« A Little Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing, Part II | Main | Searching for Some Angels »

Arrest Made In Dirty Bomb Hoax

The AP reports:

A 20-year-old grocery store clerk who authorities say amused himself by posting prank Internet warnings of terrorist attacks against NFL stadiums was arrested Friday on federal charges that could bring five years behind bars.

Jake J. Brahm was accused of writing that radioactive "dirty bombs" would be detonated this weekend at seven football stadiums. He admitted posting the same threat about 40 times on various Web sites between September and Wednesday, authorities said.

The Wauwatosa man surrendered to federal authorities and appeared in court in Milwaukee later in the day.
,...
Brahm was charged with making a terrorist threat over the Internet, which carries a maximum five-year prison sentence and $250,000 fine. When the potential sentence was read in court Friday afternoon, his mother, Valerie Brahm, with whom he lives, closed her eyes and put her hand over her mouth.

This guy is a piece of work. Eeewww.

Update: More at RightLinx.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Arrest Made In Dirty Bomb Hoax:

» A Blog For All linked with NFL Dirty Bomb Hoaxer to be Charged

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Feds charge Wis. man in stadium threat

» rightlinx.com linked with Jake Brahm, Dirty Bomb Funster

Comments (29)

"Brahm was charged with ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Brahm was charged with making a terrorist threat over the Internet, which carries a maximum five-year prison sentence and $250,000 fine."

That's the maximum sentence? The Republicans have had 5 years to line up what's needed to fight terrorism, and the maximum sentence is five years?

It's the liberal judges tha... (Below threshold)
bob:

It's the liberal judges that the Dems have packed the courts with that hand out slap-on-the-wrist sentences like this. It won't surprise me if they pin a medal on him, kiss him on both cheeks, and let him go with a warning not to do it again.

Bob you are more correct th... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Bob you are more correct than you know. Less than three years for assisting a convicted terrorists in his drive to launch another attack in the United States. He launched the attack on the WTC that the democ'rats would like to forget about.

Threatening to kill hundreds of thousands + Liberal judge= no hand slap= 30 days probation at the most.

Right, the next thing We wi... (Below threshold)
914:

Right, the next thing We will hear is its Bushs fault for monitoring the internet and violating the Mans right to privacy.

This guy and Lynne Stewart are made for each other.

I clicked over, what right ... (Below threshold)
Soupy2c2:

I clicked over, what right to privacy? Is it not already out there?

Lorie Should have warned ab... (Below threshold)
Sharon:

Lorie Should have warned about the eeeewww.Thought it was a photo.Imagine my surprise?!!

I clicked over, What rig... (Below threshold)
914:

I clicked over, What right to privacy? Is it not already out there?


What does that matter to conspiracy theorists and leftwing kooks? Just to say Bush did it is all that matters.

Does this mean I'll have to... (Below threshold)
Tim:

Does this mean I'll have to bag my own groceries?

>making a terrorist thre... (Below threshold)
Brian:

>making a terrorist threat over the Internet, which carries a maximum five-year prison sentence
It's the liberal judges that the Dems have packed the courts with that hand out slap-on-the-wrist sentences like this.

Just to be clear, when a crime "carries a maximum sentence", that means the law was written that way... by (likely) Republican legislators, not Democratic judges.

You have enough to harrass Dems over without having to make new sh*t up. If Repubs think the sentence is too light, they've been in a position to change it.

Right, Brian. Amazing, isn... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Right, Brian. Amazing, isn't it, just how uninformed some of these commenters are? Blaming "liberal judges and Democrats" for a law that was most definitely passed by those big-bad-ass terrorist loving Republicans? Amazing.

I now they have a right to vote, but it is uninformed voters like Bob and Scrappy and 914 that are ruining this country with their lousy, uninformed political choices.

"I now they have a right... (Below threshold)
914:

"I now they have a right to vote,but it is uninformed voters like Bob and Scrappy and 914 that are ruining this country with their lousy uninformed political choices."

What are You blithering about? I did not vote for the Dems?

Anyway, You believe the backwards tripe You believe..And I will believe what I see with My own eyes.

This is an excellant exampl... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

This is an excellant example of the hypocrisy of leftists.They have bottomless concern about those who actually plan/financially support/commit/praise terrorists but some moron makes a false claim over the internet and they want him PUNISHED!!! NOW!!! and its the evil rethuglicans fault that he won't spend the rest of his life in prison.I don't think the potential sentence in this case in this case is too light.If you leftists think it is perhaps you could explain why you are soooooo worried about the rights of ACTUAL terrorists and then go on to explain why you think 5 years is to light for being an internet dumb*ss


Sorry for the insults 914, ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Sorry for the insults 914, I didn't know you were blind.

I'll read some news to you.

