Hatch indicated that any prohibition that is enacted should be drafted carefully, so as not to subject to criminal sanctions, for example, legitimate explosives manufacturers who teach customers and other persons how to manufacture, and make legitimate use of, explosives.⁴⁰

The Department of Justice agrees that it would be salutary if the federal criminal law prohibited dissemination of bombmaking information in the two circumstances described above, while still permitting the "legitimate" publication of information about explosives in the manner described by Senators Feinstein and Hatch. As the discussion in Part IV demonstrates, however, the present federal criminal code is less than completely effective in accomplishing these objectives:

1. Federal law would in certain cases prohibit or punish the dissemination of bombmaking information where the person disseminating the information intends that it be used for unlawful ends. For example:

-- If the disseminator enters into an agreement with another person to commit a federal crime, dissemination of bombmaking
information as a means of furthering that crime would be an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy. Similarly, if the
disseminator solicits another person to commit a federal crime of violence -- for example, by offering a reward for its
commission -- conveyance of the bombmaking information would be evidence "strongly corroborating" an improper intent,
thereby satisfying the scienter requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 373.

-- If the disseminator provides the information to a particular person with the specific purpose of assisting the recipient in the
commission of a federal crime, and if the recipient thereafter does commit such an offense, the disseminator would be
culpable for aiding and abetting that offense. And, even if the offense is not in fact committed, the disseminator might still
be culpable for a violation of AEDPA section 323, provided (i) that the offense that he intended to advance was one of
those enumerated in the statute; and (ii) a court finds that bombmaking information can be considered "material support
or resources."

-- If the disseminator provides the information to a person or persons in order to prepare for or further a "civil disorder," he
will have violated 18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(1), assuming that provision of such information constitutes the "teach[ing] or
demonstrat[ion]" of the making of explosives or incendiary devices.

However, except where the particular requirements of AEDPA section 323 or 18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(1) are met, federal law presently does not provide a ground for prosecution where a disseminator of bombmaking information does not conspire with or solicit another to commit a federal crime, but nevertheless intends to aid the recipients of the information in commission of such criminal conduct, and where no federal crime is in fact committed. Further, federal law does not presently reach the person who disseminates bombmaking information intending that it be used to aid the commission of a state or local criminal offense, notwithstanding the utilization of interstate or foreign commerce to achieve such dissemination and notwithstanding the actual or potential impact of the underlying violation on such commerce.

2. If a disseminator of bombmaking information does not have the specific purpose of facilitating a crime, but nonetheless is aware that (i) an enumerated terrorist crime or (ii) a "civil disorder" were practically certain to follow from dissemination of the information to a particular person or persons, then the disseminator might be culpable under AEDPA section 323, or 18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(1), respectively. However, absent such a high degree of "knowledge" of the facilitation of future crimes, current federal law generally would not prohibit or punish the dissemination of bombmaking information in the case where the disseminator does not have the specific purpose of facilitating a crime but nevertheless knows that a particular recipient thereof intends to use it for unlawful ends.

In sum, current federal law does not specifically address certain classes of cases that Senators Feinstein and Biden identified. Accordingly, the Department of Justice agrees with those Senators that it would be appropriate and beneficial to adopt further legislation to address this problem directly, in a manner that does not impermissibly restrict the wholly legitimate publication and teaching of such information, or otherwise violate the First Amendment.

VI. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF RESTRICTING OR PENALIZING THE PUBLICATION OR DISSEMINATION OF BOMBMAKING INFORMATION

Before identifying what further steps Congress can take to address this problem, it is necessary to discuss whether and to what extent the First Amendment limits the government's power to impose criminal culpability on persons publishing or disseminating bombmaking information. In this regard, it should be noted that in Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 836 (D. Md. 1996), appeal docketed, No. 96-2412 (4th Cir.), a district court recently held that the First Amendment substantially protects the right of persons to publish such information, regardless of the publishers' intent.

The defendant in that case, publisher Paladin Enterprises, Inc., has (for many years) offered for public sale (principally through a mail-order catalogue) a book entitled Hit Man, which describes in great detail specific methods and techniques of, and strategies for, murder for hire. James Perry ordered and received Hit Man from Paladin. Thereafter, Perry followed a number of instructions in Hit Man in planning, executing, and attempting to hide the evidence of, his contract killing of three people in Montgomery County, Maryland. Perry was convicted of murder, after which the survivors of the victims sued Paladin in federal court for wrongful death, alleging that Paladin had aided and abetted the murders by selling Hit Man to Perry. Paladin moved for summary judgment on the ground that the First Amendment barred recovery. For the purposes of the motion, the parties stipulated the following:

1. Paladin had no contact with Perry (or the person who hired him to commit the murders) other than to sell him Hit Man
and another book. Paladin had no "specific knowledge" that Perry planned to commit a crime, or that he had been
retained to kill anyone. 940 F. Supp. at 839.

2. In planning, committing, and concealing his crimes, Perry followed certain descriptions and instructions in Hit Man,
including: (a) Hit Man's recommendation that a "beginner" hit man use an AR-7 rifle; (b) Hit Man's instructions on how
to disassemble the AR-7; (c) Hit Man's detailed instructions on how to drill out the serial number on the rifle; (d) Hit
Man's detailed instructions on how to create a silencer to use on an AR-7; (e) Hit Man's detailed instructions on how to
murder victims from close range; and (f) Hit Man's detailed instructions on how to file the AR-7 so that it would not be
traceable. Id. at 839-40.⁴¹

3. Paladin engaged in a marketing strategy intended to maximize sales to the public, including sales to the following targeted
audiences: authors who desire information for the purpose of writing books about crime and criminals; law enforcement
officers and agencies who desire information concerning the means and methods of committing crimes; persons who
enjoy reading accounts of crimes and the means of committing them for purposes of entertainment; persons who
fantasize about committing crimes but do not thereafter commit them; criminologists and others who study criminal
methods and mentality; and "criminals and would-be criminals who desire information and instructions on how to commit
crimes." In particular, the parties stipulated that "[i]n publishing, marketing, advertising and distributing Hit Man . . . ,
Paladin intended and had knowledge that their publications would be used, upon receipt, by criminals and would-be
criminals to plan and execute the crime of murder for hire, in the manner set forth in the publications." Id. at 840.⁴²

The district court granted Paladin summary judgment. The court seemed to rely upon two distinct rationales for its decision: First, the court concluded that the State of Maryland has not "extend[ed] the tort of aiding and abetting to the circumstances of this case," and that "[a] federal court sitting in diversity cannot create new causes of action." Id. at 842. Accordingly, the court seemed to conclude that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim under Maryland tort law. Id. Second, the court held that, even if an aiding and abetting tort theory were cognizable, Paladin's publication and dissemination of the book was entitled to constitutional protection, and "the First Amendment acts as a bar to liability in the instant case," id. at 843, despite defendants' stipulation that they "intended and had knowledge that their publications would be used, upon receipt, by criminals and would-be criminals to plan and execute the crime of murder for hire, in the manner set forth in the publications." See also id. at 843-49 (First Amendment analysis).

This recent decision suggests that it is necessary to consider carefully the First Amendment questions that a statute like the Feinstein Amendment would raise.⁴³

A. First Amendment Principles

Other than the cursory analysis in the Featherston and Foran cases, discussed supra at 22-23, and the district court's recent decision in Rice v. Paladin, discussed supra at 27-28, there is little in the way of judicial analysis directly addressing the First Amendment questions that a statute like the Feinstein Amendment would raise.⁴⁴ However, the courts have substantially addressed the scope of the Free Speech Clause in three related factual contexts that serve to put the constitutional question in perspective: (i) where the government seeks to restrict the advocacy of unlawful action; (ii) where the government (or a private party using tort law) seeks to restrict or punish the general disclosure or publication of lawfully obtained information; and (iii) where the government punishes conveyance of information as part of a "speech act," such as speech that aids and abets another person's commission of a crime.

1. Advocacy of Unlawful Action. In the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (per curiam), the Supreme Court held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless actions and is likely to incite or produce that action." Id. at 447 (footnote omitted). This test, in other words, requires both an intent and a likelihood that the expression in question -- "advocacy of the use of force or of law violation " -- will incite or produce imminent unlawful action.

A few years later, the Court made clear how demanding the Brandenburg test is. In Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973) (per curiam), the defendant was arrested for loudly stating, at an anti-war rally, "We'll take the fucking street later." The Court held that Brandenburg prohibited the State from punishing this alleged advocacy of illegality, principally because the defendant's statement "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time." Id. at 108. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that "[s]ince the uncontroverted evidence showed that Hess' statement was not directed to any person or group of persons, it cannot be said that he was advocating, in the normal sense, any action." Id. at 108-09.

In light of these precedents,⁴⁵ it is doubtful that general publication of written materials advocating illegality can ever be proscribed under the Brandenburg test.⁴⁶ Many of the bombmaking manuals discussed by Congress and identified in this Report could plausibly be said to advocate -- either explicitly or implicitly -- the illegal use of explosives and other weapons. Insofar as publication of such manuals were criminalized on account of those manuals' advocacy of unlawful conduct, such a prohibition almost certainly could not pass constitutional muster.⁴⁷

2. Disclosure or Publication of Lawfully Obtained Information. The Brandenburg test, by its terms, applies to advocacy of unlawful conduct. But the government's principal concern with respect to bombmaking manuals is not their advocacy, but the instructional information they contain. That information is (at least for the most part) a matter of public record. As demonstrated elsewhere in this Report, anyone interested in manufacturing a bomb, dangerous weapon or weapon of mass destruction can easily obtain detailed instructions for manufacturing and using such a device, both from legitimate publications and from so-called "underground" publications. And, presumably, most if not all of the writers and publishers of such publications do not obtain the information unlawfully, or from classified sources. The First Amendment imposes significant constraints on the ability of the government to restrict publication of such information.

Although the Supreme Court has been careful never to hold categorically that publication of lawfully obtained truthful information "is automatically constitutionally protected," The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 541 (1989), nonetheless the Court has, on several occasions, held that "the government may not generally restrict individuals from disclosing information that lawfully comes into their hands in the absence of a `state interest of the highest order.'" United States v. Aguilar, 115 S. Ct. 2357, 2365 (1995) (quoting Smith v. Daily Mail Pub. Co., 443 U.S. 97, 103 (1979)). See also Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624, 632 (1990). And even if the state has such an interest, "punishment may lawfully be imposed, if at all, only when narrowly tailored to a state interest of the highest order." Florida Star, 491 U.S. at 541.⁴⁸

We can assume that there is a "state interest of the highest order" in keeping information on how to make explosives out of the hands of persons who want -- or who would be likely -- to use that information in furtherance of violent crime.⁴⁹ What is more, it is "foreseeable," in the tort-law sense, that some readers will use such information for unlawful ends if the information is made publicly available. As explained in Part II of this Report, strong circumstantial evidence demonstrates that persons bent upon committing acts of terrorism often rely upon literature for guidance in the construction of explosive devices and other weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, chances are that even "legitimate" publication of bombmaking information -- such as that found in government-issued manuals and in encyclopedias -- will facilitate some degree of unlawful conduct.

Nevertheless, even where it is foreseeable that widely disseminated information will be used unlawfully, or in a negligent and dangerous manner, courts uniformly have found that the Constitution prohibits imposing culpability or civil liability for distributing or publishing that information. For example, a number of courts have held that the First Amendment prohibits imposing tort liability on publishers, producers and broadcasters for the foreseeable consequences of their speech where viewers or readers mimicked unlawful or dangerous conduct that had been depicted or described, even if the standards for tortious negligence or recklessness were otherwise satisfied.⁵⁰ Similarly, a number of courts have held that the First Amendment bars recovery for allegedly foreseeable injuries suffered by persons who were following "how-to" instructions.⁵¹ In a third, related category of cases, courts have held that the Constitution does not permit imposition of criminal penalties or civil liability for written or visual depictions

-- including depictions of "factual" events -- that are likely to alter (or that have in fact changed) persons' attitudes such that those persons are more likely to engage in criminal, dangerous or otherwise undesirable behavior.⁵²

Florida Star explicitly leaves open the possibility that, in rare circumstances, the First Amendment might not bar sanctions for the publication of true, lawfully obtained information.⁵³ Nevertheless, such an exception almost certainly would not be recognized where, as here, the information is already in the public domain. The Court's stringent First Amendment test for restrictions on publication of lawfully obtained information, in other words, almost certainly would not permit the government to proscribe the publication or widespread dissemination of bombmaking manuals. Where similar or equivalent information is widely available elsewhere, the Court has been unwilling to find that a restriction on publication of that information is "narrowly tailored" to address a state interest: no "meaningful public interest" can be served by further restriction under such circumstances. Florida Star, 491 U.S. at 535. "`[O]nce the truthful information [is] "publicly revealed" or "in the public domain,"'" its dissemination cannot constitutionally be restrained. Id. (quoting Smith, 443 U.S. at 103 (internal citation omitted)). See also id. at 539 (one critical problem with the rape-shield statute at issue in Florida Star was that it punished publication of rape victims' identities "regardless of whether the identity of the victim is already known throughout the community").⁵⁴ Congress presumably would not be willing to ban the publication and teaching of all information concerning the manufacture of explosives -- including, for example, information exchanged among professional explosives manufacturers, or contained in the Encyclopedia Britannica and in government manuals. Seesupra at 24. As long as this is the case, it is hard to imagine that the First Amendment would permit culpability or liability for publication of other bombmaking manuals that have a propensity to be misused by some unknown, unidentified segment of the readership, since sources of the same information inevitably will remain in the public domain, readily available to persons who wish to manufacture and use explosives.

3. "Speech Acts," such as Aiding and Abetting. On the other hand, the constitutional analysis is radically different where the publication or expression of information is "brigaded with action,"⁵⁵ in the form of what are commonly called "speech acts." If the speech in question is an integral part of a transaction involving conduct the government otherwise is empowered to prohibit, such "speech acts" typically may be proscribed without much, if any, concern about the First Amendment, since it is merely incidental that such "conduct" takes the form of speech. "`[I]t has never been deemed an abridgement of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.'" Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447, 456 (1978) (quoting Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 502 (1949)). For example, as the Court in Ohralik explained, there are "numerous examples" of communications -- including communications that convey information -- that are subjected to economic or commercial regulation without implicating the First Amendment, such as: exchange of securities information; corporate proxy statements; exchange of information among competitors; and employers' threats of retaliation for employees' labor activities. Id. (citations omitted).⁵⁶

Similarly, many inchoate crimes often or always are effected through speech "acts." Such crimes include conspiracy, facilitation, solicitation, bribery, coercion, blackmail, and aiding and abetting.⁵⁷ Punishing speech -- including the dissemination of information -- when it takes the form of such criminal conduct typically does not even raise a First Amendment question. As Justice (then-Judge) Kennedy explained, "where speech becomes an integral part of the crime, a First Amendment defense is foreclosed even if the prosecution rests on words alone." United States v. Freeman, 761 F.2d 549, 552 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1120 (1986).⁵⁸

In particular, "[t]hat `aiding and abetting' of an illegal act may be carried out through speech is no bar to its illegality." National Org. for Women v. Operation Rescue, 37 F.3d 646, 656 (D.C. Cir. 1994).⁵⁹ What is more, aiding and abetting a crime often consists of providing factual information to another person. The role of a lookout at a burglary is to inform confederates that someone is coming. An accomplice of a bank robbery might abet the operation by telling the principal the combination of a safe, or how to evade detection. The First Amendment is simply inapposite in such cases.⁶⁰ Nor is the situation necessarily different where the information conveyed is already publicly available. For example, there may be many lawful -- and constitutionally protected -- circumstances in which a person (say, a professor of architecture) may provide the blueprint of a bank to other persons (say, architecture students); but if such blueprints are transferred for the purpose of assisting others in a bank robbery, and if that robbery occurs, the person providing the information is subject to accomplice culpability, even if he obtained the blueprint from a textbook, from city hall, or from the newspaper. See also United States v. Edler Industries, Inc., 579 F.2d 516, 521 (9th Cir. 1978) (though the dissemination and export of technological information on how to manufacture military equipment otherwise might generally be protected by the First Amendment, there is no constitutional protection for export of such information as part of "the conduct of assisting foreign enterprises to obtain military equipment"); Constitutionality of the Proposed Revision of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 5 Op. O.L.C. 202, 206-09 (1981) (discussing Edler Industries).

