7 in North Carolina Charged With Supporting Terrorism

[Richard Nixon]

*

Share this on:
Mixx Facebook Twitter Digg delicious reddit MySpace StumbleUpon
Share
* E-mail
* Save
* Print

7 in North Carolina charged with supporting terrorism

* Story Highlights
* U.S. native and two sons are among suspects
* Man accused of attending training camps in Pakistan, Afghanistan
* Seven "practiced military tactics" in North Carolina, indictment says
* No mention of direct threats to individuals or property in United States

updated 3 hours, 40 minutes ago

* Next Article in Crime »

By Terry Frieden
CNN Justice Producer
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Federal authorities have charged seven men in North Carolina with supporting terrorism and conspiracy to commit murder abroad, the Justice Department announced Monday.

Officials said one of the men, identified as North Carolina resident and U.S. native Daniel Patrick Boyd, had traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, where he trained in terrorist camps to carry out "violent jihad."

Boyd, 39, who went by the name Saifullah, was charged along with two of his sons: Dylan Boyd, 22, also known as Mohammed, and Zakariya Boyd, 20.

The four others also are residents of North Carolina, and all seven are accused of engaging in weapons training and military tactics in their home state, the Justice Department said.

"We consider this significant. We've been watching them for some time, and we think they were dangerous," said a federal law enforcement official who asked not to be identified.
Don't Miss

* Al Qaeda conspirator resentenced to life
* Petraeus: Iraq remains center of terrorism fight
* New Yorker says he would have been suicide bomber

The Boyd family and defendant Mohammad Omar Aly Hassan are identified as U.S.-born citizens. Defendant Hysen Sherifi is identified as a native of Kosovo who is a legal permanent resident of the United States, and Hiyad Yaghi and Anes Subasic are said to be naturalized U.S. citizens. Officials did not immediately identify their native countries.

The indictment, made public by the Justice Department, says Daniel Boyd and others left the United States for Israel in June 2007 to "engage in violent jihad but ultimately returned to the United States after failing in their efforts."

The defendants, with a substantial cache of weapons, had "practiced military tactics and use of weapons on private property in Caswell County, North Carolina, in June and July 2009," the indictment says.

The documents make no reference to a direct threat to individuals or property in the United States.

In a written statement, the Justice Department's top counterterrorism official, David Kris, said that Daniel Boyd, "a veteran of terrorist training camps" had conspired with others to recruit and help young men travel overseas in order to kill."

The U.S. attorney in Raleigh, George E. B. Holding, said, "These charges hammer home the point that terrorists and their supporters are not confined to the remote regions of some far-away land, but can grow and fester right here at home."

The defendants made an initial appearance in federal court in North Carolina. Officials said they are expected to return to court Thursday for detention hearings.
E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend
Share this on:
Mixx Facebook Twitter Digg del.icio.us reddit MySpace StumbleUpon
| Mixx it | Share

All About North Carolina • Terrorism


The very existence of such domestic terrorists and traitors worries me. I hope there aren't any more of these types.

[jake williams]

The very existence of the US military worries me.

[Il Medico]

The very existence of capitalism worries me.

[Radical]

*


The very existence of such domestic terrorists and traitors worries me. I hope there aren't any more of these types.




I'd rather be a traitor to a minority, than be a traitor to humanity.

Fuck countries and anybody that fights in the name of them

[Robert]

he trained in terrorist camps to carry out "violent jihad."So he trained under Muslim lunatics who who would overthrow a liberal western democracy, where freedom to practice Islam is guaranteed in the constitution, and establish misogynistic theocratic lunacy in its place.

But some on the Left sympathise because he's anti-capitalist. :thumbup1:

[danyboy27]

you know, this thread was predictible, i mean i saw this shit coming, x capitalist people is worried about muslim extremist, immediatly y will immediatly jump against the whole statism and capitalist thingy.

i mean yea, who care if there is homophobic, mysoginic dogmatic extremist running around planning to blow up buses and subway station full of working class people. they are revolutionary! its cool!

[danyboy27]

I'd rather be a traitor to a minority, than be a traitor to humanity.

Fuck countries and anybody that fights in the name of them

can you please explain, do you actually support those homophobic wacko?

[Faux Real]

This may be a stretch to ask for, but perhaps one of you can provide an excuse for the presence of 150,000 military troops in the region?