Stock market closed yesterday at highest level in history.

Unemployment at 4.6%, once thought to be impossible to reach. Everyone that wants a job has a job.

Record income to the treasury department due to President Bush's tax cuts that resulted in a roaring recovery from the Slick Willie recession, criminal CEO/CFO's being allowed to prosper, and 9-11-01 attack.

Just as a note for your information, If the Bush administration used the exact 'same math' that the Slick Willie administration used they would show an $800 billion surplus, not a deficit. Isn't it funny when government employee's tell the people the truth instead of the lies of the 90's.

More will be read to you as a bedtime story by one of the other posters. nite nite

Thank You Scrapiron, That d... (Below threshold)
914:

Thank You Scrapiron, That does it! Now I am for sure not voting for Peloshi. My wealth has doubled in thge last 4 years.

Uh, excuse me ... but Lee, ... (Below threshold)

Uh, excuse me ... but Lee, dear heart, wasn't it you who immediately decided it was Republican judges, or just Republicans in general? First commenter gets to set the tone? Is that it, Lee?

WTF is it with you guys? Is EVERYTHING political? The guy's a creepy whack job. And all you can come up with is some partisan crap.

Actually, I hadn't even considered any political view on this at all, but now that you mention it, every other November I take great pleasure in knowing I've cancelled out some idiot's vote.

That's the maximum sent... (Below threshold)
Marc:

That's the maximum sentence? The Republicans have had 5 years to line up what's needed to fight terrorism, and the maximum sentence is five years?

Posted by: Lee at October 20, 2006 06:19 PM

Other than being a cheap, and uncalled for, partisan shot in the dark, just what are you attempting to say?

That the sentence is of such a light nature you'd be willing to serve it for him? If so that would be fine for some of us for obvious reasons.

And the secondary benefit would be this nut would be out in the open so someone could could give him what he really "deserves."

If you get my drift.

"Other than being a chea... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Other than being a cheap, and uncalled for, partisan shot in the dark, just what are you attempting to say?"

Funny, Marc, that you would call me on a "cheap, uncalled for partisan shot", and ignore the comments that were not only cheap and partisan and uncalled for - but flat out wrong about the fault for the light sentence laying with those liberals...

I was right, and what I said was (repeated for the thinking impaired) I'm amazed that the big, bad-ass, big talking Republican'ts have apparently passed a law - as a part of their GWOT, where the maximium sentence for a crime like this is five years.

Given the big talk Republicans make about being tough on terrorism, I"m amazed that it turns out they aren't tough after all. Just lying, hypocritical sleaze-bags that use "terrorism" as an excuse to further their right-wing evangelical platform of hate.

What do you thin, Marc -- is a five-year maximum sentence adequate to fight terror?

This Democrat doesn't think so - do you?

Would it be any surprise to... (Below threshold)
Baggi:

Would it be any surprise to anyone that this guy is a Wisconsin Democrat?

Check out his livejournal. http://tillandstuff.livejournal.com/ and be prepared for reading the mind of a very disturbed individual. But is he a Democrat?

Things I like:
Increasing my share ration on FSS

Reading auto-translated .srt's

Adding to the soap ball in the shower

Pretending my cat is a human girlfriend

Having only the Christmas tree lights on in the living room

Talking shit to State Representatives when they come to the front door (This means you David Cullen!)

Being alone during the night

I thought, oh dear, please tell me since this guy likes to talk trash to a Democrat from Wisconsin that this guy is not a Republican!?

But then reading further you get

Also, I didn't mean what I said about David Cullen; he's a very nice man.

God bless.

Yes, somehow that just seems to fit with the rest of this guys strange world. Hard to imagine a Republican being this twisted, although it does happen from time to time. I wonder if it is possible to find out if he is actually registered and if he has actually put in any volunteer time with either party. He talks about not having a job and he's right around the perfect age to volunteer for stumping about things which he knows almost nothing.

LeeAssuming You ha... (Below threshold)
914:

Lee

Assuming You have a clue and I know thats a big assumption.. Even if the legislature was 100% repub that passed any given law the judge would still have discretion in sentencing..For example see Lynne Stewart.

And if this guy was really seriously involved in an actual attack plan then I would say death penalty. But seeing as He was pranking around I think five years is plenty.

I notice, Lee, that you cou... (Below threshold)

I notice, Lee, that you could not bring yourself to codemn what this Outpost Natural Foods POS actually did. That's par for the course on your part.

Lets get something straight... (Below threshold)
thecomputerguy:

Lets get something straight here.

Its the libs who go crying to the ACLU whenever claiming that some nutcase's free speech rights are being trampled on.

Actually, I would not be suprised one bit if the ACLU doesn't pick up this whack job's (no pun intended) legal defence - after all, isn't that what this is about? Free speech?