In a number of cases, persons have been convicted of aiding and abetting violations of the tax laws by providing explicit instructions to a discrete group of listeners on techniques for avoiding disclosure of tax liability. See supra notes 23-24. Defendants in such cases often have invoked the First Amendment; but that constitutional guarantee has rarely, if ever, been a bar to accomplice culpability. The courts correctly have rejected defendants' reliance on Brandenburg; and, in particular, have refused to accept defendants' arguments that the "imminence" requirements of the Brandenburg test apply to such aiding and abetting cases. If a defendant has aided and abetted a crime through the dissemination of information -- rather than simply by urging or "advocating" that the crime be committed -- then the government should not need to demonstrate that the speech was intended or likely to "incite" imminent unlawful conduct. The reasons the strict requirements of the Brandenburg test must be applied to cases of advocacy are that (i) abstract advocacy of unlawful conduct usually is closely aligned with (or sometimes part of) political and ideological speech entitled to the strongest constitutional solicitude; and (ii) the danger the speech will in fact lead to unlawful behavior often is remote and speculative. These concerns are rarely, if ever, implicated, in cases involving conduct constituting intentional and material aid to the criminal conduct of particular persons. It follows that the question of whether criminal conduct is "imminent" is relevant for constitutional purposes only where, as in Brandenburg itself, the government attempts to restrict advocacy, as such. But the tax-avoidance aiding and abetting cases are not subject to Brandenburg because culpability in such cases is premised, not on defendants' "advocacy" of criminal conduct, but on defendants' successful efforts to assist others by detailing to them the means of accomplishing the crimes.⁶¹

If it were otherwise -- that is, if the Brandenburg test applied to crimes implemented through the use of informative speech -- there would, for example, be no way for the government to prohibit the aiding and abetting of a crime that is intended to occur weeks or months after its planning. But in fact, if someone in October teaches another person how to cheat on their tax forms to be filed the following April, the person doing the teaching nonetheless can be culpable of aiding and abetting tax fraud. "The fact that the aider and abettor's counsel and encouragement is not acted upon for long periods of time does not break the actual connection between the commission of the crime and the advice to commit it." United States v. Barnett, 667 F.2d 835, 841 (9th Cir. 1982).

Just as advocacy of unlawful conduct is entitled to greater constitutional protection than the act of using speech to aid and abet such conduct, Brandenburg itself recognizes another, related distinction that is of equal significance for present purposes. As we explained above, the Court in Brandenburg held that the First Amendment renders invalid statutes that "forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." 395 U.S. at 447. Immediately after stating this constitutional requirement, however, the Court drew a sharp distinction between "`the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence'" and "`preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.'" Id. at 448 (quoting Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290, 297-98 (1961)).

As the Court made plain in Noto and in related cases, the latter category of conduct -- "preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action" -- is not entitled to First Amendment protection, even though advocacy ("the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety") of such violence is protected. Indeed, even Justice Douglas -- in the course of urging strong constitutional protection for the advocacy of illegality -- freely acknowledged that "[t]he freedom to speak is not absolute; the teaching of methods of terror . . . should be beyond the pale." Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 581 (1951) (Douglas, J., dissenting) (emphasis added).

The distinction recognized in Brandenburg between advocacy of, and preparation for, unlawful conduct, was exemplified in Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203 (1961), a case in which the Court carefully distinguished between the teaching of abstract doctrine -- punishment of which is subject to substantial constitutional constraints -- and the teaching of the techniques of unlawful conduct, which can much more easily be proscribed. Id. at 233-34. As to the former, the Court has developed the Brandenburg test, which asks whether the danger is intended, likely and "imminent." But the constraints of the First Amendment do not apply when the "teaching" goes "beyond the theory itself" to "an explanation of `basic strategy.'" Scales, 367 U.S. at 244. At that point, the teaching -- if it is done with the purpose of preparing a group for unlawful action -- is not much different than the information conveyed in a typical aiding and abetting case; accordingly, the Brandenburg protections should largely be inapposite. See Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 331-33 (1957) ("systematic teaching" in classes to "develop in the members of [a] group a readiness to engage [in unlawful conduct] at the crucial time," could be punished, even if that conduct was to occur only "when the time was ripe").⁶²

This critical distinction -- between advocacy of unlawful conduct, on the one hand, and "instructions" for unlawful conduct, on the other -- was recognized by Professor Thomas Emerson in his seminal treatise on the First Amendment:

[C]onduct that amounts to "advice" or "persuasion" [sh]ould be protected; conduct that moves into the area of
"instructions" or "preparations" [sh]ould not. The essential task would be to distinguish between simply conveying an
idea to another person, which idea he may later act upon, and actually participating with him in the performance of an
illegal act. It is true that the distinction does not offer automatic solutions and that courts could easily disagree on any
particular set of facts. But this process of decision making is related to the nature of "expression" and the functions and
operations of a system of freedom of expression. It is therefore a rational method of approaching the problem.

Thomas Emerson, The System of the Freedom of Expression 75 (1970).⁶³

B. Application of First Amendment Principles to Dissemination of Bombmaking Information

Having reviewed the role of the First Amendment in these three related contexts, we now can address specifically the circumstances under which Senators Feinstein and Biden would seek to proscribe dissemination of bombmaking information.

1. Dissemination with the "Intent" to Facilitate Unlawful Conduct. The Feinstein Amendment would make it unlawful, inter alia, for any person to "teach or demonstrate" the making of explosive materials, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture of explosive materials, where the person "intend[ed]" that such information would be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that "constitutes a Federal criminal offense or a criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce." In light of the foregoing discussion in Part VI-A, two things about the constitutionality of this "intent" prohibition are clear:

First, the First Amendment almost certainly would require that the "intent" scienter provision in such a statute be construed to mean an actual, conscious purpose to bring about the specified result. "Intent" may not be construed as "constructive intent," as in the civil tort context; that is to say, "intent" could not constitutionally be inferred solely by virtue of the fact that criminal offenses were a foreseeable result -- a "natural consequence" -- of the general distribution of bombmaking information. Anyone who teaches or publishes bombmaking information -- including those who do so for wholly legitimate reasons, such as explosives manufacturers, the military, and encyclopedia publishers -- could foresee that some unknown recipient of the teaching or information will use it for unlawful ends; but the First Amendment would not permit culpability on that basis. See supra at 30-34. Instead, an "intent" element must be construed to reach only the person who disseminates the information for the purpose of facilitating criminal conduct.⁶⁴

Second, a prosecution relying upon an "intent" requirement plainly would be constitutional where the teacher intends that a particular student -- or a discrete group of students -- use the information for criminal conduct. Indeed, if there is such an intent, and a receiver of the information thereafter does use that information to commit a crime, the person who assisted him by showing him how to do so would be culpable as an aider and abettor, and the First Amendment would not bar such accomplice culpability. See supra at 36-39. The constitutional analysis should be the same, as in the Featherston case, where the teacher intends that particular students use the information for unlawful ends, but the crime is never committed (such as when the scheme is foiled by detection). This would be, in essence, a form of "attempted aiding and abetting." Although presently there is no general federal statute prohibiting "attempted aiding and abetting," see supra at 20, that is not because of any constitutional bar: application of such a statute to the provision of information would not transgress the First Amendment. Therefore, a statute like the Feinstein Amendment could constitutionally be applied to a case where the person supplying the critical training or information has the intent thereby to assist a particular recipient thereof in unlawful activity, whether or not the crime eventually occurs.⁶⁵ As the Court emphasized in Brandenburg and in earlier cases, the Constitution does not protect the conduct of "preparing a group for violent action" by teaching the techniques of unlawful conduct. See Noto; Scales; Dennis, 341 U.S. at 581 (Douglas, J., dissenting); Emerson, System of Freedom, supra, at 75; Greenawalt, Speech, Crime, supra note 20, at 244-45.⁶⁶

The more difficult question is whether criminal culpability can attach to general publication of explosives information, when the writer, publisher or seller of the information has the purpose of generally assisting unknown and unidentified readers in the commission of crimes. This is, in essence, the situation alleged in the recent Rice v. Paladin case. See supra at 27-28. To be sure, such a "generalized" attempt to aid crime through publication is "not the same as preparing a group for violent action." Noto, 367 U.S. at 298. The "joint participation" in a crime that is the hallmark of conspiracy or aiding and abetting is absent here: the speech is not, in any direct sense, "brigaded with action." What is more, the danger to the public in such a case is not necessarily greater than that caused by the same exact publication that is made solely for permissible purposes. The constitutional question is, therefore, more difficult than in the case of intentional concerted action discussed above.

There are few, if any, cases directly on point.⁶⁷ However, in Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981), the Court suggested that otherwise privileged publication of information can lose its First Amendment protection when the publisher has an impermissible motive. In Agee, a former CIA employee had his passport revoked as a result of his campaign to publish the names of (and otherwise publicly identify) intelligence agents working in foreign countries, a course of conduct that undermined intelligence operations and endangered agents. In the context of this serious threat to American national security, the Court held that the First Amendment did not protect Agee's publication of the agents' names. In so ruling, the Court stressed the following:

Agee's disclosures, among other things, have the declared purpose of obstructing intelligence operations and the
recruiting of intelligence personnel. They are clearly not protected by the Constitution. The mere fact that Agee is
also engaged in criticism of the Government does not render his conduct beyond the reach of the law.

Id. at 308-09 (emphasis added). The Court did not indicate whether Agee's bad intent was, in and of itself, sufficient to strip his speech of its constitutional protection. In particular, the Court had no occasion to determine whether the First Amendment analysis would be the same if the information Agee published was already in the public domain and/or if the government's interests were not as significant as the protection of intelligence sources.

Nonetheless, in the absence of contrary authority, this passage in Haig v. Agee supports the argument that the government may punish publication of dangerous instructional information where that publication is motivated by a desire to facilitate the unlawful use of explosives.⁶⁸ At the very least, publication with such an improper intent should not be constitutionally protected where it is foreseeable that the publication will be used for criminal purposes; and the Brandenburg requirement that the facilitated crime be "imminent" should be of little, if any, relevance.⁶⁹ Accordingly, we believe that the district court in Rice v. Paladin, seesupra at 27-28, erred insofar as it concluded that Brandenburg bars liability for dissemination of bombmaking information regardless of the publisher's intent. See also infra note 71.

Having said that, we should note that where there is no concerted action between the publisher and any particular recipient of the information, there might be a significant problem in proving that the person publishing the information has done so with an impermissible purpose. Most publishers of the bombmaking materials in question will argue that their publication is well-intentioned. For example, in Rice, the publisher of Hit Man has asserted that its intended audience includes: authors who desire information for the purpose of writing books about crime and criminals; law enforcement officers and agencies who desire information concerning the means and methods of committing crimes; persons who enjoy reading accounts of crimes and the means of committing them for purposes of entertainment; persons who fantasize about committing crimes but do not thereafter commit them; and criminologists and others who study criminal methods and mentality. See supra at 28.

Nevertheless, proof of improper intent might be possible in certain types of cases. In many cases the manuals themselves might have "the declared purpose," Agee, 453 U.S. at 309, of facilitating crime. Although, under Brandenburg, culpability cannot attach merely because the manuals advocate unlawful action, such advocacy could constitutionally be used as probative evidence that the disseminator of accompanying information on the techniques of bombmaking intended by such dissemination to facilitate criminal conduct. See supra note 47. What is more, if a publisher of such communications engages in a marketing strategy intended to maximize sales to, inter alia, "criminals and would-be criminals who desire information and instructions on how to commit crimes," as the publisher of Hit Man allegedly did, and if that publisher's economic success evidently depends upon stimulating a high volume of unlawful use of his product -- i.e., the publisher's fortunes substantially rise or fall depending on the degree to which his product facilitates unlawful conduct -- there might be sufficient evidence of improper intent. See Direct Sales, 319 U.S. at 712-13 (where seller of dangerous drugs -- which could be used both for proper and improper purposes -- engaged in marketing strategy to stimulate sales to would-be criminals, and where seller had a "stake in the venture," it was permissible to infer intent to assist criminal operation). As Justice Holmes explained in a related context, it is fair to assume that items are "designed for" unlawful use where they are "offered for sale in such a mode as purposely to attract purchasers who wanted them for the unlawful [use]." Danovitz v. United States, 281 U.S. 389, 397 (1930).

Finally, if, as Senator Feinstein believed, some of the information contained in the bombmaking manuals has no use other than to facilitate unlawful conduct,⁷⁰ that fact, too, would be evidence of an intent to facilitate crime (at least with respect to that particular information). Publishers of such information undoubtedly would argue that such information has uses other than to facilitate unlawful conduct -- such as to educate law enforcement officials and would-be murder-mystery writers, and simply to entertain persons who enjoy reading accounts of the workings of the criminal mind. Seesupra at 28 (describing claims made by publisher of Hit Man). But that assertion would only raise, rather than resolve, the critical question of fact regarding a publisher's intent; it would remain an issue for the trier of fact to determine whether one of the publisher's purposes was to facilitate criminal conduct.

We acknowledge that in many cases, there may be a broad and diverse audience for such communications, including persons who would not use the information as a blueprint for crime, and the communications might have substantial value other than to facilitate crimes. In such cases, courts might agree that "a strict rule about finding intent is especially important, lest a jury convict because of outrage over the facts someone has chosen to disclose. A person should not be punished for encouraging a general crime like murder by publicly disclosing facts unless the prosecution's evidence leaves no possible doubt that his purpose has been to aid or cause that criminal result." Greenawalt, Speech, Crime, supra note 20, at 273. But where such a purpose is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as it would have to be in a criminal case, the First Amendment should be no bar to culpability.⁷¹

2. Dissemination with the "Knowledge" that a Particular Recipient of the Information Intends to Use It in Furtherance of Unlawful Conduct. The Feinstein Amendment also would have made it unlawful, inter alia, for any person to "teach or demonstrate" the making of explosive materials, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture of explosive materials, if the person "knows" that such information will be used for, or in furtherance of, "an activity that constitutes a Federal criminal offense or a criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce." As Senator Biden explained, this "knowledge" provision was intended to address the case where the person disseminating the information has evidence that a particular potential recipient plans to use that information to engage in unlawful activities -- for example, when the person requesting the information expressly indicates that he plans to use the information to learn how to commit violent crimes. See supra note 38.

It is questionable whether the statutory scienter requirement ("knows") in the Feinstein Amendment would suffice to cover such a situation. As explained above, supra at 21 & note 32, where a statutory element of "knowledge" refers to a possible future result of a defendant's conduct, the government typically must prove that the defendant was "aware `that that result is practically certain to follow from his conduct.'" United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 404 (1980) (citations omitted). Thus, even where someone expressly states that he desires to purchase a product in order to plan a crime, it might be difficult to persuade the trier of fact that it was "practically certain" that the crime would be committed (particularly if, as it turned out, the crime was not in fact committed). It would, therefore, be helpful to identify a more carefully tailored mens rea requirement in order to address Senator Biden's hypothetical situation.

The scenario Senator Biden describes brings to mind other types of "facilitation" statutes, such as state statutes making it a crime to "provide" a person with "means or opportunity" to commit a crime, "believing it probable that he is rendering aid to a person who intends to commit a [crime]." N.Y. Penal Law § 115.05 (McKinney 1996).⁷² Such statutes, however, are of general applicability: they do not single out a particular form of facilitation, such as facilitation involving conveyance of information, for especially harsh treatment. And what is more, conviction under such statutes -- as under the federal aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2 -- requires that the facilitation actually result in the commission of a crime.⁷³

A closer analogy, therefore, might be another section of the AEDPA itself. Section 706 of the AEDPA makes it a felony to "knowingly transfer[] any explosive materials, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such explosive materials will be used to commit a crime of violence . . . or drug trafficking crime." 110 Stat. at 1295-96 (to be codified at 18 U.S.C. § 844(o)).⁷⁴ The "reasonable cause to believe that [the item] will be used [for the unlawful purpose]" standard would seem to address directly the case where the recipient of the product indicates an intent to use it to commit or to facilitate a crime. The constitutional question then becomes whether such a standard can be used where the item being transferred is not "explosive materials," as in AEDPA section 706, but instead information on how to manufacture or use such materials.

There is little case law directly on point. As Professor Greenawalt points out, however, this case is not quite as easy from a First Amendment perspective as "attempted aiding and abetting," which can constitutionally be proscribed because it requires a specific purpose to actually assist in the commission of the crime:

It is only a minor impairment of freedom to tell people they cannot provide information they want to be used for a
crime. It is somewhat more serious to tell them that, even if they have no such purpose, they must keep their mouths
shut. A speaker may conceivably think a communication has significant value for the listener beyond the listener's
immediate purpose, but, even if the speaker does not think that, perhaps a recognition of the speaker's autonomy
should include allowing him ordinarily to say what he believes to be true to his acquaintances, regardless of the use he
thinks they plan to make of it.

A further argument against such liability is the problem of determining facts accurately and the effect of the resulting
uncertainty on people who speak. If people become aware that they can be treated as criminal for providing
information they believe will aid a crime, they may hesitate to give information when they think there is some modest
chance of criminal use, not trusting that prosecutors and jurors will always be discerning about perceptions of relevant
probabilities.

The implications for free speech are serious enough to warrant careful attention to the problem of communications that
facilitate.

Greenawalt, Speech, Crime, supra note 20, at 86-87.

There are two principal reasons why a "facilitation through speech" prohibition without an "intent" requirement would raise serious First Amendment problems. First, such a facilitation prohibition would be directed specifically and uniquely at facilitation effected by way of conveying information. In other words, it would not prohibit facilitation, as such, but only a speech-related subset of such conduct. "The text of the First Amendment makes clear that the Constitution presumes that attempts to regulate speech are more dangerous than attempts to regulate conduct." 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 116 S. Ct. 1495, 1512 (1996) (plurality opinion). The constitutionality of the prohibition therefore is not as clear as it would be if "facilitation through speech" were just one form -- i.e., one application -- of a generally applicable facilitation statute that did not refer specifically to speech. SeeCohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 669-71 (1991) (whereas First Amendment is not implicated by application of "generally applicable laws" to violations involving speech or the press, there is a greater constitutional problem where, as in Florida Star, the "State itself define[s] the content of publications that would trigger liability").

Second, as explained above, supra at 30-34, the First Amendment traditionally has been understood to prohibit the use of the criminal or tort law to punish the dissemination of lawfully obtained factual information absent an impermissible purpose for such dissemination; and this is so even where such publication has a "propensity" to be misused by someone in a criminal or tortious manner. Yet that is, in a sense, precisely what a facilitation prohibition would do in Senator Biden's scenario: it would punish distribution of lawfully obtained information because the disseminator had reason to believe that such distribution would result in some harm.

Although the matter is far from certain, in the end we think these First Amendment concerns can be overcome, and that such a facilitation prohibition could be constitutional, if drafted narrowly. To be sure, the prohibition would be "speech-specific." But, as with respect to 18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(1), see supra at 21-23, Congress would be singling out "teaching" and "informational" facilitation of crime not because of any hostility to speech itself, but because those are the forms of facilitation that are the most apparent threats to safety not already addressed by accomplice and conspiracy prohibitions and by the facilitation prohibitions found in sections 323 and 706 of the AEDPA. Congress arguably would simply be filling in a statutory gap, rather than expressing a general hostility to any particular viewpoint. Accordingly, the constitutional problems should be minimized. See Edler Industries, 579 F.2d at 520-22 (whereas First Amendment would prohibit export restrictions dealing with general "interchange of scientific and technological information," it is constitutional to restrict such export where the exporter knows or has reason to know that the recipient of the information will use it to produce or operate munitions). See also Constitutionality of the Proposed Revision of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 5 Op. O.L.C. 202, 207-08 (1981).

Furthermore, such a prohibition could be, in constitutionally significant respects, less problematic than a statute or tort that punishes speech having a propensity to be misused by some unknown recipient. In the latter type of tort and criminal cases, the practical effect of a penalty would be to deter altogether the dissemination of the information, since there is always a chance that some reader, listener or viewer will turn the information to bad use, and the only way to avoid this risk is to cease speaking altogether. Indeed, even where there would in fact be only a slim likelihood that the information would be misused, a jury might be expected to find the requisite degree of "recklessness," particularly if -- as is likely in such cases -- the jury is hostile to the message conveyed in the information and does not believe that it serves any social utility to distribute such information. The risk of such an outcome effectively could chill the "legitimate" dissemination of bombmaking information even if there is but a slight risk of its misuse.⁷⁵ By contrast, a facilitation prohibition tailored to particular recipients who are likely to make criminal use of the information would not have such a broad chilling effect on such speech. The person conveying the information would be required only to withhold its distribution to particular persons who pose an apparent risk, and otherwise would be able to continue general publication, distribution or sales. In other words, such a prohibition would only restrict or deter certain particular transactions, but would not impede general publication.

In drafting a constitutional facilitation statute, we think the safest strategy would be to address Senator Biden's scenario directly -- for example, by barring dissemination of bomb-making information to a particular person, where the disseminator knows that such person intends to use the information for an unlawful purpose. Under such a statute, the requisite "knowledge" would not be of a future event, but instead, of someone else's present intent. Therefore, the government would not be required to prove that the disseminator was "practically certain" of the recipient's intent. See supra at 21 (discussing "practical certainty" standard for "knowledge" of future events). Instead, it should suffice to prove that the person providing the information was aware of a "high probability" that the recipient had an intent to use the information to commit a crime. See, e.g., Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 845 (1973); Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 416 & n.29 (1970); Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 46 n.93 (1969).⁷⁶ That "knowledge" typically should be found where, as in the cases hypothesized by Senator Biden, the recipient clearly indicates to the disseminator a desire to use the information for criminal purposes.⁷⁷

Alternatively, Congress could decide to track the language of section 706 of the AEDPA, such as the following:

It shall be unlawful for any person to teach or demonstrate to any particular person the making of explosive materials,
or to distribute to any particular person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture of
explosive materials, with reasonable cause to believe that such particular person will use such teaching, demonstration
or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal criminal offense or a criminal offense
affecting interstate commerce.

That formulation would almost certainly cover the case where the recipient of the information expressly indicates an intent to use such information to commit or to facilitate a crime, and would likely be constitutional as applied to such a case. However, such a "reasonable cause to believe" standard might also deter widespread, general publication of such information where a publisher is aware that certain suspicious persons are in the "audience."⁷⁸ Because of this risk of chilling substantial publication of such information to persons who will not use it unlawfully, such a statute would run a greater risk of constitutional invalidation than a statute (such as that described above) that is more narrowly tailored to the particular hypothetical described by Senator Biden.⁷⁹

C. Proposed Modification of the Feinstein Amendment

For the reasons discussed in the preceding sections, the Feinstein Amendment would be more likely to reach all of the fact situations that Senators Feinstein and Biden wished to address, and would be more likely to pass constitutional muster in most or all of its applications, if it were modified to read as follows:

It shall be unlawful for any person --

(a) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to
distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of such an explosive, device or
weapon, intending that such teaching, demonstration or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that
constitutes a Federal criminal offense or a State or local criminal offense affecting interstate commerce;⁸⁰ or

(b) to teach or demonstrate to any particular person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of
mass destruction, or to distribute to any particular person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the
manufacture or use of such an explosive, device or weapon, knowing that such particular person intends to use such
teaching, demonstration or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal criminal offense or State
or local criminal offense affecting interstate commerce.

For purposes of this section, the term "explosive" has the meaning set out in 18 U.S.C. § 844(j). The term "destructive
device" has the meaning set out in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(4). The term "weapon of mass destruction" has the meaning set out in
18 U.S.C.A. § 2332a(c)(2).

The principal differences between this proposal and the Feinstein Amendment itself are the following:

1. The Feinstein Amendment could be construed to impose culpability if the person disseminating the information has reason to know that some unidentified, unspecified recipient thereof will use the information for an unlawful purpose, or if such an outcome is the "natural consequence" of publication of the information. Because that construction could cover virtually all public dissemination of such information, it would raise serious constitutional questions. The alternative formulation specifies that the person who disseminates the information must either have the specific purpose of facilitating criminal conduct, or must have knowledge that a particular recipient intends to make improper use of the material. This should, for example, address Senator Biden's example of a sale of a bombmaking manual to a purchaser who has requested it for the express purpose of using such information to accomplish an unlawful end. In such a case, a well-intentioned distributor of the information will be prohibited from providing the information to the requesting party, but may otherwise freely offer the item for sale.

2. Under the Feinstein Amendment, it would be unclear whether criminal culpability would attach where someone disseminates dangerous information about explosives with a conscious purpose of facilitating unlawful conduct by unknown recipients of the information. The alternative formulation would make clear that dissemination with such a specific purpose would be proscribed. While the constitutionality of particular applications of such a prohibition might be somewhat uncertain (depending on whether the evidence truly demonstrates the improper intent beyond a reasonable doubt), we believe that the "intent" prohibition would be facially constitutional.⁸¹

3. The alternative formulation would make clear that the "intent" or "knowledge" element refers to the use made of the information that the person disseminates. Accordingly, it does not include the Feinstein Amendment's language regarding "such explosive materials," because that phrase did not have a clear referent: the prohibition should involve dissemination or teaching of information, not dissemination of the explosive materials themselves (which is independently addressed elsewhere in Title 18 and in the AEDPA).

4. The alternative formulation would broaden the Feinstein Amendment to bring within its ambit teaching and information concerning not only explosives (as defined in 18 U.S.C.§ 844(j)), but also all destructive devices (as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(4)) and other weapons of mass destruction (as defined in 18 U.S.C.A. § 2332a(c)(2)).

5. The alternative formulation would broaden the Feinstein Amendment to cover information about the "use" of explosives, in addition to the manufacture thereof. In the wrong hands, information on how to use explosives (such as the information in Hit Man that was used to commit a multiple homicide, discussed in Rice v. Paladin) can be every bit as dangerous as information on how to create such explosives.

6. For purposes of clarification and simplicity, the alternative formulation refers to a "State or local criminal offense affecting interstate commerce," rather than to a "criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce." It is unclear how a "criminal purpose" could "affect" interstate commerce.

ENDNOTES:

¹ See Statement of Robert S. Litt, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, in Mayhem Manuals and the Internet: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (1995).

² The DOJ Committee considered carefully the question whether the inclusion in this Report of titles of, and illustrative excerpts from, bombmaking texts would enhance the availability of such information to persons bent upon fabricating bombs and other destructive devices. The Committee concluded that such information already is so readily available to such individuals that its publication in a Report to Congress will create no additional risk. Nevertheless, except as specifically noted, the mention of any particular source of bombmaking information in this Report should not be taken as validation or acknowledgement of the accuracy or value of that information.

³ See also infra note 54 (discussing publication by various periodicals, including the Progressive, of articles describing technical processes of thermonuclear weapons).

⁴ See "Hunt for a Mad Bomber," Reader's Digest 77, 79 (August 1993).

⁵ Much of the information available in print pertaining to nuclear weapons also can be found on the Internet. A number of websites, for example, have included compilations of nuclear weapons information gleaned from literature elsewhere in the public domain.

⁶ The list, captioned "Bombs: All About Things that Go Boom," includes a warning that the compiler does "not endorse, nor check for the safety, or validity of these bomb making procedures. Makers of these devices take all responsibility. . . . [A]ll of these devices do or can pose a risk to the creators and other individuals." The compiler further suggests that "[f]or [the reader's] safety please read the recipes carefully two and three times over before attempting."

It is important to note that, even if a user of the World Wide Web does not know the specific location of a website containing bombmaking information, such data can easily be located with a search engine.

⁷ In a colloquy during the Senate's consideration of the Feinstein Amendment, see supra at 3-4, Senators Biden and Feinstein described similar material that members of their staffs had obtained over the Internet. Senator Biden referred to one item that instructed readers how to manufacture a "baby food bomb" from shotgun shells and "other materials that can be obtained by anyone" that are so "powerful that they can destroy a car." 142 Cong. Rec. S3448 (daily ed. Apr. 17, 1996) (statement of Sen. Biden). Senator Feinstein observed that The Terrorist's Handbook is available by mail order and on the Internet. She observed that this book begins by stating that "[w]hether you are planning to blow up the World Trade Center, or merely explode a few small devices on the White House lawn, the `Terrorist's Handbook' is an invaluable guide to having a good time." It then goes on to explain, among other things, how to steal the chemicals necessary for making an explosive from a college laboratory. 142 Cong. Rec. S7272 (daily ed. June 28, 1996) (statement of Sen. Feinstein).

⁸ All three defendants were convicted by jury on April 24, 1996, on charges that included conspiracy to make a destructive device to be used to destroy a building used in interstate commerce.

⁹ In 1995, all four members were subsequently tried, convicted and sentenced for violating 18 U.S.C.
§ 175 (unlawful possession of biological weapons). Although the Patriot Council members only possessed 0.7 grams of ricin, this minute amount constitutes more than 100 lethal doses.

We note that, on November 1, 1995, a senior official of the FBI, testifying before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, apprised the Subcommittee members of the ricin plot, including the use by the conspirators of a publicly available instruction manual describing manufacture of the toxic poison. See Statement of John P. O'Neill, Chief, Counterterrorism Section, FBI, in Global Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Hearings Before the Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations of the Senate Comm. on Governmental Affairs, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 236 (1995). Another senior FBI official furnished identical information to the House Subcommittee on Military Research and Development. See Statement of Robert M. Blitzer, Chief, Domestic Terrorism/Planning Section, FBI, in Chemical-Biological Defense Program and Response to Urban Terrorism: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Military Research and Development of the House Comm. on National Security, published at 1996 WL 7136609 (Mar. 12, 1996).

¹⁰ See also Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Arson and Explosives
-- Incidents Report 1994, at 41-51 (1995).

¹¹ This Report deals almost exclusively with the ability of the government to prohibit or restrict the dissemination by private persons of bombmaking information that has not been classified. The Report does not discuss in any detail the separate, broader authority of the government to impose "reasonable restrictions" on its own employees' activities to ensure that those employees do not disclose classified information belonging to the government itself. See generally Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507 (1980).

¹² With respect to information concerning atomic weapons in particular, there is another restriction in federal law that also should be mentioned. The Atomic Energy Act imposes certain restrictions on the dissemination of "Restricted Data," which is defined to include, inter alia, "all data concerning design, manufacture, or utilization of atomic weapons," 42 U.S.C. § 2014(y)(1), unless such information has been expressly "declassified or removed from the Restricted Data category," id. In particular, it is unlawful to communicate, transmit or disclose such "Restricted Data" to any person either (i) with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage to any foreign nation, 42 U.S.C. § 2274(a), or (ii) with "reason to believe such data will be utilized to injure the United States or to secure an advantage to any foreign nation," id. § 2274(b). In addition, the Attorney General may apply to a court for an injunction prohibiting impermissible dissemination of such Restricted Data by persons who are "about to engage" in such conduct. 42 U.S.C. § 2280.

Insofar as Restricted Data includes simply information produced by or for the government -- such as the government's self-generated, classified information -- the extent to which the government may prohibit dissemination of such data by those who are granted access to it is a matter outside the principal scope of this Report. Seesupra note 11; infra note 44. However, there is a serious question whether Restricted Data also includes information developed or compiled by private citizens who have not had access to classified government documents. See generally Mary M. Cheh, The Progressive Case and the Atomic Energy Act: Waking to the Dangers of Government Information Controls, 48 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 163, 180-88 (1980). The position of the Department of Energy is that such "privately generated" information concerning nuclear weapon design can be Restricted Data subject to the statutory restrictions on dissemination, see 62 Fed. Reg. 2252, 2254, 2261 (Jan. 15, 1997) (proposing new 10 C.F.R. § 1045.21, which would make this point explicitly); and the only court to opine on the matter has confirmed this statutory construction, see United States v. Progressive, Inc., 467 F. Supp. 990, 998-1000 (W.D. Wis.), rehearing denied, 486 F. Supp. 5 (W.D. Wis.), appeal dismissed, 610 F.2d 819 (7th Cir. 1979). Insofar as the Restricted Data provisions do encompass certain privately generated information concerning nuclear weapons, see 62 Fed. Reg. at 2253-54 (discussing the types of information that the Department of Energy presently considers Restricted Data), the Atomic Energy Act would provide another statutory means of limiting the dissemination of such forms of bombmaking information. However, because Senator Feinstein's initiative in the last Congress was not directed specifically to information about such nuclear weapons, we will limit our discussion of Restricted Data to this footnote, except to note the following: As discussed infra at 30-34 & note 54, any attempt by the government to restrict or punish the dissemination of Restricted Data that was already in the public domain would run up against significant First Amendment constraints, absent an intent by the disseminator to injure the United States or to secure an advantage to any foreign nation.

¹³ Cf., e.g., United States v. Rowlee, 899 F.2d 1275, 1278 (2d Cir.) (defendant properly convicted of conspiracy to defraud United States based on having provided instruction and assistance to others in avoiding income tax liability), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 828 (1990); United States v. Daly, 756 F.2d 1076, 1081-82 (5th Cir. 1985) (defendant properly convicted of conspiracy to defraud United States based on having disseminated information to members of church on how to file tax returns so as to hamper IRS investigation).

¹⁴ See, e.g., United States v. Donner, 497 F.2d 184, 192 (7th Cir. 1972) (speech, including otherwise constitutionally protected speech, can constitute overt act in furtherance of conspiracy), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1047 (1974).

¹⁵ See generally Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 703 (1943); United States v. Falcone, 311 U.S. 205 (1940); United States v. Pinckney, 85 F.3d 4, 8 (2d Cir. 1996).

¹⁶ See Direct Sales; Falcone; United States v. Blankenship, 970 F.2d 283 (7th Cir. 1992).

¹⁷ See also Lechuga, 994 F.2d at 349-50 (opinion for four judges of 11-member en banc panel); id. at 362-63 (opinion of three other judges, concurring on this point). However, where the commodity in question has an "inherent capacity" to be used unlawfully, and where the provider of the product has a stake in the success of the illegal venture for which that product is used, a regular course of conduct involving such sales may support proof of a conspiracy. Direct Sales, 319 U.S. at 711-13.

¹⁸ See, e.g., United States v. McNeill, 887 F.2d 448, 450-52 (3d Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1087 (1990).

¹⁹Similarly, the First Amendment does not protect an offer to engage in an unlawful transaction or activity. See, e.g., Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 496 (1982); Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 388 (1973); Braun v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine, Inc., 968 F.2d 1110, 1116-21 (11th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1071 (1993); Norwood v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine, Inc., 651 F. Supp. 1397, 1398-1402 (W.D. Ark. 1987).

²⁰ See District of Columbia v. Garcia, 335 A.2d 217, 224 (D.C.) (distinguishing between constitutionally protected advocacy and "the act of enticing or importuning on a personal basis for personal benefit or gain"), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 894 (1975). See also People v. Rubin, 158 Cal. Rptr. 488, 491 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979) (discussing distinction between "general advocacy of crime" and solicitation of crime accompanied by "offer of reward"), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 821 (1980). Professor Kent Greenawalt has argued that the Brandenburg requirements (such as the requirement of "imminent" criminal conduct) should be relaxed in the case of private, nonideological solicitations to crime, even where there is no inducement or threat, but only persuasion. Kent Greenawalt, Speech, Crime, and the Uses of Language 261-65 (1989). While this argument has some force, we are not aware that any court has yet endorsed it.

²¹ See, e.g., United States v. Razo-Leora, 961 F.2d 1140, 1147 (5th Cir. 1992).

²² Subsection 2(a) reads: "Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission is punishable as a principal." This statute does not create a distinct federal offense; rather, it merely abolishes the common-law distinction between principals and accessories. United States v. Superior Growers Supply, Inc., 982 F.2d 173, 177-78 (6th Cir. 1992).

²³ See, e.g., United States v. Kelley, 769 F.2d 215, 216-17 (4th Cir. 1985) (defendant aided and abetted tax fraud by instructing others on how to prepare false forms); United States v. Buttorff, 572 F.2d 619, 623 (8th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 906 (1978).

²⁴ The law is unsettled on the question of how much contact, or "proximity," is required between the principals and the accomplice -- that is to say, to what extent the accomplice must "know" who it is he is aiding. In a series of cases similar to those cited supra note 23, courts have found that defendants could be held culpable for aiding and abetting tax-code violations merely by virtue of having provided instruction on unlawful tax-fraud techniques to a discrete group of listeners who had indicated a specific interest in violating the law. See also, e.g., United States v. Rowlee, 899 F.2d 1275 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 828 (1990); United States v. Freeman, 761 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1120 (1986); United States v. Daly, 756 F.2d 1076 (5th Cir. 1985); United States v. Moss, 604 F.2d 569 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1071 (1980). manufacture phencyclidine. The facts alleged in the search warrant established that Barnett provided essential information for the specific purpose of assisting Hensley in the commission of a crime.

A harder question is whether aiding and abetting can be established with even less direct connection between the aider and the principals. In Buttorff, the court of appeals held that the aiding and abetting "joint participation" test was satisfied by virtue of tax-evasion instructions that defendants had provided at "large public gatherings," presumably to persons whom they did not personally meet. 572 F.2d at 622-23. United States v. Barnett, 667 F.2d 835 (9th Cir. 1982), suggests that this same theory of aiding and abetting could be applied to written instructions sent by mail to a customer whom the publisher had never met. In that case, the defendant allegedly advertised in a magazine that it was making available for mail-order purchase a catalog of instructions for manufacture of phencyclidine, and sent such instructions -- along with the name of a "reliable" chemical supplier -- to a person who submitted the required $10 purchase price. Id. at 840. In the context of determining whether there was probable cause for a warrant to search the seller's premises, the court held that these allegations were sufficient to allege that the publisher had aided and abetted the recipient's manufacture of phencyclidine. The court reasoned that:

[I]t is unnecessary for the government to show that Barnett [the seller of the instructions] ever met with Hensley [the buyer] in order to
prove that he aided and abetted him in his attempt to manufacture phencyclidine. The facts alleged in the search warrant established
that Barnett provided essential information for the specific purpose of assisting Hensley in the commission of a crime.

Id. at 843. (The opinion does not indicate whether the "facts alleged" in the search warrant included more than what is described above.)

By contrast, part of the aiding-and-abetting rationale in Buttorff and Barnett may have been implicitly questioned in Superior Growers. In that case, the Sixth Circuit held that an indictment had not adequately charged conspiracy to aid and abet marijuana possession against proprietors of a garden-supply store. The indictment alleged, inter alia, that the defendants "occasionally provided information and advice on how to grow marijuana to various customers"; but there was no allegation that any particular customer in fact used such advice to commit a crime. The court held that the "providing information" allegation "ultimately falls short" of alleging the requisite intent to aid and abet, "because it does not state that the publications or information were given with defendants' knowledge that a particular customer was planning to grow marijuana, and with defendants' intent to assist that customer in the endeavor." 982 F.2d at 178. According to the court, in other words, it was insufficient for the government merely to demonstrate that the proprietors intended to aid and abet their customers; it was essential to prove that the proprietors had knowledge that their customers were manufacturing marijuana "or intended to manufacture marijuana." Id. at 175.

²⁵ This standard applies even where the federal crime being assisted involves the unlawful use of explosives. See, e.g., United States v. Hewitt, 663 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1981) (describing elements of aiding and abetting a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(h)).

²⁶ Judge Hand's view of the intent required for criminal aiding and abetting was not shared by all courts, some of which argued that it was sufficient that the aider and abettor knew of the purpose of the principal -- i.e., that the crime was a natural consequence of the assistance. The classic statement of this position is found in Backun v. United States, 112 F.2d 635, 636-37 (4th Cir. 1940). The Supreme Court, in Nye & Nissen, nominally resolved the debate by adopting Judge Hand's view. But see United States v. Ortega, 44 F.3d 505, 508 (7th Cir. 1995) (defendant could be culpable of aiding and abetting even in the absence of evidence that he wanted the unlawful act to succeed, if defendant "rendered assistance that he believed would (whether or not he cared that it would) make the principal's success more likely"); United States v. Zafiro, 945 F.2d 881, 887-88 (7th Cir. 1991) (dicta) (aiding and abetting should be established even absent intent to assist illegal activity, if abettor "knowingly provides essential assistance" that cannot readily be obtained from other sources), aff'd on other grounds, 506 U.S. 534 (1993).

²⁷ See, e.g., Superior Growers, 982 F.2d at 177-78; United States v. Campa, 679 F.2d 1006, 1013 (1st Cir. 1982).

²⁸ See United States v. Giovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223, 1227 (7th Cir. 1990) (citing American Law Institute, Model Penal Code § 2.06(3)(a)(ii)). Although attempted aiding and abetting is not a crime, the converse is not true: it is unlawful to aid and abet an attempted crime, provided the underlying attempt is itself an unlawful act.

²⁹ The substantive crimes that may not be "support[ed]" under section 323 are: 18 U.S.C. §§ 32, 37, 81, 175, 351, 831, 842(m) and (n), 844(f) and (i), 956, 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1366, 1751, 2155, 2156, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, and 2340A, and 49 U.S.C. § 46502.

³⁰ The full definition of "material support or resources" is: "currency or other financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials." Id.

³¹ See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 482, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 232 (1994) (noting that, under the original version of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A, it would not be necessary to prove that the facilitator had a "specific intent to commit the underlying action").

³² Accord Model Penal Code § 2.02(2)(b)(ii) (Official Draft and Revised Comments, 1985); id., Explanatory Note on § 2.02, at 236-37 n.13; United States v. Meling, 47 F.3d 1546, 1558 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 130 (1995); United States v. Powell, 929 F.2d 724, 726, 728 (D.C. Cir. 1991). The government need not prove that the defendant had this level of knowledge with respect to all of the particular details of the future result, such as the identity of those who are harmed. Meling, 47 F.3d at 1558. Thus, under section 323, for example, if a defendant was virtually certain that particular recipients would in fact use the provided resources to commit a terrorist crime, it would be immaterial whether the defendant knew precisely when or where the criminal conduct would occur.

³³ Insofar as it can be argued that Congress intended that "training" be considered a "physical asset" for purposes of the statute, a strong argument could be made that a book containing the substance of such "training" also should be considered a "physical asset." But it is unclear whether a court would adopt this reasoning with respect to a book containing information otherwise readily available in the public domain.

³⁴ It is notable that Congress did not prohibit all knowing or intentional facilitation of civil disorders -- it focused principally on such facilitation accomplished by way of teaching or demonstration. Teaching was not Congress's sole focus, however: Subsection 231(a)(2) makes it unlawful to "transport[] or manufacture[] for transportation in commerce any firearm, or explosive or incendiary device, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be used unlawfully in furtherance of a civil disorder." It appears that Congress simply addressed those forms of facilitation -- teaching (§ 231(a)(1)) and the transport of weapons (§ 231(a)(2)) -- that were the most apparent threats to civil order not already addressed adequately by accomplice and conspiracy prohibitions.

³⁵ In addition, the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona recently brought an indictment under
§ 231(a)(1) against six members of the "Viper" Militia who allegedly had been engaged in, or had conspired to engage in, substantial and detailed training of others in the means by which explosives could be used in civil disorders. United States v. Nelson, et al., Cr-96-280-PHX-EHC (D. Ariz.). In December 1996, all six defendants admitted their guilt. Three defendants pled guilty to a substantive violation of § 231(a)(1), and three others pled guilty to conspiracy to violate § 231(a)(1).

³⁶ Although this is a demanding standard, nonetheless a person teaching the use of explosives cannot avoid culpability by deliberately ignoring facts that would lead him to be aware that the recipient of the teaching is "practically certain" to use it in furtherance of a civil disorder. See generally 1 E. Devitt, C. Blackmar, M. Wolff & K. O'Malley, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 17.09 (4th ed. 1992).

³⁷ See, e.g., 141 Cong. Rec. S7685 (daily ed. June 5, 1995) (statement of Sen. Feinstein); 142 Cong. Rec. S7273 (daily ed. June 28, 1996) (statement of Sen. Feinstein). See also 141 Cong. Rec. S7684-85 (daily ed. June 5, 1996) (statement of Sen. Hatch) (agreeing to inclusion of "intent" requirement in Feinstein Amendment).

³⁸ See, e.g., 141 Cong. Rec. S7685 (daily ed. June 5, 1995) (statement of Sen. Biden) (describing situation where information is sent to a particular person who has expressly indicated that he desires such information so that he can make unlawful use of it); 142 Cong. Rec. S3449 (daily ed. Apr. 17, 1996) (statement of Sen. Biden) (same); 142 Cong. Rec. S7274 (daily ed. June 28, 1996) (statement of Sen. Biden) (same).

³⁹ 141 Cong. Rec. S7683 (daily ed. June 5, 1995) (statement of Sen. Feinstein).

⁴⁰ Id. at S7684-85 (statement of Sen. Hatch); see also id. at S7685 (statement of Sen. Biden) (agreeing with Senator Hatch that explosives manufacturers should not be subject to culpability simply because there is a chance that some persons who receive information from the manufacturers might use that information for unlawful purposes). Senator Hatch apparently was concerned about whether the statute would deter manufacturers from providing lessons on the manufacture and use of explosives. But it should be noted that the Feinstein Amendment would only have restricted the dissemination of information concerning the "making" or "manufacture" of explosive materials, and not the use of such materials.

⁴¹ In addition, Perry followed instructional references from Hit Man in planning and executing the murders, including information about: how to solicit and obtain prospective clients in need of murder-for-hire services; requesting up-front money for expenses; registering at a motel in the vicinity of the crime, paying with cash and using a fake license tag number; committing the murders at the victims' home; how to make the crime scene look like a burglary; cleaning up and carrying away the ejected shells; breaking down the gun and discarding the pieces along the roadside after the murders; and using a rental car with a stolen tag. Id. at 840.

⁴² As explained infra note 71, there was some dispute between the parties as to the meaning of this "intent" stipulation, and the court's resolution of that dispute affected its ultimate constitutional analysis.

⁴³As we explain infra at 39 n.62, 43, 44-45 n.71, we think that the district court's First Amendment analysis in Rice is, in some respects, open to question. Plaintiffs have appealed the district court decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc., No. 96-2412.

⁴⁴ The Feinstein Amendment was addressed to the dissemination by private persons of bombmaking information that has not been classified. Accordingly, our discussion of the First Amendment is limited to situations in which the government seeks to restrict the dissemination of such privately generated, unclassified information. This Report does not discuss in any detail the constitutionality of governmental restrictions on its own employees' activities to ensure that those employees do not disclose classified information belonging to the government itself. See supra note 11. As the Supreme Court explained in Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507, 509 n.3 (1980), such restrictions on employee conduct generally will not violate the First Amendment so long as they are a "reasonable means" of protecting the government's "compelling interest in protecting . . . the secrecy of information important to our national security." See also, e.g., United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 908 (1988); McGehee v. Casey, 718 F.2d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

⁴⁵ See also NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, Inc., 458 U.S. 886, 927-28 (1982).

⁴⁶ See High Ol' Times, Inc. v. Busbee, 456 F. Supp. 1035, 1040 (N.D. Ga. 1978) (no instance in which the written word alone has ever met the Brandenburg test), aff'd, 621 F.2d 141 (5th Cir. 1980). See also Herceg v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 814 F.2d 1017, 1023 (5th Cir. 1987) (questioning, but not deciding, whether the Brandenburg test could ever be satisfied by written materials), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 959 (1988). In the early days of the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence, by contrast, the Court repeatedly held that the Constitution did not protect published, written advocacy of unlawful conduct. See, e.g., Fox v. Washington, 236 U.S. 273 (1915); Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919); Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 (1919); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919); Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925). The reasoning of these cases does not in any significant sense survive Brandenburg. See Brandenburg, 395 U.S. at 449 (expressly overruling Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)).

⁴⁷ The First Amendment would not, however, prohibit the evidentiary use of such advocacy to demonstrate a disseminator's intent in conveying bombmaking information. SeeWisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 489 (1993). Therefore, insofar as criminal culpability for dissemination of such information depends upon the distributors' intent -- for example, upon whether a disseminator of bombmaking manuals had the conscious purpose of helping others to use the information to engage in unlawful conduct, see infra at 40-44 -- the substance of the advocacy in such manuals could be used as material evidence of such intent.

⁴⁸ On occasion, the Court has indicated that this demanding standard applies only to information concerning "`a matter of public significance.'" See, e.g., Florida Star, 491 U.S. at 533 (quoting Smith, 443 U.S. at 103). See alsoDun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 759-61 (1985) (plurality opinion) (speech on matters of "purely private concern" entitled to less First Amendment protection in defamation cases); id. at 764 (Burger, C.J., concurring in pertinent part); id. at 773-74 (White, J., concurring in pertinent part). But see Florida Star, 491 U.S. at 541 (omitting the "matter of public significance" standard in the Court's ultimate holding, quoted in the text above). However, even if speech of "purely private concern" is entitled to a lesser degree of protection, the Court in Florida Star was willing to conclude that the identity of a rape victim is a "matter of public significance." If that is so, it is safe to assume the Court would find that information on how to construct explosives likewise concerns a "matter of public significance."

⁴⁹ In Florida Star, the Court noted that the state's interest in "the physical safety of [rape] victims, who may be targeted for retaliation if their names become known to their assailants," was a "highly significant" interest. 491 U.S. at 537. Presumably, the governmental interest in preventing the havoc caused by explosive-related crimes is at least as, if not more, significant.

⁵⁰ See, e.g., Herceg v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 814 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir. 1987) (First Amendment bars liability against magazine where reader accidentally committed suicide while attempting technique of autoerotic asphyxiation described therein), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 959 (1988); Yakubowicz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 536 N.E.2d 1067 (Mass. 1989) (First Amendment bars liability against producer of motion picture where viewers killed a youth while allegedly imitating the violence depicted therein); DeFilippo v. NBC, Inc., 446 A.2d 1036 (R.I. 1982) (First Amendment bars liability against television network where viewer accidentally committed suicide while attempting hanging stunt he saw on the "Tonight Show"); Olivia N. v. NBC, Inc., 126 Cal. App. 3d 488 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (First Amendment bars liability against television network where viewers raped a minor with a bottle while allegedly imitating such a rape depicted in television drama). See generally Greenawalt, Speech, Crime, supra note 20, at 284-85 (1989):

Certain artistic depictions and portrayals may lead some members of the audience to commit crimes, and that possibility exists in
connection with work that undeniably constitutes expression as well as work whose status is more arguable. Sex and violence, and
particularly violent sex, are the main subjects of concern. . . . These asserted connections are plainly an inadequate basis for holding
the communicators criminally liable for the crimes that may be committed after exposure to the communication. In any real instance, the
most that can be said is that the communicator disregarded a risk that what he said would cause criminal behavior, a risk of which he
was aware or should have been aware. Given the extreme difficulty of estimating that in any particular instance the person who receives
the communication, or even one of an audience of millions, will commit a crime as a consequence, demonstrating a substantial and
unjustifiable risk of the sort needed to establish recklessness or negligence would be very hard. In any event, the First Amendment
would preclude liability on those theories because courts and jurors should not be in the business of assessing the unjustifiability of
risks by engaging in ad hoc weighing of the expressive value of a particular program or communication against the dangers it creates. . . .
The dangers of interference with forms of expression are grave enough also to bar civil recovery when victims of crimes by consumers
sue those responsible for communications on a theory of reckless or negligent causation. For example, if a viewer "acts out" a violent
scene from a television drama, the victim cannot recover against the company that has shown the program. . . . If portrayals in literature,
movies, television, photography, and the fine arts may ever be forbidden or made the subject of civil liability because of a propensity to
cause crimes, the great danger of a particular sort of communication must be powerfully shown, and the proscribed communications must
be very clearly defined.

⁵¹ See, e.g., Smith v. Linn, 563 A.2d 123 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989) (First Amendment barred liability against publisher of diet book after reader died as result of following diet), aff'd mem., 587 A.2d 309 (Pa. 1991); Alm v. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 480 N.E.2d 1263 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985) (First Amendment barred liability against publisher of "how-to" book where reader had been injured while following instructions therein); Walt Disney Productions, Inc. v. Shannon, 276 S.E.2d 580 (Ga. 1981) (First Amendment barred liability against producer and broadcaster of television program where child sustained injuries while seeking to reproduce a sound effect demonstrated for children on "Mickey Mouse Club"). Cf. Winter v. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 938 F.2d 1033 (9th Cir. 1991) ("[g]uided by the First Amendment and the values embodied therein," id. at 1036, court held that mere negligence could not form the basis of liability against book publisher where mushroom enthusiasts became ill from eating mushrooms that the book had described as safe to eat).

⁵² See, e.g., American Booksellers Ass'n v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323, 328-29 (7th Cir. 1985) (statute permitting civil liability against producers of depictions of sexually explicit subordination of women is unconstitutional, even accepting the premises that "[m]en who see women depicted as subordinate are more likely to treat them so" and that people are likely to "act in accordance with the images and patterns" they find in such expression), aff'd mem., 475 U.S. 1001 (1986); Video Software Dealers Ass'n v. Webster, 968 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1992) (invalidating on constitutional grounds state statute prohibiting the sale or rental to minors of videos "depicting violence"); Eclipse Enterprises v. Gulotta, 942 F. Supp. 801 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (invalidating on constitutional grounds local law criminalizing sale to minors of trading cards depicting a "heinous crime, an element of a heinous crime, or a heinous criminal"); Zamora v. CBS, 480 F. Supp. 199 (S.D. Fla. 1979) (First Amendment bars liability against television networks to recover damages where television violence allegedly caused viewer to become addicted and desensitized to violent behavior, resulting in his killing an 83-year-old woman). See also Watters v. TSR, Inc., 715 F. Supp. 819 (W.D. Ky. 1989) (First Amendment bars liability against manufacturer of "Dungeons and Dragons" game for failure to warn, where "mentally fragile" person committed suicide after having become consumed with the role-playing nature and fantasy of the game), aff'd on other grounds, 904 F.2d 378 (6th Cir. 1990). Cf. Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 519 (1948) (invalidating as unconstitutionally vague a criminal law that had been construed to prohibit circulation of publications depicting violence that "influence generally persons to commit crimes of violence against the person").

The results of the First Amendment analysis do not change if these cases are alternatively viewed as involving implied advocacy of undesirable or unlawful conduct. For example, in Kingsley Int'l Pictures Corp. v. Regents of the Univ. of New York, 360 U.S. 684 (1959), the State refused to grant a license for exhibition of the film "Lady Chatterley's Lover," because that film allegedly "present[s] . . . adultery as a desirable, acceptable and proper pattern of behavior." Id. at 685. The Court characterized the State as having "prevent[ed] the exhibition of a motion picture because that picture advocates an idea -- that adultery under certain circumstances may be proper behavior." Id. at 688. Even ten years prior to Brandenburg, the Court held that the Constitution "protects advocacy of the opinion that adultery may sometimes be proper, no less than advocacy of socialism or the single tax." Id. at 689.

⁵³ 491 U.S. at 541. For example, although Florida Star strongly suggests that the government cannot impose "categorical prohibitions," id. at 539, on the dissemination of a prescribed type of information -- without regard to scienter, the reasonableness of the disclosure, the efficacy of the restriction, and the manner in which the State otherwise can prevent the information's disclosure -- the Court nevertheless implied in Florida Star that the First Amendment might permit liability under the common law tort of invasion of privacy for dissemination of true, lawfully obtained information, where the government has not facilitated the disclosure of the information, the information had not previously been publicized, a reasonable person would find the disclosure of the information "highly offensive," and some scienter requirement is satisfied. Id. at 538-40.

⁵⁴ See also Oklahoma Pub. Co. v. District Court, 430 U.S. 308, 311-12 (1977) (per curiam); Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 595-96 (1976) (Brennan, J., concurring):

Much of the information that the Nebraska courts enjoined petitioners from publishing was already in the public domain, having been
revealed in open court proceedings or through public documents. Our prior cases have foreclosed any serious contention that further
disclosure of such information can be suppressed before publication or even punished after publication.

An infamous case in which this principle was put to the test involved the prior restraint imposed upon publication by the periodical the Progressive of an article describing technical processes of thermonuclear weapons. See United States v. Progressive, Inc., 467 F. Supp. 990 (W.D. Wis.), rehearing denied, 486 F. Supp. 5 (W.D. Wis.), appeal dismissed, 610 F.2d 819 (7th Cir. 1979). While there is, to this day, substantial debate about whether the prior restraint violated the First Amendment, the district judge in that case acknowledged that such a restraint could be imposed, if at all, only because significant and dangerous information in the article was not "in the public realm." 467 F. Supp. at 993, 999. "[N]owhere in the public domain is there a correct description of the type of design used in United States thermonuclear weapons." Id. at 999. (The information at issue in that case had been classified as "Restricted Data," id. at 998, although the author of the article had not had access to any classified documents. See supra note 12 (discussing "Restricted Data" under the Atomic Energy Act).) The magazine moved for rehearing on the ground that the information was in fact in the public domain; but the district court once more found that the article "contains a comprehensive description of radiation coupling, along with [two] other . . . key concepts, that is not found in the public realm." 486 F. Supp. at 9. The plain import of the district court's decisions is that the prior restraint could not be imposed if the critical information were, in fact, "in the public realm." The government seemed to concede this point: During pendency of the Progressive's appeal of the prior restraint, the substance of the article was published in other journals, see L.A. Powe, Jr., The H-Bomb Injunction, 61 U. Colo. L. Rev. 55, 70 (1990), at which time the government moved for dismissal of the appeal, see 610 F.2d 819. Thereafter, the Progressive published the article, and the government never attempted to prosecute anyone for publication of the information after such information was in the public domain.

⁵⁵ Brandenburg, 395 U.S. at 456 (Douglas, J., concurring).

⁵⁶A related principle is that generally applicable common-law causes of action typically will not offend the First Amendment in cases where they are applied to expressive conduct such as publication or broadcast. See, e.g., Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991) (First Amendment does not bar liability for breach of contract where defendant newspaper published confidential source's name); Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977) (First Amendment does not bar liability for tort of unlawful appropriation of "right to publicity" where television station broadcast "human cannonball" act in its entirety). However, it should be noted that the First Amendment does impose significant limits on the use of a "generally applicable" cause of action where an element of that cause of action inevitably (or almost always) depends on the communicative impact of speech or expression. See, e.g., Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) (First Amendment generally does not permit liability, under the generally applicable tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, for publication of a parody of a public figure). See also Cohen, 501 U.S. at 671 (distinguishing Hustler).

⁵⁷ See generally Greenawalt, Speech, Crime, supra note 20.

⁵⁸ Accord United States v. Mendelsohn, 896 F.2d 1183, 1186 (9th Cir. 1990) ("No first amendment defense need be permitted when words are more than mere advocacy, `so close in time and purpose to a substantive evil as to become part of the crime itself.'") (citation omitted); United States v. Barnett, 667 F.2d 835, 842 (9th Cir. 1982) ("The first amendment does not provide a defense to a criminal charge simply because the actor uses words to carry out his illegal purpose. Crimes . . . frequently involve the use of speech as part of the criminal transaction."). This rationale applies, for instance, to conspiracies and other unlawful agreements. SeeBrown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45, 55 (1982): "The fact that . . . an [unlawful] agreement necessarily takes the form of words does not confer upon it, or upon the underlying conduct, the constitutional immunities that the First Amendment extends to speech." See alsoUnited States v. Rowlee, 899 F.2d 1275, 1278 (2d Cir.) (First Amendment does not protect speech acts constituting an illegal conspiracy), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 828 (1990); United States v. Fleschner, 98 F.3d 155, 158-59 (4th Cir. 1996) (First Amendment does not protect speech acts in furtherance of an illegal conspiracy).

⁵⁹ Accord Barnett, 667 F.2d at 842-43; United States v. Buttorff, 572 F.2d 619, 623-24 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 906 (1978).

⁶⁰ See Greenawalt, Speech, Crime, supra note 20, at 85:

Much more commonly than people commit noncommunicative crimes "purely" by communication, they cooperate, by talking, in the
commission of crimes that involve noncommunicative acts. . . . The reasons of ordinary penal policy for covering communicative efforts
to carry out ordinary crimes are obvious, and the criminal law sensibly draws no distinction between communicative and other acts.
Although assertions of fact generally fall within a principle of freedom of speech, what these sorts of factual statements contribute to
the general understanding of listeners is minimal, and the justifications from free speech that apply to speakers do not reach
communications that are simply means to get a crime successfully committed. The relevance of free speech is so slight in respect
to such highly specific information related to an immediate practical purpose that it can be disregarded here.

⁶¹ For cases recognizing this distinction, see, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 952 F.2d 565, 578 n.13 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 816 (1992); Rowlee, 899 F.2d at 1279-80; Freeman, 761 F.2d at 552; Buttorff, 572 F.2d at 624 (defendants went "beyond mere advocacy": they "explained how to avoid withholding"); People v. Bohmer, 120 Cal. Rptr. 136, 144 n.1 (Cal. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 990 (1975). See also Greenawalt, Speech, Crime, supra note 20, at 247 n.13. In Freeman, for example, Justice (then Judge) Kennedy concluded that, because some of the counts of the indictment arguably were premised on the defendant's abstract advocacy of tax evasion, a Brandenburg-like jury instruction was appropriate for such counts. Id. at 551-52. But where the defendant directly counseled someone on how to file false tax returns, "a First Amendment defense is foreclosed even if the prosecution rests on words alone." Id. at 552. Conversely, advocacy of unlawful conduct is entitled to the protection of the Brandenburg test, which cannot be circumvented merely by labeling such advocacy as "aiding and abetting." See, e.g., Gay Lesbian Bisexual Alliance v. Sessions, 917 F. Supp. 1548, 1556 (M.D. Ala. 1996). See also Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 133 (1966). In this regard, it is worth noting that the general federal aiding and abetting statute -- 18 U.S.C. § 2 -- punishes as a principal whoever "counsels" a federal offense. See supra note 22. We are not aware of any modern case in which culpability under § 2 was premised solely on "counseling" in the form of encouragement (or advocating that a crime be committed), without any actual aid or assistance to the principal. Insofar as § 2 were construed to permit culpability in such a "pure" advocacy situation, it is likely -- at least absent special circumstances, such as implicit coercion or a fiduciary relationship between the pertinent parties -- that the prosecution would be required to satisfy the Brandenburg standards. See also supra note 20.

⁶² The district court in Rice v. Paladin, see supra at 27-28, thus erred in concluding that the Brandenburg standard applies to speech "which advocates or teaches lawless activity." 940 F. Supp. at 845 (emphasis added). As we explain in the text, the constitutional analysis can differ quite a bit depending on whether a case involves the "advocacy" or the "teaching" of lawless activity.

⁶³ As Professor Emerson suggests, there may not always be a bright line between "advising" a group of persons that they should engage in criminal conduct and "teaching" that same group specific techniques that the teacher intends for the group to use in such crimes: in particular factual circumstances, these are likely to be two points on a fluid continuum of conduct. Whether a particular instance of teaching will fall outside the Brandenburg protections for advocacy likely will depend on the "explicitness and concreteness" of the teaching. Scales, 367 U.S. at 253. Teaching "in the abstract" the philosophical or political beliefs of a certain author is constitutionally protected, see id. at 252 n.27; while, on the other end of the scale, instruction on how to use a pencil to kill a person in the case of an uprising, see id. at 250-51, is not protected (at least insofar as the teacher intends for the students to make use of such a technique). Somewhere in the middle are cases having aspects both of advocacy and of "teaching." For instance, exhorting a crowd of young men to "avoid the draft by feigning insanity (or burning your draft cards)" in some sense "teaches" the audience a method of unlawful conduct; but it does not really provide the audience any information it does not already know, and thus probably should more appropriately be viewed as a form of advocacy entitled to some constitutional solicitude (albeit not as much as that to which "pure" advocacy is entitled).

⁶⁴ See also Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19, 27-28 (1941) (in order to avoid a serious constitutional question, Court construes "intent" requirement in espionage statute dealing with dissemination of information to "require[] those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith") (emphasis added).

⁶⁵Perhaps the First Amendment would impose a requirement that there be some realistic risk that the crime will occur. For example, if the information is conveyed to persons who would not under any circumstances use it for unlawful ends, the threat of danger is so remote that the speech arguably should not be punished regardless of bad intent. Courts might find, for example, that culpability can attach only where the defendant both intended and had reason to believe that the information would or could be unlawfully used. Cf. United States v. Dworken, 855 F.2d 12, 19 & n.6 (1st Cir. 1988).

⁶⁶ It is important once again to distinguish training with bad intent from advocacy with bad intent. Though a purpose to facilitate a crime is sufficient to permit punishment of the former, such a bad purpose is necessary but not sufficient when it comes to restrictions on pure advocacy; in the latter case, Brandenburg imposes the additional requirements (i) that the speech be directed to inciting imminent crime, and (ii) that such imminent wrongdoing is likely to occur, in fact.

⁶⁷ For example, the cases where a private party has sought to impose tort liability on the basis of "negligent" or "reckless" publication or broadcast, see supra at 31-33 & notes 50-53, have not involved situations where the publisher or broadcaster had the purpose of fomenting criminal conduct. Such intent is present in aiding-and-abetting and conspiracy cases, but in those cases, the person providing the information is, in a much more direct sense, actually participating with the recipient of the information in the performance of an illegal act.

The precedents that come closest to the situation described in the text are the aiding-and-abetting decisions in Buttorff and Barnett. See supra note 24. In Buttorff, the court of appeals rejected a First Amendment argument where the "joint participation" consisted of tax-evasion instructions that defendants provided at "large public gatherings," presumably to persons they did not personally meet. 572 F.2d at 622-23. In Barnett, a First Amendment argument was rejected (albeit in the context of determining whether there was probable cause for a warrant to search premises) where the only contact between the accomplice and the principal was that the latter received from the former mail-order instructions for the manufacture of phencyclidine, along with the name of a "reliable" chemical supplier, in exchange for the $10 purchase price. 667 F.2d at 840. As explained in note 24, supra, there is some question whether aiding and abetting can be established by virtue of arms-length transactions such as those in Buttorff and (especially) Barnett. But that is quite a different question than whether the Constitution would bar such culpability. Insofar as those cases hold that there is no First Amendment defense for transmission of information with the intent to facilitate crimes, they are consistent with the conclusion we reach in the text above.

⁶⁸ The recent case of United States v. Aguilar, 115 S. Ct. 2357 (1995), provides further support for permitting prohibition of improperly motivated publication of dangerous instructional information. The defendant in that case urged a narrow construction of a statute banning disclosure of wiretap authorizations, on the ground that a broad reading of the statute would threaten to violate the principle that "the government may not generally restrict individuals from disclosing information that lawfully comes into their hands in the absence of a `state interest of the highest order.'" Id. at 2365 (quoting Smith, 443 U.S. at 103). The Court, while endorsing that basic principle, nonetheless rejected defendants' argument, in part on the ground that "the statute here in question does not impose such a restriction generally, but only upon those who disclose wiretap information `in order to [ob]struct, impede, or prevent'" a wiretap interception. Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C.
§ 2232(c)).

There are many other contexts, as well, in which First Amendment protection depends upon whether a speaker has some "bad" intent, rather than on the degree of harm that the speech might cause. For example, advocacy of unlawful action will be treated very differently under Brandenburg depending on whether it is "directed to" inciting imminent unlawful conduct, even though such a bad intent does not ordinarily increase the threat to public safety. Similarly, under the earlier Smith Act cases, the Court, in order to avoid serious constitutional questions, strained to construe the Act to require bad intent, even though such intent should not have been relevant if, as the Court insisted, the touchstone for constitutional analysis was the risk of a "clear and present danger." See, e.g., Scales, 367 U.S. at 221-22, 229-30; Dennis, 341 U.S. at 499-500 (plurality opinion). See alsoid. at 516 (defendants' intent and their "power to bring about the evil" were separate necessary elements of the offense). And, most famously, the First Amendment prohibits imposition of liability for publication of a false and defamatory statement about a public figure, unless the publisher acts with "actual malice," i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. See, e.g., Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 510 (1991); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964). Similarly, the Court in Florida Star suggested that, whereas the categorical prohibition on the publication of rape victims' names at issue in that case was unconstitutional, the constitutional calculus might be different if the statute included a scienter requirement. 491 U.S. at 539.

⁶⁹ See Greenawalt, Speech, Crime, supra note 20, at 273: "The constitutional standard here should be that a person intend that the crime be committed and that it be reasonably likely that it will be committed in the `near future.'" See also supra note 65.

⁷⁰ See 141 Cong. Rec. S7683 (daily ed. June 5, 1995) (statement of Sen. Feinstein) (describing instructions from the Terrorist Handbook for construction of items -- such as "toilet paper roll booby traps" and "baby food bombs" --- the sole purpose for which allegedly is "to kill somebody"). Cf. Posters 'n' Things, Ltd. v. United States, 511 U.S. 513, 521 & n.11 (1994) (construing statutory prohibition on sale of items "primarily intende. . . for use" with drugs to cover "multiple-use" items for which the "likely use" by "customers generally" is drug-related).

⁷¹ In a civil case, on the other hand, Professor Greenawalt's concern about constraining juries' discretion would be more directly implicated, but the First Amendment should be no bar where an improper intent is proved by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., Masson, 501 U.S. at 510; Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 342 (1974). In Rice v. Paladin itself, the publishers of Hit Man had no specific knowledge that they had sold the book to particular persons who planned to commit a crime. Therefore, for reasons discussed in this Report, the First Amendment would permit liability to attach only if defendants had the requisite "intent" that Hit Man be used to facilitate crimes. For purposes of summary judgment, defendants stipulated that they "intended" that "their publications would be used, upon receipt, by criminals and would-be criminals to plan and execute the crime of murder for hire, in the manner set forth in the publications." Joint Statement of Facts ¶ 4b (referenced at 940 F. Supp. at 840). That concession would, for purposes of summary judgment, seem to foreclose a constitutional defense, except for the fact that defendants argued (in their briefs) that all they meant by this stipulation of "intent" was that they "knew" the information contained in Hit Man would be read and used by an audience that includes criminals. See Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant Paladin Enterprises, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, at 14; Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant Paladin Enterprises, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, at 14-15. In other words, defendants argued that they had stipulated to "intent" only in the sense that that concept is understood in the civil tort context: i.e., one "intends" the natural consequences of one's acts. Accordingly, defendants argued, they only "intended" that Hit Man would be used for unlawful purposes in the same way that Stephen King "intends" his novels will be used for unlawful purposes: in both cases, the publisher allegedly "knows" that publication likely will "produce" unlawful conduct by some, unknown, reader or readers. Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant Paladin Enterprises, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, at 15. As we have explained in this memorandum, the First Amendment does not permit a publisher of factual information to be subject to liability merely on the basis of this type of "intent." See supra at 30-34. Invoking this principle, the district court in Rice granted Paladin's motion for summary judgment, but only because the court accepted Paladin's representation that the stipulation of "intent" meant only that Paladin "knew" that some readers would misuse the book's information. 940 F. Supp. at 846.

However, even assuming arguendo that the defendants' own construction of the "intent" stipulation were correct, that still would not justify the grant of summary judgment, since it would leave unanswered the question whether Paladin also had the specific purpose of facilitating murder. Paladin stipulated (for purposes of summary judgment) that it engaged in a marketing strategy intended to maximize sales to the public, including to "criminals and would-be criminals who desire information and instructions on how to commit crimes." As we explain in the text, if Paladin in effect encourages unlawful use of its product so that it can increase its profits -- for instance, if Hit Man is "offered for sale in such a mode as purposely to attract purchasers who want[] [it] for the unlawful [use]," Danovitz, 281 U.S. at 397 -- or if there is other evidence that Paladin publishes Hit Man with the actual purpose of furthering criminal conduct, the publisher might be found to have sold Hit Man for the purpose of facilitating murder. If the finder of fact determined that that "intent" was proved by clear and convincing evidence, the First Amendment should not bar liability. We also should note, however, that, wholly apart from the First Amendment question, it is not clear whether the plaintiffs in Rice alleged a cognizable "aiding and abetting" tort claim under Maryland law, a question that we have no occasion to address. But see supra note 24 (discussing whether, under federal criminal law, aiding and abetting can be established by virtue of arms-length transactions with anonymous purchasers).

⁷² See also Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1004 (1996); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 506.080 (Baldwin 1996); N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-06-02 (1995).

⁷³ As far as we can tell, there are no published opinions concerning the use of such statutes to prosecute facilitation committed by way of conveying information, nor have such statutes ever been the subject of a First Amendment challenge.

⁷⁴ Similar prohibitions using a "reasonable cause to believe that the product will be unlawfully used" standard are found in statutes dealing with chemicals and equipment that can be used to produce controlled substances. See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(d)(2) (distribution of chemicals), 843(a)(7) (distribution and export of chemicals, equipment, and other products), 960(d)(3),(4) (export of chemicals).

⁷⁵ See supra note 50 (quoting Greenawalt, Speech, Crime, supra note 20, at 284-85).

⁷⁶ See also, e.g., United States v. Hayden, 64 F.3d 126, 133 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Caminos, 770 F.2d 361, 365-66 (3d Cir. 1985)); United States v. Honeycutt, 8 F.3d 785, 787 (11th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1024 (1994); United States v. Feroz, 848 F.2d 359, 360 (2d Cir. 1988); United States v. Corral-Martinez, 592 F.2d 263, 269-70 (5th Cir. 1979). This standard is derived from § 2.02(7) of the Model Penal Code:

When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a
high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist.

The Ninth Circuit recently held that the § 2.02(7) "aware of a high probability" standard is appropriate "only in situations where the evidence justifies an argument of willful blindness," and that absent a willful blindness situation the government must prove that the defendant had "actual knowledge or awareness" of the existence of the fact constituting an element of an offense. United States v. Aguilar, 80 F.3d 329, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). We take issue with this holding. The Model Penal Code definition of "knowledge" conforms to the common understanding of knowledge, and that definition should be used regardless of whether a case involves an issue of "willful blindness." See Jonathan L. Marcus, Note, Model Penal Code Section 2.02(7) and Willful Blindness, 102 Yale L.J. 2231 (1993). To require that a criminal defendant achieve certainty before he can be said to "know" an operative fact would preclude conviction in virtually any case in which a defendant has committed an offense in reliance on information supplied by others. But most of what we "know" as historical fact has been related to us orally or in writing. Indeed, as Justice (then Judge) Kennedy explained in a case involving a related question:

[W]e commonly act on less than complete information and in this world may never know one-hundred-percent certainty. "`Absolute
knowledge can be had of very few things,' said the Massachusetts court, and the philosopher might add `if any.' For most practical
purposes, "knowledge" `is not confined to what we have personally observed or to what we have evolved by our own cognitive
faculties.'"

United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 706 n.6 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (9th Cir.) (quoting Rollin M. Perkins, Criminal Law 775 (2d ed. 1969) (internal citations omitted)), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 951 (1976).

⁷⁷See, e.g., Leary, 395 U.S. at 47 (defendant's "knowledge" that marijuana was imported can be established if supplier told defendant the source of the drugs).

⁷⁸ For example, persons who, with no bad intent, post information to certain Usenet newsgroups on the Internet may have reason to know that a certain subscriber to that service often expresses intense hatred of the government. While it is uncertain whether a fact-finder would conclude that such knowledge constitutes "reasonable cause to believe that [that subscriber] will use such information for, or in furtherance of," a crime, the chill caused by the risk of such a finding would raise significant First Amendment questions, because, unless there were a way to prevent access to the suspicious person, the content-provider might have little choice but to cease her "postings" altogether. Similarly, a person demonstrating the proper use of explosives to a classroom full of well-intentioned students (or purchasers of the product) may sense that a particular student seems suspicious, or may discover that one listener asks questions that might subtly suggest an improper motive for wanting to learn the techniques in question. The possible application of a facilitation prohibition to such a case might well cause the teacher to cease instruction (or, at the very least, exclude the suspicious-looking persons, where that is feasible). Because of this possibility, courts might be more inclined to question the constitutionality of the prohibition.

⁷⁹ Moreover, as Professor Greenawalt argues, it is unlikely that the First Amendment would permit criminal culpability to attach on a "facilitation" theory absent the speaker's knowledge of a substantial risk that the communication will facilitate a crime:

My own sense is that a legislature may appropriately accept whatever curtailment of expression is involved in a prohibition on
facilitation that the actor believes is likely . . . . However, a principle of free speech provides a powerful reason why liability should not
extend to all negligent or reckless acts of communication, that is, to situations where the speaker is wholly unaware of the use to be
made of what he says or thinks there is only some modest risk it will be used for a criminal purpose.

Greenawalt, Speech, Crime, supra note 20, at 87.

⁸⁰ In order to be sustained under the First Amendment, the "intent" scienter requirement in this prohibition must be understood to refer to cases where the person disseminating the information has a "conscious purpose" that it be used unlawfully, or (at the very least) a material stake in seeing that it be used for such purposes. "Intent" should not be construed to encompass cases where criminal activity is not in fact the intended result, but is merely a "foreseeable" result, or a "natural consequence," of the publication of the information in question. Seesupra at 30-34, 40.

⁸¹ In order to avoid a chilling effect on protected speech, courts might construe such a prohibition as limited to cases where it is reasonably likely that the information will in fact facilitate such criminal conduct. See supra at 43 & note 69.

Return to . . . CCIPS home page || Justice Department home page

Updated page March 22, 1999

usdoj-crm/mis/mdf

Police Tactics and How To Defeat Them

2006-08-08T12:27:00.000-07:00

Police Tactics and How To Defeat Them

The local, state and federal governments have unlimited tax dollars to use to control crowds at demonstrations and insurrections. We must develop ways to combat these technologies, and although we are in reality in a fight against technology, it would be naive to think we can use spears against these maniacs. Therefore, we need to find ways to eliminate police tactics. The following information are some common used tactics and best effective ways to beat them.

Riot Cop Gear and Equipment

To crush protests, police departments all over the world have invented countless methods. Some are new, others only adaptations of battle tactics from the ancient times. Just as importantly, new and much improved equipment has been issued to riot police squads, making them nearly unstoppable. On the right you can see how a regular American riot cop looked like at Seattle. In most European countries, similar equipment is used, although full body armor is not standard yet, therefore Plexiglas shields are used.

Much like a renaissance knight, a modern riot cop is wearing full body armor, heavy boots and a large helmet completely encasing the head and neck. He is practically invulnerable even to the hardest punches and kicks, as well as moderately protected against fire. Armed with a long baton and those killer boots, he can attack aggressively and efficiently.

What makes such a riot cop really effective, though, is constant radio communication. As you can see from the picture, each cop has two radio sets, one in the helmet and another for backup. This allows the riot police to coordinate their moves and sweep the streets with ease. If extra firepower is necessary, they can fire tear gas, rubber bullets or even deploy armored vehicles and water cannons.

Police Tactics and Their Defeat

Anyone with some knowledge of history can clearly see that most crowd control tactics are simply copied from ancient warfare. Riot police fight much like a Macedonian phalanx would back in 330 BC. There are adaptations, of course, but the basic concept is the same, meaning that similar countermeasures that had caused the demise of the phalanx as a military unit would have a similar effect if deployed nowadays against the police.
Most of the time, riot police are deployed in a long line formation, usually standing in front of important buildings or blocking streets. When these line formations are present, they are usually just one man deep, especially when they stand to protect property (see picture). These line formations only work when each officer is standing side by side to eachother. When dealing with narrow paths and small sidewalks, large obstacles (barricades) will split these line formations and cause their entire formation to fall apart.
When line formations have already formed, you can run your line into theirs.If they feel threatened, they can increase the distance between them and the protesters by firing tear gas, stun grenades and rubber bullets. Tear gas and pepper spray are also used to disperse crowds or at least soften them up prior to an attack. This where gas masks and shields come in. The police will not disperse any chemical agents unless they are wearing gas masks themselves. If they are wearing masks, and the Bloc is less than 20 feet away from the police formation, they will not fire tear gas cannisters because it may be damaging to the officers' safety. They will however disperse pepper spray. To protect yourself from being directly hit with pepper spray, shields are a good idea. Click here for shield construction methods. When pepper spray is dispersed in an area, it can cause lung and throat difficulties to everyone surrounding it, even if they have not been directly sprayed. For this, a large cloth soaked in vinegar works great. Make sure that you carry plenty of water. When you are sprayed or gassed, pour lots of water over the exposed area. Gas masks are another alternative, yet are not always safe, being that they are illegal and can get you a nice conspiracy charge.
In attack, the line formation usually advances only after tear gas has been fired. On the move, policemen tend to march fairly slowly, not just because of the heavy armor but because they have to maintain the original formation at all costs. Only if the protesters are fleeing the scene will they sometimes try to chase them down.

First of all, it soon became apparent that no government could suppress large-scale protests just with the elite riot police. Their equipment was just too expensive and inevitably, regular police forces had to be called in as well. Of course, riot police was always tasked with guarding only the vital objectives while the regular police would normally just perform less important duty. Protesters would often take advantage of that and split themselves in two groups. One would attack the poorly defended positions by hurling rocks and firebombs. Since regular police could not sustain that for any longer period of time, the riot police would have to come to their aid. Then the second group of protesters would attack the now much weakened main objectives and possibly seize them.
If more aggressive approach was desired, one group of protesters would lead the police in a trap by making a quick assault and falling back immediately afterwards, as if fleeing the scene. The police would usually pursue them haphazardly, falling easy prey to a flanking attack of other protesters who would suddenly rush out from side streets.

Barricades

Barricades are a great tool in creating chaos in the streets. When line formations start to advance on the Bloc, or when vehicles are called in (like the armored tank in Seattle), barricades are a great way to stop them. Barricades can be created out of just about anything. In the past, the concrete has been torn from the ground and piled up in the streets. Construction sites have those neat little barricades that can be stolen at night time. Take one and add your own things to it: barbed wire, bricks, basically anything that is heavy. You can also liberate police barricades from the scene and pile them up. Cars can be wonderful barricades and can be easily set on fire. Once again, be creative. Its not that hard to make a wonderful barricade.

Unarresting during a protest

2006-08-08T12:26:00.000-07:00

Unarresting

Unless you've been living in a primitivist mud hut your entire life, you know that going to demonstrations comes with the chance of arrest, especially with the Black Bloc. Unarresting is the practice of pulling our comrades back into safety from the arms of the officers.

Unarresting is a serious topic that needs to be discussed and practiced. It works best when we act fearless and the police are outnumbered. Here are some scenarios and possible solutions when unarresting:

Most Blocs use the tactic of linking arms. This way, when an officer tries to pull one of us away, it makes it difficult to pull the individual from the arms of another participant. Example

Often times, a demonstrator will get isolated from the group and suddenly be taken by an officer. Make sure that you and your affinity are on alert at all times for possible stragglers. Dont let anyone stray from the group! If someone does happen to stray and be detained, there are some things you can do if you act quickly. Quickly let everyone know what is happening and have your affinity run to the area of the situation. If the cop does not back away by the time you arrive to this situation, your group can fall on top of the person like a dog pile and more people will gather around the situation. Make sure you do not harm the person you are attempting to unarrest. You can also get a few people to simply pull him away from the officer.

Remember! Unarresting someone is a very risky circumstance. In some cases, you can be given a harsher charge than the person you are unarresting. Be smart. Dont get caught!

These days, police use the plastic zip ties instead of handcuffs for the basic reason that they are too expensive. When you go to a demonstration, put some fingernail clippers in your back pocket or an accessible place on your body. When the time is right, simply cut the ties and run like hell!

Security Culture

2006-08-08T12:24:00.000-07:00

Online Auction BusinessMake your own web siteturnkey websitephoto album sharingviral videos funny photosonline advertising internet agencyinternet marketing buy web trafficturnkey website online business opportunityonline auction
Security Culture

The first step in recognizing security risks in a community is working towards creating a security culture. Below we have compiled some relevant materials and links that should be used in conducting security workshops and educating activists that you work with. As our direct action movement becomes more effective, government harassment will only increase. To minimize the destructiveness of this government harassment, it is imperative that we create a "security culture" within our movement. Violations of security culture include behavior is inappropriate because it intensifies government harassment, jeopardizes the freedom of other activists, and destroys the trust within the movement.
Security Culture: What is it, Why we need it and How to Implement it...

Luddites; liberationists; abolitionists; union organizers; revolutionaries... From large uprisings challenging the entire political structure, to isolated environmental and social struggles, people have constanly worked to create a better world. To government the response has always been to jail activists and revolutionaries using the courts and the police forces at hand.

As direct action movements become more effective, government surveillance and harassment will increase. To minimize the destructiveness of this political repression, it is imperative that we create a security culture within our movement.

This pamphlet is essential reading for anyone who is associated with groups that advocate and/or utilize sabotage, theft, arson and more militant tactics. The advice herein also applies to anyone who is associated with groups that practice civil disobedience, especially since membership often overlaps and gossip travels freely between groups.

Even if you have never picked up a monkeywrench or been arrested, even if you think you have nothing to hide, these guidelines will enhance your personal safety as well as the movement¹s overall effectiveness. Surveillance has been set up on all sections of political movements in the past. Governments in the western industrialized world have targeted groups that have advocated sabotage and groups that have not, movements that have been militant and movements that have been markedly pacificst. The government¹s security machinery serves political and economic objectives, and there are over 250 political prisoners in Canada and the US that can testify to this from firsthand experience. By adoption a security culture, we can defeat various counterintelligence operations that would otherwise disrupt both mainstream organizing and underground resistance.

SO WHAT IS A SECURITY CULTURE?

It¹s a culture where the people know their rights and, more importantly, assert them. Those who belong to a security culture also know what behaviour compromises security and they are quick to educate those people who, out of ignorance, forgetfulness, or personal weakness, partake in insecure behaviour. This security consciousness becomes a culture when the group as a whole makes security violations socially and morally unacceptable in the group.

WHAT NOT TO SAY

To begin with, there are certain things that are inappropriate to discuss.

These things include:

-Your involvement or someone else¹s involvement with an undergound group
-Someone else¹s desire to get involved with such a group
-Asking others if they are a member of an underground group
-Your participation or someone else¹s participating in any action that was illegal
-Someone else¹s advocacy for such actions
-Your plans or someone else¹s plans for a future action

Can you see a pattern? What all of these are stating is this: it is wrong to speak about a specific individual's involvement (past, present or future) with illegal activities. These are unacceptable topics of discussion regardless of whether it is rumor, speculation or personal knowledge. Please note: no one is claiming it is wrong to speak about direct action in general terms. It is perfectly legal, secure and desirable that people speak out in support of mokeywrenching and all forms of resistance. The danger lies in linking individual activists to specific actions or groups.

THREE EXCEPTIONS

There are only three times that it is acceptable to speak about this information. The first situation would be if you were planning an action with other members of your small group (your ³cell² or ³affinity group²). However, you would never discuss these things over the Internet (email), phone line, through the mail, or in an activist's home or car, as these places and forms of communication are frequently monitored. The only people who should hear this discussion would include those who are actively partaking in the action. Anyone who is not involved does not need to know and, therefore, should not know.

The second exception occures after an activists has been arrested and brought to trial. If she is found guilty, this activist can freely speak of the actions for which she was convicted. However, she must never give information that would help the authorities determine who else participated in illegal activities.

The third exception is for anonymous letters and interviews with the media. This must be done very carefully and without compromising security. Advice on secure communication techniques can be found in other publications.

Those are the only situations when it is appropriate to speak about your own or someone else's involvement or intent to commit illegal direct action.

SECURITY MEASURES

Veteran activists only allow a select few to know about their involvement with direct action groups. And those few consist of the cell members who they do the actions with AND NO ONE ELSE!

The reason for these security precautions is quite obvious: if people don't know anything, they can't talk about it. It also means that only the people who know the secret can also face jail time if the secret gets out. But when activists who do not share the same serious consequences knows who did an illegal direct action, they are far more likely to talk after being harassed and intimidated by the authorities, because they are not the ones who will go to jail. Even those people who are trustworthy can often be tricked by the authorities into revealing damaging and incriminating information. So it is safest for all cell members to keep their involvement in the group amongst themselves. The fewer people who know, the less evidence there is to bust them.

SECURITY VIOLATING BEHAVIOURS

In an attempts to impress others, activists may behave in ways that compromise security. Some people do this frequently - they are habitually gossiping and bragging. Some activists say inappropriate things only when they consume alcohol. Many activists make occasional breeches of security because there was a momentary temptation to say something or hint at something that shouldn¹t have been said or implied. In most every situation, the desire to be accepted is the root cause.
Those people who tend to be the greatest security risks are those activists who have low self-esteem and strongly desire the approval of their peers. Certainly it is natural to seek friendship and recognition for our efforts, but it is imperative that we keep these selfish desires in-check so we do not jeopardize the safety of other activists or ourselves. People who place their desire for friendship over the importance of the cause can do serious damage to our security.

The following are examples of security-violating behaviours:

Lying: To impress others, liars claim to have done illegal actions. Such lies not only compromise the person's security--as cops will not take what is said as a lie--but also hinders movement solidarity and trust.

Gossiping: Some weak characters think they can winare privy to special information. These gossips will tell others about who did what action or, if they don't know who did it, guess at who they think did what actions or just spread rumors about who did it. This sort of talk is very damaging. People need to remember that rumors are all that are needed to instigate a grand jury.

Bragging: Some people who partake in illegal direct action might be tempted to brag about it to their friends. If someone did such a thing, it would not only jeopardize the bragger's security, but also that of the other people involved with the action (as they may be suspected by association), as well as the people who he told (they can become accessories after the fact). An activist who brags also sets a horrible example to other activists.

Indirect-Bragging: Indirect-braggers are people who make a big production on how they want to remain anonymous, avoid protests, and stay "underground." They might not come out and say that they do illegal direct action, but they make sure everyone within ear-shot knows they are up to something. They are no better than braggers, but they try to be more sophisticated about it by pretending to maintain "security." However, if they were serious about security, they would just make up a good excuse as to why they are not as active, or why they can't make it to the protest (that kind of lying is acceptable).

EDUCATE TO LIBERATE

With what we now know about security, it is easy to spot those activists who compromise our movement¹s security. So what do we do with people who exhibit these behaviours? Do we excommunicate them from our movement? Actually, no--at least, not for a first offense.

The unfortunate truth is there are numerous security-ignorant people in the movement and others who have possibly been raised in a "scene" that thrives on bragging and gossiping. It doesn't mean these people are bad, but it does mean they need to be educated. Even seasoned activists can make mistakes when there is a general lack of security consciousness inour gruops. And that¹s where those of you who are reading this can help. We must NEVER let a breach in security occur without acting to correct it. If an acquaintance of yours is bragging about doing an action or spreading security-compromising gossip, it is your responsibility to explain to her or him why that sort of talk violates security and is inappropriate.

You should strive to educate this person in a manner that encourages him to listen and to change his behaviour. It should be done without damaging his pride. You should be humble and sincerely interested in helping him to become a better person and a more effective activists. Do not maintain a "holier than-thou" attitude. This attitude will inevitably raise his defenses and prevent him from absorbing or using any of the advice you offer. Remember, the goal of educating people is to change their behavior, not boost your ego by showing them how much more security-conscious you are.

If possible the educational session be done in private, so the person does not have to contend with the humiliation of a public reprimand. The educational reprimand should also be done as soon as possible after the mistake to increase its effectiveness.

If each of us takes on the responsibility of educating those who slip up, we can dramatically improve movement security. Once people recognize lying, gossiping, bragging, and indirect-bragging as the damaging character-flaws that they are, they will soon end. When we develop a culture where all breaches of security result in an immediate reprimand, all sincere activists will quickly get with the program.

DEALING WITH CHRONIC SECURITY PROBLEMS

So what do we do with activists who repeatedly violate security precautions even after multiple educational sessions? It's unfortunate, but the best thing to do with these people is cut them loose and kick them out of our meetings, basecamps and organizations. With law enforcement budgets on the increase and with courts handing down long sentences for political ³crimes², the stakes are too high to allow chronic security-offenders to work among us.

The Coward's Guide to Self-Defense

2006-08-08T12:18:00.000-07:00

_
| | | | __ | |\ \ __
_____________ _/_/ | | \ \ _/_/ _____________
| ___________ _/_/ | | \ \ _/_/ ___________ |
| | _/_/_____ | | > > _/_/_____ | |
| | /________/ | | / / /________/ | |
| | | | / / | |
| | | |/ / | |
| | | | / | |
| | | / | |
| | |_/ | |
| | | |
| | c o m m u n i c a t i o n s | |
| |________________________________________________________________| |
|____________________________________________________________________|

...presents... The Coward's Guide to Self-Defense
by Sunspot
01/01/1996-#306

__///////\ -cDc- CULT OF THE DEAD COW -cDc- /\\\\\\\__
\\\\\\\/ Everything You Need Since 1986 \///////
___ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ ___
|___heal_the_sick___raise_the_dead___cleanse_the_lepers___cast_out_demons___|

First of all, if you think that this is another one of those macho
self-defense karate martial art articles which will teach you how to kick butt
like Bruce Lee in only 10 minutes (or however long it takes you to read this),
then you have another thing coming.

Let me explain right off the bat that I have no intention of teaching you
how to defend yourself in the event that you are actually in the situation of
being:

a)mugged
b)attacked
c)viciously insulted
d)whistled at
e)all of the above
f)none of the above
g)other

What I WILL do, however, is try to teach you how to avoid situations where
something potentially dangerous and most likely extraordinarily embarrassing
will occur. (Note that I am not responsible for anything else embarrassing
that will probably occur if you take any of my advice. In fact, the only good
piece of advice you'll get from me is this - don't read this article. If
you're one of those people who skip parenthetical musings such as this, then
you will undoubtedly try something quite foolish one of these days, and I'll be
there to laugh at you. Sucker.)

I'm sure you're wondering just what kind of self-defense I could be
teaching, considering my extreme lack of knowledge of anything useful in the
field of martial arts. I was thinking this myself one day while I was walking
down the street, and then it hit me. In the face. A fist. Attached to a very
large arm, which was attached to a very large man named "Death." (At least
that's what he had tattooed across his neck.) It seems that I had
inadvertently walked too close to his girlfriend, and now I would have to
compensate him for this transgression by leaving a few of my teeth for his
collection. This brings us to the first rule of self-defense:

Never walk down a street if someone is already there. Properly followed,
this rule of thumb could eliminate having to follow any of the other rules.
The problem with walking down a street with people on it is that there is
always the chance that one of them might want to hurt you, and if you are still
reading this, then you are obviously the type of person who is very hurtable.

Now, obviously it isn't possible to avoid ALL people, unless you follow
the Rule of the Last Resort:

Never, ever, no matter what happens, ever leave your room. This is the
ultimate in self-defense for cowards. The chance of offending someone enough
to want to damage you is very slim if you become a recluse for the rest of your
life. This is not a mere assumption! According to the most recent police
statistics, there was a lower rate of violent crimes against hermits than any
other type of person in the social strata.

For most of us, unfortunately, that option isn't extremely viable. This
brings us back to my regrettable encounter with Mr. "Death" and his large fist.
This next rule is very important, and should be taken extremely seriously. If
you follow this rule closely, you will emerge from most minor altercations
relatively unscathed:

Learn to beg. Most would-be assailants, seeing you on the ground on your
hands and knees, pleading for your miserably life, groveling and licking the
ground in shame, will either start laughing hysterically (thus giving you the
opportunity to abscond from the premises), or they will be so ashamed for you
that they'll just spit on your pathetic head and leave you in the dirt.
Whatever works. (Note: This method was quite effective in dealing with my
fisty friend, and I was able to escape with most of my teeth intact!)

Let's say that you're too proud to beg, and you find yourself in a
situation where your life and limb are pretty much assured of being at stake.
You can either swallow your pride and follow the above rule and live (or you
can swallow your teeth when they get knocked out), or you can apply the next
rule to your predicament:

Learn to run. Fast. You might want to invest 70 or 80 dollars in a good
pair of running shoes for this one. They can't hit what they can't catch,
right? So make like a banana and get the hell out of there. An added benefit
of this rule is the wonderful exercise you receive.

Suppose you are in your home, and someone has broken in. You have an
inner conflict. On the one hand, you feel the need to protect your property,
and stand and fight the enemy. On the other hand, your closet looks pretty
comfortable right about now. My personal motto in situations such as this is
(to paraphrase the old classic):

Those who whimper and run away,
Live to whimper another day.

Hey, you can always get grandma to give you another priceless heirloom,
but you only have one nose, and it would hurt something fierce to have it
broken in any way, shape or form.

Another possible circumstance you might encounter is a car accident.
While reading the paper or clipping your toenails or whatever, you accidentally
demolish some guy's new Porsche. Of course, he will be understandably
unamused, and will most likely attempt some form of physical violence upon your
person. To avoid this, you should wait until he is out of his vehicle and
coming towards you. If he is visibly angered, and particularly if he is
holding some sort of blunt object in his hands and making threatening gestures
with it, this would be an ideal time to put the pedal to the metal and, as they
say, get the hell out of there. You should have no problem with this if you
have followed the next rule:

Buy a really, really fast car. By now you may have realized that there is
some small expenditure of funds required if you are to successfully follow all
of these rules, but if you are in doubt, just think - which is worth more,
my money or my peace of mind? And if you think that your peace of mind isn't

worth that much, think about how it would look if a piece of your mind ended up
on the floor because some agitated individual took a bat to you.

The one great thing about my self-defense guide is it's adaptability.
These rules are not set in stone. They are conformable to any location on
Earth. For example, in the above illustration of the car accident, the
adjoining rule is to "buy a really, really fast car." If you are reading this
in, say, Saudi Arabia, you can modify that to "buy a really, really fast
camel."

Another thing that is great about them is that they put you in a mindset
which, I think, will really help you to be prepared for everyday life. If you
start thinking that every single person you see has been paid to assassinate
you, it puts life in a whole new perspective. A simple walk to 7-11 is much
more exciting than it used to be. If you are permanently on guard, then you
won't be surprised when someone inevitably attempts to assail you, and
preparedness is half the battle. The other half is getting the crap beaten out
of you.

I would like to leave you with this parting thought, and it's the most
important one:

Whatever happens, I am in no way ethically, morally, or legally
responsible for any harm whatsoever that you may come by, nor am I liable to
you or, more likely, your heirs.

Thanks, and goodbye.
.-. _ _ .-.
/ \ .-. ((___)) .-. / / \ / \ .-. [ x x ] .-. / \ / -/-------\-------/-----\-----/---\--\ /--/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-
/ \ / \ / `-(' ')-' \ / \ /
WORLDWIDE \ / `-' (U) `-' \ / WORLDWIDE
`-' .ooM `-' _
Oooo / ) __
/)(\ ( \ Copyright (c)1996 cDc communications. / ( / \__/ ) / All rights reserved. Award-winning CULT OF THE DEAD COW \ ) \)(/
(_/ is published by cDc communications, P.O. Box 53011, oooO _
oooO Lubbock, TX, 79453, US of A. Edited by Swamp Ratte'. __ ( / ) /)(\ / \ ) \ ( \__/ Save yourself! Go outside! Do something! \)(/ ( /
\_) "THE COW WALKS AMONGST US"

Vandals Handbook

2006-08-08T12:17:00.000-07:00

/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'| |
| T H E |
| |
| \ / ^ |\ | |\ ^ | |--- |
| \ / /_\ | \ | | > /_\ | |___ |
| V / \ | \| |/ / \ |__ ___| |
| |
| H A N D B O O K |
| |
/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'| |
| By: Capt. Chaos |
| |
/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'

>>>>>> C02 Cartridge Bombs <<<<<<

You will have to use up the new cartridge by either shooting it in a C02
B-B gun or use it in a C02 car or whatever else you might figure out to do
with it. With a nail, force the hole bigger so as to allow the powder and
wick to fit in easily. Fill the cartridte with black powder and pack it in
there real good by tapping the bottom of the cartridge on a hard surface.
Insert a fuse (I recommend good waterproof cannon fuse, but I've used fire-
cracker fuses.) Light it and run!!! It does wonders for a row of mail boxes.
Be careful however, this little beauty throws shrapnel and can be quite a
hazard.

>>>>>>Thermite Bombs<<<<<<

The first step in the construction of a thermite bomb is to get some
iron-oxide (rust). Here is a good way to make large quantities in a short
time: First you will need a DC converter which can be found on a race track
or train track. Cut the connector off, separate the two wires, and strip them
both. You will secondly need a jar of water which has been diluted with salt
to make the water a conductor (use about a tablespoon.) Then insert both
wires into the solution and determine which bubbles the most. You then need
to tie a common iron nail to the one that bubbles the most (The positive wire).
If you don't you will get the opposite of rust...Rust acid! Put the nail tied
to the positive wire and the negative wire in the jar on opposite sides until
they are both completely submerged. Let that set over night and then remove the
(crusty) stuff off the nail and remove the wires. Let this set until a
sufficient amount of the crust is at the bottom. Remove the excess water and
pour the crusty solution in a cookie sheet and let it dry out in the sun for a
couple of hours, or over night. It should be an orange-brown color, though I've
had it many different colors. Crush the rust into a fine powder and heat it in a
cast iron pot until it's red. (I'm not sure what that does.)

Now mix the iron-oxide with pure aluminum filings which can be bought or
filed down by hand from an aluminum tube or bar. The ratio should be 8 grams of
rust per 3 grams of aluminum. That's thermite!!!

Now, to light it you must get some magnesium which is sorta hard to get
for me cause my hardware store don't have it. I finally found that I could get
a perfect piece of magnesium ribbon from the chemistry lab! This ribbon is the
fuse of the bomb. It takes the heat from the burning magnesium to light the
thermite...But to light the magnesium you need a blow torch (Don't worry, the
blow torch is not hot enough to light the thermite). Well keep your thermite in
a bag and then when you see an innocent car...Pour a small amount of thermite on
the wood, stick a length of magnesim in it and then light the magnesium with the
blow torch and watch it burn right through the hood, the block, the axle, and
spark and flare on the pavement. Be careful...The ideal mixtures can vaporize
carbonized steel (Which is damn hot!) Have fun!

>>>>>>Touch Explosive<<<<<<

This is sort of a mild explosive, but can be dangerous in large quantities.
To make touch explosive (Such as that found in a snap and pop, but more potent)
mix iodine crystals into ammonia until the iodine crystals will not dissolve
into the ammonia anymore. Let it set until you get a white precipitate at the
bottom...Pour off the excess ammonia and dry out the crystals the same way as
the thermite. Be careful now cause these dried crystals are your touch
explosives! I haven't found a good use for it yet, but it's fun to throw at
people or leave it in their chairs at school..It can get painful if applied
properly!

>>>>>>Letter Bombs<<<<<<

You will first have to make a mild version of thermite as mentioned
above, however you will use just plain iron filings instead of rust. Mix the
iron filing with the aluminm filings in a ratio of 75% aluminum with 25% iron.
This mixture will burn violently in an enclosed space (such as an envelope)
which brings us to the next ingredient. Go to the post office or business
supply store and buy an insulated (padded) envelope. The type that is double
layered. Separate the layers and place the mild thermite in the main section,
where the letter would go. Then place magnesium powder in the outer layer.
There's your bomb. Now to light it!

This is the tricky part and is hard to explain in writing. Experiment
with this idea until you have got it right. Ok, the fuse is just that touch
explosive placed where the letter would be torn open. You may want to wrap it
like a long cigarette and then place it at the top of the envelope in the outer
layer (on top of the powdered magnesium.) When the touch explosive is torn or
even squeezed hard it will ignite the powdered magnesium (sort of a flashlight)
and then it will burn the mild thermite. I've never sent one of these so I don't
really know if it works good. I do know that the thermite burns real hot and if
it didn't blow up it would give some one a bad burn (Thermite does wonders on
human flesh!!)

>>>>>>Paint Bombs<<<<<<

To make a paint bomb you simply need a metal can with a fastenable lid,
a nice bright color paint, and a quantity of dry ice. Place the paint in the
can and then drop the dry ice in. Quickly place the lid on tightly and then
run. With some testing you can get it down so you have a timer that works on
how much ice you have compared with how much paint you have. If you're really
pissed at someone, you could place it on their doorstep, knock on the door, and
then run!!! Enough bombs....Let's work on cars.

>>>>>>Ways to Send A Car To Hell<<<<<<

There are a thousand and one ways to destroy a car but I will only cover
those which are most fun and hardest to find out about.

Place thermite on the hood as mentioned above, place burning magnesium on
the hood, tape a Co2 bomb to the (axle, hood, wheel, muffler, all), put a
tampon, dirt, sugar, a ping pong ball, just about anything) in the gas tank. Put
(Potatoes, bananas, rocks, or anything at all that will fit) in the exhaust
pipe. Put a long rag in the gas tank and catch it on fire (Run real far). Make a
jimmey and pick the lock and then steal the stereo....I'll try to draw a
picture...Cut one of those thin metal rulers int the pattern given below:

____________________________________________________ ____
|__| sorta phallic huh? |
|--| /
---------------------------------------------------- ----

The important part are the notches on the sides which are used to pull up ^ on
the cable which pulls up the lock! Get stereos, equalizers, rader detectors,
car guns, loose change and cassette tapes, and then destroy the inside (a knife
is handy for the seats.)

>>>>>>Hate school???<<<<<<

One of my favorites for getting out of a class or two is to call in a bomb
threat...Tell them it's in a locker, then they have to check them all and that
takes an hour at our school. I've even placed a fake bomb in a locker (not
mine), called it in, and they called off school for the whole week!! (Little
did I know that we had to make it up during the summer). Or you could get
some pure potassium or pure sodium, put it in a capsule and flush it down a
toilet. Use a smoke grenade in the cafeteria, halls or bathrooms. Steal keys
off the school computers, steal the 80col cards inside, or any of the cards!
Put a large magnet on the monitors. Make friends with student assistants in the
counseling office and have them change your grade when teachers hand in their
bubble sheets for the report cards. Spit your gum out on the carpeted floor at
school, and watch the janitors cry. Draw on lockers or write on the building
that the principal is a fascist. Ours offerereed a $100 reward after I did
that!! I wanted to turn myself in!! Use your imagination!

>>>>>>Phone Related Vandalism<<<<<<

If you live where there are underground lines then you will be able to
ruin someone's phone line very easily. All you must do is go to their house and
find the green junction box that interfaces their line (and possibly some others
in the neighborhood) with the major lines. These can be found just about
anywhere but they are usually underneath the nearest phone pole. Take a socket
wrench and loosen the nut on the right. Then just take clippers or a sledge
hammer or a bomb and destroy the insides and pull up their phone cable.. Cut it
into segments so it can't be fixed but must be replaced. There's a week of
work!!! Or you can do my favorite, call them with a directory dialer for about
a week...They won't get another call besides yours for that entire week! How
about calling the phone company and having it disconnected for a while, or have
their mail held for a month or two (Say you're going on vacation and give them
their address.)

>>>>>>Misc.<<<<<<

How about going into Target and setting the alarms on the radios and
then crank the volume....Five minutes later.. while you are far away in
another part of the store....You hear radios cranked going off and people
frantically trying to turn it off.. Do some price switching, for yourself
or to get someone else in trouble. Be creative.. There's always a way to be
obnoxious and annoying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'| |
| Watch for: The Vandal's Handbook Volume ][ |
| Including: Box plans, exploding arrows, and hand grenades! |
| |
/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/' /'\ Thanx to: The I/O Error /' (Though he didn't do much!)
/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'

I would like to close by saying that Capt. Wuss should be black booked
for lying and generally making an asshole of himself......

-CAPT. CHAOS

/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'\/'

X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X

Another file downloaded from: NIRVANAnet(tm)

& the Temple of the Screaming Electron Jeff Hunter 510-935-5845
The Salted Slug Strange 408-454-9368
Burn This Flag Zardoz 408-363-9766
realitycheck Poindexter Fortran 510-527-1662
Lies Unlimited Mick Freen 415-583-4102
Tomorrow's 0rder of Magnitude Finger_Man 415-961-9315
My Dog Bit Jesus Suzanne D'Fault 510-658-8078
New Dork Sublime Demented Pimiento 415-566-0126

Specializing in conversations, obscure information, high explosives,
arcane knowledge, political extremism, diverse sexuality,
insane speculation, and wild rumours. ALL-TEXT BBS SYSTEMS.

Full access for first-time callers. We don't want to know who you are,
where you live, or what your phone number is. We are not Big Brother.

"Raw Data for Raw Nerves"

X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X