A respectable explanation that has nothing to do with the deceptive "there to create and nurture a liberal western democracy" facade.

Disappointing, how some believe there's never been a legitemate reason in any point in time to take up arms against the US military nor their accomplices.

danyboy25, ignoring hyperbole and implying that the most pressing issue at hand for militant Muslims is what their religion says about gays, can you please explain whether you actually support those complicit occupiers?

[Il Medico]

So he trained under Muslim lunatics who who would overthrow a liberal western democracy, where freedom to practice Islam is guaranteed in the constitution, and establish misogynistic theocratic lunacy in its place.

mean yea, who care if there is homophobic, mysoginic dogmatic extremist running around planning to blow up buses and subway station full of working class people
Before you talk of misogynistic and homophobic perhaps you should listen to the religious leaders who have a controlling influence in this country. How is a "democracy" that considers gay marriage "No more valid than inter-family marriages" (incest) not homophobic? [That was Obama's white house speaking on the legitimacy of gay marriage in late June (a month they had already declared LGBT pride month)]. As for how the American government is sexist...well if you can't tell then you need some help.

[danyboy27]

danyboy25, ignoring hyperbole and implying that the most pressing issue at hand for militant Muslims is what their religion says about gays, can you please explain whether you actually support those complicit occupiers?

i am not supporting indiscriminate killing, no matter if its commited by religious nutjob or men in uniform. But the main topic is about fundamentalist, not the us military, or any military at all.

instead of commenting the issue you guy started to drop your its imperialism fault. why not discussiing about the issue instead?

armed extremist dont scare you? what about white nationalist milita? what about kkk milita? what about all that?

Personally, i dont like what happening in afghanistan, its bad etc etc, but has a working class dude, i am somehow worried of armed folks running around my neighborhood and killing people in the middle of the night, or that some nutjob is preparing the explosion of the bus i am taking every morning to go to work.

do i have the right to worry about it or do i have to worry about the whole world suffering before mine?

[Robert]

How is a "democracy" that considers gay marriage "No more valid than inter-family marriages" (incest) not homophobic?

What's with the quotation marks? It's not really democratic if the majority doesn't support gay marriage?

Anyway, I question whether Obama authorized or in any way agrees with the insensitive expression you quote above.

But it is certainly not "homo-phobic" to insist that the concept of marriage mean something very specific, and you know what that is. Preserving thousands of years of tradition is not designed to bash gays. I don't know what reasoned opposition I could offer to the concept of bigamy other than "tradition." It's not bigotry.

I don't see any problem with states reserving the term "marriage" to celebrated relationships between males and females. Obviously they have to offer a parallel institution that guarantees equal rights for things that matter beyond labels, like right to inherit, right to visit in hospitals, right to be consulted on end-of-life issues.

Very few people who think of marriage as "one man one woman" spend much time thinking about gays.

[OneNamedNameLess]

Plotting to kill innocents in the name of illogical and unscientific, not to mention reactionary, religions is horrendous. So yeah, the existence of such religions and the fact that many people take them seriously worries me.

[Richard Nixon]

I'd rather be a traitor to a minority, than be a traitor to humanity.

Fuck countries and anybody that fights in the name of them

I do believe that a united world and humanity is good but I think that the United States of America will be the best nation for help accomplishing the goal, that is Pax Americana is the best hope for peace and freedom in the world.


Plotting to kill innocents in the name of illogical and unscientific, not to mention reactionary, religions is horrendous. So yeah, the existence of such religions and the fact that many people take them seriously worries me.

You are ignoring the fact that religion has been a force for good, charity, peace, and love throughout much of history. It is funny how racial and sexual bigotry is widely condemned in this board (which is good) yet anti-religious bigotry is barely if at all condemned.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

All right, I'll play devils advocate


This may be a stretch to ask for, but perhaps one of you can provide an excuse for the presence of 150,000 military troops in the region?

A respectable explanation that has nothing to do with the deceptive "there to create and nurture a liberal western democracy" facade.

Building a state that's happy and whatnot is a load of bullshit the US uses to get colloborators. The real reason is much simpler: Terrorist groups in that region attacked the US.

Really quite simple. Before they attacked, there were no US combat troops there. They attack us, now 150,000 US troops there. And actually, we gave them a couple freebies. It wasn't until a particular radical muslim organization attacked the US (not counting embassies) the second time before the US invaded.

Look up levels of US soldiers in Afghanistan on September 10, 2001 if you don't believe me.


Disappointing, how some believe there's never been a legitemate reason in any point in time to take up arms against the US military nor their accomplices.

Never? Who said anything about never? Native Americans certainly had a right.

And certainly these individuals had the right to take up arms against the US. And now the US has the right to lock them up forever in Colorado, where they'll be in a small room 23 hours a day with a sign that says "Mecca is that way."

Just like when Afghan Taliban types find out one of theirs is selling secrets or plotting to join the US, appropriate action is taken.


I'd rather be a traitor to a minority, than be a traitor to humanity.

Yeah but it's way more comfy just to talk about both groups of people online, am I right?

[Jazzratt]

Meanwhile millions in north carolina support US imperialism. Compared to that these seven don't mean shit.

[OneNamedNameLess]

Meanwhile millions in north carolina support US imperialism. Compared to that these seven don't mean shit.

But they do mean shit. Islamic extremism should not be excused. No, it shouldn't be used to justify imperialism but why are we not condemning this? Violent jihad? Fuck this shite, seriously. How many muslims do you think get caught up in terror attacks? How many people, like you and me, who oppose american aggression would die if thier attacks were successful? These folk really don't give a shit. There is no excusing this at all.

[OneNamedNameLess]

You are ignoring the fact that religion has been a force for good, charity, peace, and love throughout much of history. It is funny how racial and sexual bigotry is widely condemned in this board (which is good) yet anti-religious bigotry is barely if at all condemned.

For me it will always be overshadowed by war, control, conservatism, corruption and anything else anyone cares to add to the list.

[Jazzratt]

But they do mean shit. Islamic extremism should not be excused.

I'm excusing fuck all.


No, it shouldn't be used to justify imperialism but why are we not condemning this? Violent jihad? Fuck this shite, seriously.

The condemnation is irrelevant, just as the target is fucking negligble. How many coppers do you think there are in North Carolina? How many fucking bourgeois nobbers? In the grand scheme of things these 7 dicks amount to the dogshit on my shoes copared to the veritable flood of turds around them.


How many muslims do you think get caught up in terror attacks? How many people, like you and me, who oppose american aggression would die if thier attacks were successful? These folk really don't give a shit. There is no excusing this at all.

On a purely body-for-body count it still doesn't matter. I'd rather they didn't exist and find their politics terrifying and contemptible in equal measure but their attacks still pale in comparison to state and capitalist violence. It's like worrying about influenza when you have cancer, though, it may well still kill you but you should be more concerned with the more immediate threat, no?

[War Cry]

The chickens will come home to roost. White supremacist imperialism has been murdering millions and millions of people for a couple hundred thousand years. The United States Military is terrorist. Bush is a terrorist.

As we sit in front of our computer screens, talking about how we just hope those whacky Muslim extremists don't blow our asses up for our thousand years of imperialism, the Christian right is amassing arms catches throughout the country and training their children for war. For Holy War.

The definition of jihad is actions of holy war carried out by people of the Muslim faith. Muslim "terrorists" are sensationalized in the media to perpetuate the fear and hatred currently sown since 9/11 and continue the oppression Muslim's face every day.

How many thousands of peaceful Muslims have had their houses graffittied, been sent death threats and hate mail, been pushed out of their neighborhood by the hate and fear their white bread community holds for them? How many of you received that lovely, bigoted peice of bullshit propaganda DVD about Muslim extremests in the mail for free?

A year ago, a Mosque got tear gassed. It went in through the window of the daycare. A seven year old girl almost died from suffocation. This was carried out by terrorists.

If we're going to talk about our fears of religious take-over and religious terrorist attacks, I would look at the Fundementalist Mormon living next door to you. The Born-Again Christian with a automatic fifty calaber.

They just don't make the news.

[StalinFanboy]

So he trained under Muslim lunatics who who would overthrow a liberal western democracy, where freedom to practice Islam is guaranteed in the constitution, and establish misogynistic theocratic lunacy in its place.

But some on the Left sympathise because he's anti-capitalist. :thumbup1:
Wat?


He's an idiot. But so is Richard Nixon.

[danyboy27]

Wat?


He's an idiot. But so is Richard Nixon.

is there a policy on revleft condemning members to call eachother name?

[Jazzratt]

is there a policy on revleft condemning members to call eachother name?

No. There is however one about staying on topic, please don't derail this discussion with this rubbish.

[RGacky3]

I do believe that a united world and humanity is good but I think that the United States of America will be the best nation for help accomplishing the goal, that is Pax Americana is the best hope for peace and freedom in the world.


Pax Americana are you refering to the Pax Romana in the roman empire? Yeah, because back then everyone was happy to be dominated by the Roman empire right?

The United States just like anyother empire in history, has never cared about peace or freedom.

Either your an idiot for thinking so, or sick for supporting imperialism.

[Richard Nixon]

The chickens will come home to roost. White supremacist imperialism has been murdering millions and millions of people for a couple hundred thousand years. The United States Military is terrorist. Bush is a terrorist.

As we sit in front of our computer screens, talking about how we just hope those whacky Muslim extremists don't blow our asses up for our thousand years of imperialism, the Christian right is amassing arms catches throughout the country and training their children for war. For Holy War.

The definition of jihad is actions of holy war carried out by people of the Muslim faith. Muslim "terrorists" are sensationalized in the media to perpetuate the fear and hatred currently sown since 9/11 and continue the oppression Muslim's face every day.

How many thousands of peaceful Muslims have had their houses graffittied, been sent death threats and hate mail, been pushed out of their neighborhood by the hate and fear their white bread community holds for them? How many of you received that lovely, bigoted peice of bullshit propaganda DVD about Muslim extremests in the mail for free?

A year ago, a Mosque got tear gassed. It went in through the window of the daycare. A seven year old girl almost died from suffocation. This was carried out by terrorists.

If we're going to talk about our fears of religious take-over and religious terrorist attacks, I would look at the Fundementalist Mormon living next door to you. The Born-Again Christian with a automatic fifty calaber.

They just don't make the news.

Ridiculous. President Bush a few days after 9-11 visited a mosque and called Islam the "religion of peace". Now he got a pissjob from the fundies for that. Also fundamentalist Mormons are very unlikely to be near you unless you live in remote corners of the Southwest since they live in isolated communities in Utah and Arizona. Also most Christians whether Born-Again or not do not support violence against Muslims! Yes there are a few wackos who do it but they are almost universally condemend.


Pax Americana are you refering to the Pax Romana in the roman empire? Yeah, because back then everyone was happy to be dominated by the Roman empire right?

The United States just like anyother empire in history, has never cared about peace or freedom.

Either your an idiot for thinking so, or sick for supporting imperialism.

The example of the Roman Empire actually proves my point. While Rome may have been oppressive everything was stable and strong under them (at least most of the time) but when Rome fell the barbarians caused the former Empire to fracture into dozens of different states causing wars, plauges, famines, population declines, and so on.

[RGacky3]

While Rome may have been oppressive everything was stable and strong under them (at least most of the time) but when Rome fell the barbarians caused the former Empire to fracture into dozens of different states causing wars, plauges, famines, population declines, and so on.

So let me get this straight, you are admitting that the United States is an imperial empire that forces its will on others (something that should be obvious) and you are arguing that this is something positive?

Someone in cronic poverty is, in a way, in a stable envirement too, that does'nt make it right.

[danyboy27]

[QUOTE=Richard Nixon;150520
The example of the Roman Empire actually proves my point. While Rome may have been oppressive everything was stable and strong under them (at least most of the time) but when Rome fell the barbarians caused the former Empire to fracture into dozens of different states causing wars, plauges, famines, population declines, and so on.[/QUOTE]

its so elitist it make me think of...wait... yea.

http://www.rabittooth.com/800x600StarWarsWallpapers2/DarthVaderROTSV1.jpg

[Richard Nixon]

So let me get this straight, you are admitting that the United States is an imperial empire that forces its will on others (something that should be obvious) and you are arguing that this is something positive?

Someone in cronic poverty is, in a way, in a stable envirement too, that does'nt make it right.

No I don't agree with your above point as in most recent American occupations, the aftermath was the establishment of representative democracies (Japan, Germany, Grenada, Panama, Iraq). What I did say was that hegemonic empires are better for the world then chaotic situations where there are no superpowers or great powers. For instance standards of living under the Roman Empire was relatively high which disappeared after it's collapse.

[danyboy27]

No I don't agree with your above point as in most recent American occupations, the aftermath was the establishment of representative democracies (Japan, Germany, Grenada, Panama, Iraq). What I did say was that hegemonic empires are better for the world then chaotic situations where there are no superpowers or great powers. For instance standards of living under the Roman Empire was relatively high which disappeared after it's collapse.

the inxtinction of an empire dosnt automaticly mean chaos.

A dosnt always lead to B, it could lead to C or D instead.

[Ele'ill]

Meanwhile millions in north carolina support US imperialism. Compared to that these seven don't mean shit.

They still mean shit. To the people they could murder (It was painful just now to type that because I doubt they were going to murder abroad (or was it they were planning to murder a broad?))

The general population doesn't support imperialism because they don't know what imperialism is, they don't believe the US does what it does, they live in a bubble of false information.

The population of America actually supports a super ethical (and magical) America that they've been told exists. They are all liberal leftists and right wing pacifist saints that have been tricked into a lull.

[War Cry]

Originally Posted by Robert http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1502761#post1502761)
So he trained under Muslim lunatics who who would overthrow a liberal western democracy, where freedom to practice Islam is guaranteed in the constitution, and establish misogynistic theocratic lunacy in its place.

It's hypothetically guaranteed. Hypothetically. Socially, it's guaranteed you'll come under scrutiny in many different forms, including lack of employment opportunities, criminal profiling, hate crimes, property destruction, attacks on your place of worship and other atrocities. Recently, the right to wear a religious headscarf has been banned in some schools.

Legally, you must have the resources and finances to bring a lawsuit about. Sure, you can get "free" lawyers, but they usually aren't very good. And the judges are still bigotted pieces of garbage.

So really, in America nothing is guaranteed.

[Richard Nixon]

It's hypothetically guaranteed. Hypothetically. Socially, it's guaranteed you'll come under scrutiny in many different forms, including lack of employment opportunities, criminal profiling, hate crimes, property destruction, attacks on your place of worship and other atrocities. Recently, the right to wear a religious headscarf has been banned in some schools.

Legally, you must have the resources and finances to bring a lawsuit about. Sure, you can get "free" lawyers, but they usually aren't very good. And the judges are still bigotted pieces of garbage.

So really, in America nothing is guaranteed.

You know, most of these attack are widely condemned by virtually everyone and these victims usually get millions of dollars for legal funds from organizations like CAIR or ACLU.

[War Cry]

I was on the bus the other day and the Muslim girl behind me got stopped and scrutinized for her transfer. She showed it the same way I did. I had a transfer I'd been using for a month, because I was broke. She had a transfer she paid for that day. I'm white.

It's the little things.

[danyboy27]

Recently, the right to wear a religious headscarf has been banned in some schools.

what the point of wearing religious icon in a school anyway

[War Cry]

Uhhh, because it's an integral part of their belief system. It's their, uh, choice. And if you're going to harken to American religious freedom as gifted to us by the constitution, at least be correct.

[danyboy27]

Uhhh, because it's an integral part of their belief system. It's their, uh, choice. And if you're going to harken to American religious freedom as gifted to us by the constitution, at least be correct.

dont worry, i am not only against the muslim on this one, personally, i dont really think religion have its room at school, no matter if some dude where their turban or some other wear their cross pendant.

i dont have nothing against the muslim in particular, i just think that religion and religious symbols dont have any place in a classroom or in a public building.

if the parents want to teach to their children religious rites and other things like that, its up to them, but a school is a school, and a voting booth is a voting booth, same goes for the hospitals. its not our job to manage their religious cults, to put exceptions everywhere for them. and by religious cult i mean, every cults, no matter if they are christian or muslim, i dont care, i am fucking sick if people having preferential treatements beccause they believe in x god.

[RGacky3]

No I don't agree with your above point as in most recent American occupations, the aftermath was the establishment of representative democracies (Japan, Germany, Grenada, Panama, Iraq). What I did say was that hegemonic empires are better for the world then chaotic situations where there are no superpowers or great powers. For instance standards of living under the Roman Empire was relatively high which disappeared after it's collapse.

Historically the United States has never cared about whether or not there was a representative democracy in the country they support, all that the United States has cared about was that the government was friendly or subservient to American interests. Iraq was well supported before saddam stopped being subservient.

Also as was said before, the other option other than empire is not chaos. Sometimes it happens for the same reason after you hold a dog by its hears and then let go it will bite, but that does'nt mean continueing to hold his ears is the best option.

Living standars for who?

[Phalanx]

The example of the Roman Empire actually proves my point. While Rome may have been oppressive everything was stable and strong under them (at least most of the time) but when Rome fell the barbarians caused the former Empire to fracture into dozens of different states causing wars, plauges, famines, population declines, and so on.

http://www.localhistories.org/middle.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=aSBz9FKvrb0C&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=life+expectancy+in+roman+empire&source=bl&ots=cDqrPhGuGq&sig=axXMBGkk7TlflnwbZVmMKDRBpfY&hl=en&ei=-Vp0SueTDOKBtgfyptGWCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=&f=false

If you read both links, you'll see that life expectancy in the Dark Ages was actually 10 years higher than in the Roman Empire. And don't be sucked into the illusion that the lack of the Empire created wars. The Empire was created due to war.

[Robert]

It's hypothetically guaranteed. Hypothetically. Socially, it's guaranteed you'll come under scrutiny in many different forms, including lack of employment opportunities, criminal profiling, hate crimes, property destruction, attacks on your place of worship and other atrocities. Recently, the right to wear a religious headscarf has been banned in some schools.

Legally, you must have the resources and finances to bring a lawsuit about. Sure, you can get "free" lawyers, but they usually aren't very good. And the judges are still bigotted pieces of garbage.

So really, in America nothing is guaranteed. Lots of problems here. First, it isn't "hypothetical." Religious freedom is etched in the First Amendment and in many civil rights statutes. Of course there are legal and social problems for minorities. But you're being unfair and unreasonable if you blame that on capitalism or the government or think it can be "revolutionzed" away. People everywhere dislike people who are different, regardless of place or point in history or form of government. This very board barely tolerates and is overtly abusive toward people who don't support communism. I don't expect better or worse than that from individuals. We're all human. If you mean nothing in life is guaranteed, I agree.

The headscarf is a more interesting claim. I knew that was a big issue in France, but not in the USA. My area schools permit headscarves, there are lots of them, and there is zero controversy, socially or governmentally. Zero. And I'm in the south where everyone supposedly hates blacks and non-christians.:rolleyes:

But even more interesting is the cite below, showing that the executive branch of the U.S. government in 2004 intervened in a local headscarf issue that arose in Oklahoma. According to the report, the government intervened on behalf of the muslim student. Guess what else? The head of the executive department in 2004 was George W. Bush.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/30/us.school.headscarves/ On edit, I just noticed another link indicating that the Oklahoma school district backed off in the face of the Bush administration's intervention on behalf of the muslim child. Score one for religious freedom, the First Amendment, and George W. Bush. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x566325.

So religious freedom really is guaranteed in the USA. Now tell me if you dare that you may safely move to Iran or Saudi Arabia and sue a local school if it forces you to wear a scarf against your christian beliefs.

The point is not that minorities win in the USA every time. Hardly. Even christians lose in some disputes with schools, like the cases of valedictorians who are denied the right to praise "our Lord Jesus Christ" at commencement exercises and even football games. It's tricky balancing freedom exercise of religion against the prohibition of a state establishment of religion. The point is that there is a structural, institutionalized remedy for redress of claims of discrimination in the USA on the basis of race, sex, religion, and national origin. Sexual orientation protection is not guaranteed federally but it is guaranteed in several states. What in the Islamic world even approaches our model for fairness and even-handedness toward minorities?

While we are arguing, I think you are being very unfair to the many heroic lawyers who agree to represent the poor for little or no money. Some of the lawyers with the ACLU and other defense projects like the Southern Poverty Law Center in Alabama, who champion constitutional claims of the poor, are highly credentialed, extremely hardworking and brilliant.

[Richard Nixon]

http://www.localhistories.org/middle.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=aSBz9FKvrb0C&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=life+expectancy+in+roman+empire&source=bl&ots=cDqrPhGuGq&sig=axXMBGkk7TlflnwbZVmMKDRBpfY&hl=en&ei=-Vp0SueTDOKBtgfyptGWCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=&f=false

If you read both links, you'll see that life expectancy in the Dark Ages was actually 10 years higher than in the Roman Empire. And don't be sucked into the illusion that the lack of the Empire created wars. The Empire was created due to war.

What I meant was the Dark Ages (circa 500 AD-900) not the Middle Ages where conditions improved somewhat. The Empire may have been created due to wars but after it had conquered more or less most of it's territories by the time of Augustus most of the wars that followed from that time were civil wars. It certainly was more peaceful then the Dark Ages.