Lee, I think you need to take it a little easier on the whacky weed there buddy - the brain cells you got left aint workin so good.

What do you thin, [sic]... (Below threshold)
Marc:

What do you thin, [sic] Marc -- is a five-year maximum sentence adequate to fight terror?

This Democrat doesn't think so - do you?
Posted by: Lee at October 20, 2006 10:10 PM

No wonder you're "afraid" of the Repubs. You know the line BushCo and the Rovian Tribe are running on nothing but Scare, SCARE and more Scare tatics.

That statement seems to indicate you believe this crackpot has the ways and means to actually carry out an attack. As opposed to a twenty year old grocery store clerk who obviously has the brain power of... well... yourself!

Don't fall into Lee's sewer... (Below threshold)

Don't fall into Lee's sewer.

The "five-year maximum sentence" isn't for terrorists. It's for "making terrorist threats." Like bomb scares. Anyone who is actually involved in terrorist activity can be prosecuted under a number of statutes; this one is for those who, like the fellow in this case, find it amusing to threaten terrorist acts.

Five years for being a dumbass sounds about right to me.

To Lee, this kid should be locked away longer, it seems, while we avail the terrorists who attack us rights equal to our own citizens.

I figured the whole thing h... (Below threshold)
Mark L:

I figured the whole thing had to be a hoax when it turned out one of the stadiums to be bombed was Reliant Stadium in Houston. If someone is actually going to go to the trouble of building and planting a radiological bomb, wouldn't they put it in a stadium that was actually going to be -- you know -- full?

914: "even if the legisl... (Below threshold)
Lee:

914: "even if the legislature was 100% repub that passed any given law the judge would still have discretion in sentencing.."

I believe that if the law says 5 years is the maximum then that is the --- stay with me here -- the maximum sentence is allowable. The judge's discretion lies in choosing the sentence below the maximum, 914.

Marc: (sic) "That statement seems to indicate you believe this crackpot has the ways and means to actually carry out an attack

Doesn't matter to the question at hand which, like a true conservative nutcase, you've totally avoided answering. Obviously you must think the soft-on-terrorism maximum sentence of five years is adequate.

Jim: "To Lee, this kid should be locked away longer, it seems, while we avail the terrorists who attack us rights equal to our own citizens."

Yeah Jim, I"m tough on kids and easy on terrorists - what a stupid statement to make, all because you can't admit that the Republican'ts....can't get tough on terrorism. Hell, Jim doesn't even know what terrorism is.

If the max this guy could h... (Below threshold)

If the max this guy could have gotten was life in prison, Lee would be complaining that it was too long, and it was just a hoax, it shouldn't be treated so harshly.

So is the way with liberals, "If a Republican/Conservative/Lieberman did it, I'm against it!"

explain why you are sooo... (Below threshold)
Brian:

explain why you are soooooo worried about the rights of ACTUAL terrorists

I, for one, care not a whit about the rights of ACTUAL terrorists. But I do care about the rights of SUSPECTED terrorists. (Which, according to recent Republican legislation, includes American citizens that Bush alone thinks smell fishy.)

Does a "suspected" terrorist have different rights than an "ACTUAL" terrorist? If so, when does a person make the transition from one to the other? Do we "just know"? Or is there a legal mechanism? Is that mechanism the sole discretion of one person? Should we vote on it? Is it the court system? Feel free to share your thoughts.

Like it or not, this country is built on the philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty". I wholly support grabbing a suspected terrorist, trying him according to the law, and, when found guilty, standing him up in front of a firing squad. But core American philosophy prevents you from jumping to the final step after skipping all the others.

"( Which , according to ... (Below threshold)
914:

"( Which , according to recent republican legislation, includes American citizens that Bush alone thinks smell fishy.)"

I did not know the chimp had to personally smell each terror suspect? I hope they are bathed first.

"Like it or not, this country is built on the philosophy" that all Men are created eq,,er sorry , innocent until proven guilty."

"But core American philosphy prevents You from jumping to the final step after skipping all the others."

And core American philosophy rejects giving the same rights to terrorists that are afforded American citizens.

And core American philos... (Below threshold)
Brian:

And core American philosophy rejects giving the same rights to terrorists that are afforded American citizens.

You know, I was going to end my previous post by saying something like:

I'll bet someone from the right is going to respond to this post, just completely ignore the word "suspected" used throughout, and make some unrelated chest-thumping grunt about "terrorists".

It seems that someone was you.

To be able to respond to me, you feel that you have to misquote me. I'm guessing that you actually agreed with what I said, but since you can't bring yourself to admit it, you need to pretend I said something else.

Perhaps someday you will feel secure enough with your personal philosophy to be able to express it with honesty instead.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy