Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government Politics

Indymedia Server Raided by FBI 1150

Posted by samzenpus
from the need-to-know-basis dept.
jaromil writes "Today at about 18:00 CET FBI raided the indymedia servers hosted by Rackspace both in US and England. At present, the italian indymedia and numerous other local IMC websites are obscured, while the reasons why the hard drives were taken are still unknown."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Indymedia Server Raided by FBI

Comments Filter:
  • And? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @05:47PM (#10464482)
    Who the heck is indymedia?
  • by mfh (56) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @05:48PM (#10464498) Homepage Journal
    ... Nobody's exactly sure why or how the FBI got warrants to take Indymedia's HDs, but their speculation tends to center around the fact that the Feds were spooked by the fact that Indymedia was able to publish RNC delegate names.

    Yeah that freedom of speech thing is a real pain, isn't it?
  • by thewldisntenuff (778302) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @05:49PM (#10464503) Homepage
    Because it wasn't "some website raided by the FBI". It was an independant media source that was taken down by the FBI for reasons unknown....

    The regular media doesn't get taken down so easily...Sounds suspicous....Politically motivated? Possibly...

    But kiddy porn ring, no....
  • by caseydk (203763) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @05:51PM (#10464520) Homepage Journal

    They also published the personal information of the delegates which included home addresses, phone numbers, and places of work.

    There were also numerous hacks around that time (protestwarrior for one) in which personal information was posted on Indymedia sites.

    When anti-abortion groups post this information on doctors who perform abortions, it is considered a threat. Why is this any different?
  • by tdarley (163034) <treyka AT well DOT com> on Thursday October 07, 2004 @05:52PM (#10464532) Homepage
    Indymedia goes down in an FBI raid and the best /. can muster are a bunch of asshat trolls who have their heads so far buried in the sand they don't even know what indymedia.org *is*.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 07, 2004 @05:56PM (#10464574)
    It's different because no one's threatening to kill RNC delegate, you partisan asshole.

    Sheesh. Get a clue, or buy one.
  • due process? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by to_kallon (778547) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @05:57PM (#10464577)
    Rackspace was given no time to defend against the order before it was acted upon and turned over the hard drives from the nyc imc server [indymedia.org]
    now i'm no legal expert, but i was under the distinct impression that, with a few exceptions like threatening the president, you were innocent until proven guilty and had the right to defend yourself. have i missed something?
    also by law aren't federal agents, any agents for that matter, required to show the warrant? so *some*body must know what's going on, right?

  • by hidden (135234) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @05:57PM (#10464584)
    I realise that if it just happened there may not be a huge amount of information available yet, but surely you could link to something a little better than well...nothing.

    And I have to question what little info you have given... after all, I'm pretty sure the FBI (an AMERICAN organization) can't directly raid a rackspace location in ENGLAND... don't they have to arrange with their friends in the relevant British agencies to do something like that?
  • by AK Marc (707885) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @05:59PM (#10464608)
    They also published the personal information of the delegates which included home addresses, phone numbers, and places of work.

    ...which was already publicly released elsewhere. If you are going to take down the caches of "private" information that was previously published for all to see, then there are a lot of Google cache servers that the FBI needs to seize.
  • by mcc (14761) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:00PM (#10464609) Homepage
    This event will legitimize IndyMedia in a way that none of their reporting ever has.
  • by Cryofan (194126) <cryofan@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:00PM (#10464611) Homepage Journal
    Umm....can someone please remind me how this is the greatest and most free country in the world?
    (No fair modding me down based on your warped "political" leanings...).

  • by Tackhead (54550) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:00PM (#10464616)
    > > ... Nobody's exactly sure why or how the FBI got warrants to take Indymedia's HDs, but their speculation tends to center around the fact that the Feds were spooked by the fact that Indymedia was able to publish RNC delegate names.
    >
    >Yeah that freedom of speech thing is a real pain, isn't it?

    Yeah, that privacy thing is a real pain, isn't it?

    Supposing for a moment that the speculation is correct: If they were publishing DNC delegate names, or bank/credit card customer names, or even the names under which people had registered at a web site, you'd argue that such an activity ought also to be protected under the First Amendment?

    Or do privacy laws somehow become a bad thing when they protect members of a political party with whom you disagree?

  • by eliza_effect (715148) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:03PM (#10464653)
    Because when anti-abortion groups post that information, the implication is that it is to be used for less-than-legal activities (including murder). Posting the address and phone number of someone, without advocating harm to them isn't a problem in most cases (because if it were, the companies who mantain your local Phone Book would be in some serious trouble).
  • Re:due process? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by actiondan (445169) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:04PM (#10464670)

    now i'm no legal expert, but i was under the distinct impression that, with a few exceptions like threatening the president, you were innocent until proven guilty and had the right to defend yourself. have i missed something?


    Yes, you have missed something - the national security laws passed in the last few years.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:06PM (#10464689)
    With that kind of attitude, you'll gladly hand over all your rights over time all in the name of 'security'!

    Besides, if you believe that a terrorist is waiting for someone to post that information is underestimating those people. If they wanted that information secure, they should have thought about that before they made it so easily available some independant media hacks could obtain it.
  • by arose (644256) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:07PM (#10464697)
    It's called terrorism because the reason isn't to kill people, but to make them fear. But it seams that while people are all for it to make "war on terror", they don't want to fight their own fear.
  • by Handigar (820048) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:07PM (#10464700)
    Its not "just" the current US administration, its a general western centre-right policy: note the servers were not all located in the USA and therefore other governments were implicit in the "crime" though one wonders why the FBI rather than the law enforcement agencies of said governments seized the HDs. And its "your rights online" because it appears you cant maintain a legal website expressing views contrary to the political establishment (of several nations) without it getting taken down.
  • by White Roses (211207) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:08PM (#10464704)
    If I understand this correctly, this sort of says to me that if it's me in public, I don't have a right not to be photographed (i.e. traffic cameras, security cameras), but if it's the police, they do? If that's not a step on the way to a police state, I don't know what is . . .

    How do we know it was the police anyway, if they were supposedly undercover? If they were, and someone photographed them, the undercover police shouldn't have had identifying marks. If they're that easily identifable, they're not really undercover, are they? And if they aren't identifiable, then the Swiss themselves gave away the whole shebang by raising a stink about it, no? If the police wanted to remain anonymous, maybe they should have taken the pictures from a long way away with a telephoto lens the size of Hubble, or from behind a one-way mirror in a van or something.

    Sorry, this just all seems really messed up to me in general.

  • Uh... huh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FredFnord (635797) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:12PM (#10464729)
    (leaks of the RNC delegates home addresses? How would we feel if it was the DNC delegates? Or your home address) until proven otherwise.
    I would be annoyed. But I wouldn't call the FBI, because, of course, that is not in any way illegal. It may be harassment, if it was posted along with an exhortation to spam these guys into submission. It could even be conspiracy to commit assault (or murder) if it says, 'Here are the addresses, I want each group to move in at about 4 PM and watch the front doors until you see the target come home. Once the target is at home, you...' and so forth. But posting someone's home address, name, and phone number is perfectly legal, and is in fact no more than every commercial interest that sells lists of names does.

    So don't give me this garbage about how I would feel. I don't like the idea that someone could post my address and phone number on the net so that a group of dicks could harass me, but I like even less this whole 'nanny state' censorship issue. And I hate the idea that something like this can be done for a reason that isn't even actually illegal. What's good for the goose is damn well good for the gander.

    Now, that said, I think the likelihood that 'RNC' appears in any way on the warrant is vanishingly small. If, in fact, this is in retaliation for the RNC names thing, it's going to have some actual legal basis that is nearly or wholly unrelated.

    (And may well be fictional.)

    -fred
  • by snakecoder (235259) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:13PM (#10464748)
    jesus dude, think about what you are saying. You support police action over people having retarded views? I support police action if people break laws. Being anti-american is not illegal. I take hope in my faith that the FBI had real cause. That is a cause other than what you've stated.
  • Re:due process? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bingo Foo (179380) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:14PM (#10464755)
    Yeah, search warrants were unheard of before a few years ago.

    Get some perspective.

  • by Zed2K (313037) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:14PM (#10464757)
    Once hardware is seized like this, it and everything on it will never be returned. Whether you are guilty or not.
  • by caseydk (203763) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:16PM (#10464770) Homepage Journal

    The delegates and users of protest warriors are not public figures.

    There were numerous reports from NYC of delegates to the RNC being accosted. There are many reports of campaign headquarters being shot at, ransacked and stormed in the past few days. I would say that this information was posted with the explicit purpose of targetting those people.

    If these were Communists, people would be screaming about "black listing".
  • by susano_otter (123650) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:20PM (#10464819) Homepage
    I think the way it works is, the police go to a judge. They show the judge documentation of the undercover mission, including various kinds of proof that the images do in fact show undercover policemen at work. The judge reviews the evidence presented, and approves or denies the warrant according to his own judgement.

    The theory being that undercover police work is necessary for a secure society, and that it can't be done if the information about undercover missions is available to the public. Therefore, a sensible citizenry will devise some system by which a trustworthy, individual is appointed to a position of responsibility, where he reviews such warrant requests in private, and makes a judgement on behalf of his fellow citizens, without opening the information to disastrous public review.

    Note that judges have been doing this sort of thing for hundreds of years, quite often in countries that have made little or no significant progress towards fascism in that time. So there's probably not much causality between closed deliberations of government and fascism.
  • by caseydk (203763) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:20PM (#10464822) Homepage Journal

    Delegates are NOT political office holders.

    They are people selected or appointed to serve in a purely non-governmental role to represent a particular group.

    By this logic, all of the protesters who went to NYC on behalf of all the anti-Bush and/or pro-Kerry organizations should have their personal information shared too. I don't think either side should have that info made public.
  • by 14erCleaner (745600) <FourteenerCleaner@yahoo.com> on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:21PM (#10464831) Homepage Journal
    I FULLY support the take down of any and all leftist, liberal propoganda sites like this, the more the better.

    The first amendment guarantees the right to hold stupid, idiotic political opinions. If you don't like it, there are other countries with different constitutions, feel free to emigrate. Personally, I like the Bill of Rights just fine, thank you.

  • by Temsi (452609) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:21PM (#10464832) Journal
    When anti-abortion groups post this information on doctors who perform abortions, it is considered a threat. Why is this any different?
    Hmmm... I'm gonna go out on a limb here.
    Perhaps it has something to do with the reasoning behind the publication, and the history of those who publish this information.

    Let's look at the history first.

    Liberal activists are not exactly known for being the militant types (just ask any Republican), and are more often than not pigeonholed as hippies, peaceniks, treehuggers and even cowards by the more militant right wing.

    Anti-abortion groups on the other hand have a long history of stalking the doctors who perform abortions, which very often leads to physical violence. Many abortion doctors have been murdered for doing their jobs. I don't think a delegate has ever been given so much as a black eye.

    Next, let's consider what the reasoning is for the publication in each instance?

    When an anti-abortion group publishes the names and addresses of private citizens (doctors), they usually follow it up with "make sure they get the message" or "do what you have to to help save another fetus".
    For the most radical of those groups, that can be a very dangerous proposition.

    When activists publish the names of delegates which are pledged to their opponent, who are constitutionally not supposed to be secret anyway, they're doing so in order to make sure their supporters use letters and phonecalls to put pressure on them to do what the activists consider to be the right thing, whatever it is.

    Now, if you keep these two things in mind:
    1) the identities of delegates are not secrets and in an open government that information must remain in the public domain.
    2) the intent of the activists is not violence, but peaceful communication.

    Compare that with:
    1) the identities of doctors are private, although they can be found if you take the time to look for them.
    2) the intent of the activists is not peaceful communication, but prevention at all costs.

    With those things in mind, I see plenty of reasons as to why publishing the names of delegates should NOT be considered a threat of any kind. In fact, I believe it is protected by the first amendment.

  • Re:due process? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TrollBridge (550878) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:22PM (#10464839) Homepage Journal
    What, were the owners thrown in jail? Key thrown out? Offices burned to the ground? For as little information that is available, you've certainly come to a lot of conclusions here. That's called SPECULATION. What if they were in fact served with a warrant? How would you like your crow prepared?
  • by Cryofan (194126) <cryofan@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:22PM (#10464840) Homepage Journal
    You Righties see America as something to which you owe loyalty, and you see and the President, Senators, et al as demigods. However, we Lefties see America as the property of its citizens, and its leaders as our employees.

    I think the difference in perspective may be better understood by seeing those on the Right as composed of two classes--the alpha leaders and the followers. Really, it is a timeless pack-animal, social-animal hierarchy.

    We on the Left see humans as something above animals, and to a great extent we reject animal tradition, and seek a new organization, one that minimizes hierarchy, and one that sees a nation as a tool for the citizens. You on the Right seek comfort in a stable society where you and everyone else "know your own place" in society.

  • Re:due process? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DogDude (805747) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:23PM (#10464843) Homepage
    Thanks to the wonders of the freeing "Patriot Act", they don't need warrants. Anybody suspected of "terrorism" (which can be anything from writing with chalk on sidewalks or speeding to killing thousands of people) can be arrested, and have assets seized without a warrant. Welcome to the People's Republic of America.
  • by Audacious (611811) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:23PM (#10464852) Homepage
    I think that says it pretty well. :-/
  • Re:due process? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pclminion (145572) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:26PM (#10464877)
    Well...

    Rackspace was given no time to defend against the order

    How do you "defend" against something like that? You can't dispute a warrant/search order. When the cops show up with paper in hand, you don't get to say "Hey, wait a sec, let's talk this over." They have the warrant. Period.

    you were innocent until proven guilty and had the right to defend yourself. have i missed something?

    Just because they were searched doesn't mean they've been assumed guilty. (Guilty of what, I have no idea...) That won't be known until the evidence is assessed. And the evidence can't be assessed unless the government has access to it. That's sort of the point of a search order.

    Unfortunately, as things currently are, the government can confiscate property under certain laws with no obligation to return it or provide compensation. Drug property forfeitures work the same way -- if you're suspected of transporting cocaine on your yacht, for example, you forfeit the yacht, even if it later turns out you were innocent of everything.

    If I were Indymedia, I wouldn't count on ever seeing those hard drives, ever again.

    It's the definition of "due process" which has been changing in recent years. The constitution says that we can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, but that isn't clearly defined. And I definitely don't like the direction that definition is evolving toward...

  • by aiken_d (127097) <brooks@tangent[ ]com ['ry.' in gap]> on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:26PM (#10464887) Homepage
    It starts to make sense, I have no idea what Swiss laws against exposing undercover law enforcement agents say.

    Well, do you know what the Swiss laws against even mentioning undercover law enforcement agents are? Perhaps you're violating them now, and the FBI should raid slashdot.

    That's the problem with the argument that every internet content provider is subject to the laws of every country on Earth.

    And, yes, to the extent that the FBI has decided that its job is to protect foreign secret police rather than American citizens, it does reflect negatively on the Bush administration. Considering how often they oversimplify terrorism ("they hate us because we're free"), they sure don't seem very interested in actual freedom of the press. At least not when the press is anti-establishment... even against foreign establishments.

    Cheers
    -b

  • UK? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nicklott (533496) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:27PM (#10464900)
    Whoah, they took the HD from a server in the UK and handed it over to the FBI!?! With no court orders?!

    If TV has taught me nothing (and it hasn't), this shit happens all the time in the US; but to get a company in the UK to bend over for a US agency is something, even if it does have an american parent.

    I guess the moral of the story is if you're worried about this thing happening to your servers make sure you host with a non-US company, even outside the US.

  • Re:About time! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:32PM (#10464950)
    Tell that to the families of the victims of 911.

    They died to protect our freedom. Why not exercise it vigorously, while we still can?
  • by ZB Mowrey (756269) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:33PM (#10464961) Homepage Journal
    I always love it when people confuse LiberAL with LiberTARIAN. It must be convenient to ignore the extra letters on the end. FYI - I can't think of a single Libertarian who would vote for Shrub. Not to say they don't exist, but I've not met one.

    I'd bet about anything that most of the 'against' votes on Slashdot came from Libertarians, be they Big L or Little L.

    Love,

    A former conservative, who jumped ship when he realized there was no one at the helm.

  • Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TummyX (84871) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:33PM (#10464962)

    They liked to live on the edge of annoying the establishment... they were the ones that broke the story of the statue of saddam hussen falling being a put-up job for the assembled press (there were only about half a dozen people there, there rest were reporters/press).


    "Broke" the story? LOL. More like introduced a conspiracy theory. I watched the whole thing live and there were well more than "half a dozen" Iraqis there. IM's "proof" were pictures *after* the statue fell when most of the were busy dragging saddam's head down the street.


    It's not surprising the US want to censor them... surprising they have the guts to do it so publicly though.


    It might have something to do with the fact that they have a habit of not pulling illegal material from their site.
  • by theLOUDroom (556455) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:38PM (#10465020)
    This is the type of thing that makes me really embarassed to be an American.

    These people should have been shown a warrant and that warrant should be public.

    We should know the EXACT reason those hard disks were taken for NOW. This type of crap really, really disturbs me.

    What's left to prevent fishing expeditions against people the gov't doesn't like?
    They show up search the place, find something illegal, and make up the warrant afterwards?


    This is lunacy. The executive branch has been breaking constitutional law left and right and no one is on trial.
  • by snol (175626) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:39PM (#10465040)
    all depends if they're civil-liberties-libertarians or I-don't-wanna-pay-taxes libertarians. Makes a big difference.
  • conspiracy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:40PM (#10465050) Homepage Journal
    Indymedia isn't directing its audience to kill Republican electors. Antichoice terrorist direct their audience to kill abortionists, pass around their contact info, and then some in their audience actually kill abortionists. What is this demented obsession with "balance" when the rightwingers are so totally unbalanced, that balance just drags us all to the right?
  • by KarmaMB84 (743001) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:42PM (#10465071)
    Letters maybe? If I want my Congressional rep's address, am I going to kill them?
  • Re:No jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Squeeze Truck (2971) <xmsho@yahoo.com> on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:43PM (#10465083) Homepage
    Believe it or not, UK soil is subject to UK law, not American law.

    Airstrip One is Part of Oceania, comrade.
  • *sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)

    by juuri (7678) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:43PM (#10465087) Homepage
    They liked to live on the edge of annoying the establishment... they were the ones that broke the story of the statue of saddam hussen falling being a put-up job for the assembled press (there were only about half a dozen people there, there rest were reporters/press).
    A conspiracy theory is not a story... there were plenty of other photo angles from that same day that showed a vastly different "story" than IndyMedia posited.

    I've dealt firsthand with many of the hacks and idiots involved in Indymedia. They grab on to the coat-tails of any media event or protest they can and then act as extreme as possible to garner press even if it harms the original vision of the event or protest. They are revolting, dishonest and a sad excuse for a "media".
  • IT SUPPORT (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fadethepolice (689344) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:48PM (#10465134) Journal
    Who the F**k is there it consultant? Didn't he ever hear of an off-site backup? The search warrant did not revoke their right to operate, just that they turn over the RACKSPACE drives. An off-site back up, and a few hundred dollars could have gotten them back up in a jiffy. It would be very advantageous to have the off-site back-up to be read only to prevent the argument that it too had to be seized in order to do forensic analysis to detect erased material. Learn from this ye who yearn to cry in the dark.
  • by Grishnakh (216268) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:48PM (#10465137)
    Even more, I can't think of any cases where prominant Republican party members (at least those not already surrounded by Secret Service agents) were targets for assassination. It's just not a problem, any more than there have been assassination attempts against Bill Gates or Darl McBride.

    Contrast this to abortion doctors, who really have been assassinated by pro-life activists. Simply based on past trends, being an abortion doctor in this country is far more dangerous than being a Republican delegate, or being McBride, Gates, Ken Lay, or various other hated corporate figures.

    As an aside, I've never heard of any pro-choice activists assassinating anyone on the pro-life side. What does this say about the pro-lifers vs the pro-choicers? I guess, like many religious nutcases, pro-lifers don't see anything wrong with violating one of their own Commandments.
  • by FredFnord (635797) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:48PM (#10465138)
    There were numerous reports from NYC of delegates to the RNC being accosted.
    Yes. In New York, when going in and out of the meeting. That's part of life; protests are, at least in theory, still legal.

    (There are also reports of non-violent, LICENSED protesters being jailed for three days, then never charged with anything, just to keep them off the street while the RNC was in town. (And people who were just walking to the corner grocery store getting caught up and locked up along with them.) Which is illegal, but is something it looks like we're going to have to get used to.)
    There are many reports of campaign headquarters being shot at, ransacked and stormed in the past few days. I would say that this information was posted with the explicit purpose of targetting those people.
    Actually, there is one report of a campaign headquarters being shot at. Yes, a Republican campaign HQ, and yes, it is fairly well substantiated. It amazes me, because of course the dramatic majority of Democrats are pro gun-control. It looks like Rush -- er, that is to say, Bush -- has pissed someone else off besides the Democrats, eh?

    One report of a Republican campaign headquarters being 'ransacked'. That is to say, someone broke into it and stole three laptops, possibly some office equipment, and possibly some money (this is in dispute). The assumption is, although the HQ was a juicy target and the laptops were out in plain sight, it must have been Democrats who did it. Well, possibly it was; it's hardly like the Democratic party can make any claims to sainthood, and I'd find it MUCH more likely that they'd stoop to stealing than they would attempt a drive-by shooting.

    And the usual random assortment of graffiti, vandalism, and silliness on both sides. Which is almost certainly just drunk partisan college student asshats.

    But hey, you notice that with the information out there, including names, addresses, phone numbers, and all that stuff, for all the RNC delegates... with the information STILL out there... with the information still out there and READILY AVAILABLE... there haven't been any serious incidents?

    I mean, hell, if I were one of them, I would be terribly disappointed. 'What, am I not important enough for a few death threats?'
    If these were Communists, people would be screaming about "black listing".
    Nope, that screaming would start when someone interviewed for a job and was told that they couldn't be hired because they were on 'the list'.

    Lists of names don't kill people. People kill people. With guns and lists of names. Why do you want to outlaw the lists of names?

    -fred
  • Re:And? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CmdrGravy (645153) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:48PM (#10465139) Homepage
    It's interesting that articles about government corruption and torture etc are considered to be something only the left is interested in. I agree that probably is the case, it's just interesting.
  • by Solstice (11486) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:49PM (#10465141)
    Liberal activists are not exactly known for being the militant types (just ask any Republican), and are more often than not pigeonholed as hippies, peaceniks, treehuggers and even cowards by the more militant right wing.

    Bwahahaha... That's one of the funniest things I've ever heard here. Perhaps you haven't heard of ELF, Black Bloc, or Ruckus? Maybe not, but perhaps the Black Panthers and BAMN may jog your memory. These groups aren't necessarily known for their peaceful tactics.

    Oh yeah, what about the recent ransackings and shootings at Republican campaign headqurters? Lest we forget that Indymedia itself was born out of the "peaceful" demonstrations at the Seattle WTO conference.

    There are radical kooks on both sides of the aisle. You cannot possibly devine that the intention of the the folks who posted that info is entirely peaceful.
  • by Fnkmaster (89084) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:49PM (#10465145)
    I tend to agree. It just makes them look like an oppressed victim of an overzealous right-wing government (which they are), instead of a whiny radical left wing semi-news outlet (which they also are).
  • by actiondan (445169) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:49PM (#10465148)
    why didn't they post both DNC and RNC delegate names?

    indymedia uses an open publishing system - if someone wanted to post (and had) the DNC names, they could have posted them.

  • by techsoldaten (309296) * on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:49PM (#10465152) Journal
    I was unaware anyone had conclusively identified the party affiliations of any of the people having taken part in these events.

    A popular technique in engineering consent to an issue is to generate a sympathetic response to you candidate. One way to do this is to stage an attack on the candidate, not necessarily a physical one but one where people will feel sorry for him / her.

    It is entirely possible these attacks were staged as part of an effort to generate sympathy for GOP candidates. No one should pretend to know any different.

    M
  • by snark42 (816532) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:51PM (#10465169)
    The definition of libertarian is one who is for minimal government intrusion in both personal and economic life. A person for personal freedom and more government programs is a liberal. A person for minimal government intrusion in economic life and more intruusion in personal life is a conservative. Of course the dems and repubs here in the U.S. don't fit those definitions. The repubs used to be libertarians before the Christian "Right" got so involved.
  • by sg_oneill (159032) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:56PM (#10465211)
    And then some....

    In australia, a typically pro-us country, my grandfather told me that he cant remember a less liked us president. Nixon was kinda up there tho.

    Not to put too fine a point on it. George bush is ONLY loved by about half the us population and almost none of the worlds population.

    But you get that when your foreign policy is "Fuck the earth".

  • by spuzzzzzzz (807185) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:56PM (#10465213) Homepage

    I have been doing an informal count of the number of times "Bush" appears (from a level of 1 or above). Bush appears 12 times. 10 of those times are in posts lamenting the fact that everyone is anti-Bush. Could it be that the anti-Bush-haters have overtaken the Bush-haters? Does that leave anyone who actually like Bush?

    Or maybe you're just too sensitive. Different communities have different biases. If you want to participate on slashdot, live wth its biases. The fact that more people are complaining about biases than conforming to said biases is telling. Give it a rest.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:56PM (#10465217)
    I find it ironic that a bunch of anti-violence, anti-gun, peacemongers, like Democrats would behave this way. The anti-Bush crowd is foaming at the mouth. Have you all had your shots?

    Bush has pissed off lots of people. The economic situation has created lots of desparate people. The anti-Bush crowd is made up of lots of people who aren't Democrats.

    As I recall, the militia movement (watch out for the jack-booted thugs and black helicopters) was going strong under Bush I. If you are afraid of intrusive, big government, Bush II really isn't your friend. There are lots of right wing fringe groups I would think have real problems with the way things are going.
  • Re:Gag? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Vainglorious Coward (267452) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:56PM (#10465220) Journal

    the politically motivated ACLU

    That would be the same blatantly politically-motivated ACLU that recently supported Rush Limbaugh [cnn.com] would it? Or are you perhaps just demonstrating your own blatant political motivation?

  • by Jelloman (69747) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:56PM (#10465222)
    It is entirely possible these attacks were staged as part of an effort to generate sympathy for GOP candidates.

    Given the demonstrated electioneering competency of the Democrats and Republicans in recent years, I would say that the above is actually the most likely explanation.
  • Re:About time! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Huge Pi Removal (188591) * <oliver+slashdot@watershed.co.uk> on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:01PM (#10465268) Homepage
    There comes a time when +5, Funny isn't good enough any more. We need +5 shit, this is actually happening.
  • by FredFnord (635797) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:01PM (#10465275)
    I find it ironic that a bunch of anti-violence, anti-gun, peacemongers, like Democrats would behave this way. The anti-Bush crowd is foaming at the mouth. Have you all had your shots?
    That's SO funny to hear.

    You know, I don't assume, when I hear of another abortion doctor being killed execution-style, that 'Republicans' in general are responsible. It's a lunatic fringe, who have as much right to call themselves Republicans as I have to call myself a martian. When I talk about Republicans did this and Republicans did that, I don't include things that the Republicans can't be proven to have done, and that most Republicans would be deeply ashamed of.

    And, amusingly, neither do most other Democrats that I know of. They accept that mainstream Republicanism isn't all about shooting abortion doctors. But then, when some whacko drives by a RNC HQ and shoots at it, not only do the Republicans start yelling at the Democrats about it, as if Kerry somehow planned it, but you actually start hearing Democrats apologizing, as if they thought they were actually responsible!

    Puh-leeze. Catch the bastards and get on with life, and don't tell me I'm responsible for their stupidity. (Well, actually, I'm not a Democrat. I just agree with a whole lot more of their platform than I do with the Republicans'.)

    -fred
  • by benzapp (464105) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:05PM (#10465309)
    Even more, I can't think of any cases where prominant Republican party members (at least those not already surrounded by Secret Service agents) were targets for assassination.

    Tell that to some of the victims of the protests during the RNC.

    What about the riot groups that have broken into RNC campaign centers throughout the country?
  • by tazan (652775) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:09PM (#10465349)
    Did you read the web page? It starts out with this quote "The earth is not dying, it is being killed. And those that are killing it have names and addresses." One of the goals is "Supply anti-RNC groups with data on the delegates to use in whatever way they see fit." And ends with "Shut down the RNC!" Shutting down a parties convention is not voter intimidation? And since when is someone's email address and hotel they are staying in public information? If this is all public information why did they have to break into a server to get it?
  • Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dtfinch (661405) * on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:09PM (#10465350) Journal
    It might have something to do with the fact that they have a habit of not pulling illegal material from their site.

    There are many many situations where illegal material is illegal illegally (violation of 1st amendment rights, of speech, press, or protest) and is therefore legal if you're willing to battle it out. The US government is way too involved in influencing public opinion, something they ought not to at all.
  • by benzapp (464105) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:13PM (#10465370)
    What did these stuffed shirt Red Staters expect, showing up in the toughest Democrat constituency in America with dazzled stares?

    Being a New York City resident, I can tell you that New York is far less democratic than probably all of the top 100 cities. There are some places, like Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, New Haven, Bridgeport, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia where there are NO republicans on the city council and they haven't had a republican mayor since before the depression.

    New York has many, many districts that are strongly republican, such as large parts of Brooklyn, all of Staten Island and most of Queens. We haven't had a Democrat mayor since 1993, probably when you were still in grade school.

    Further, I can tell you that the vast majority of protestors were not city residents. Most were students from all over the country, indoctrinated by communist teachers at surrounding universities. Most New York residents who had the opportunity LEFT the city to avoid the mayhem. The rest have jobs that make it a little difficult to go on a rampage on city streets.

    I unfortunately did not leave, but one thing I can also tell you, as I chose to ride my bike during these times as it is the quickest way around during disasters, 90% of the protestors were White and between 18 and 30. These protests were nothing more than a generation educated by communists looking for something to protest.

    We don't have any oppressive laws anymore, so instead the only think left to do is villify people. Its not the law that's bad, but the people in government.
  • Re:Flamebait (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cheekyboy (598084) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:16PM (#10465399) Homepage Journal
    Are you denying that there is a forced rigid heirichy in the government system with lots of "i scratch your back, you scratch mine" people and lots of ass kissing and fakers out there with back stabbing gallore. Pack animals, yes, ask any socialigist/biologist and they will concur the similarity, you cannot deny it dude. Maybe we cannot avoid that, but we can add extra logical none currupt decision processes into it to make it fair and transparent, not contract based and locked in a safe.

  • by Leebert (1694) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:18PM (#10465407)
    This may not be so protected anymore, thanks to Diebold. For all we know, it doesn't matter who people vote for, because Diebold could be making sure that only their favorite candidates actually win the elections.

    If that is really true, and if the checks and balances in our system of government turn a blind eye to such a thing were it ever to be uncovered, then it's time to pull out the ammo box and have another revolutionary war.

    Personally, I don't think it's gone quite that far yet. So vote in people who will correct the election system.
  • by Onan (25162) * on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:26PM (#10465477)
    I think there's another important possibility: that the slashdot crowd is significantly anti-Bush. No, that's not the same thing as being pro-Kerry, pro-Democrat, or pro-Liberal, though of course some people will be those things as well.

    So far as I've ever been able to determine, Bush is so sodding incompetent that I would expect the range of anti-Bush people to approximate "everyone". Even if you happen to have exactly the same set of goals, values, and priorities which Bush claims, I would imagine that you'd at least want a remotely intelligent and competent person to pursue them.

  • by i_c_andrade (795205) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:29PM (#10465506)
    Federal law enforecement does not have to explain what is on the warrent. Feds just need to say we have probable cause that item X has evidentary value of violating Y. IF its a _sealed_ warrent they do not have to show you anything, you can ask if they have one, they might show you it but you cannot see it. To get a sealed warrent takes a lot of effort and it puts the officer, his/her department AND the judge who signed the order in a position of responsibility, its an attempt at checks and ballances. You have to name what you want to get on the warrent, and it gives them the right to enter your place.
  • by FredFnord (635797) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:36PM (#10465576)
    ...there are large (actually larger) numbers of violent acts committed by pro-abortionists who want someone to have an abortion than by anti-abortionists who are trying to keep someone from having an abortion.
    You know, I'm willing to admit that there are some whackos on both sides, but I would so love to see you try to prove that there have been more pro-lifers killed for their views than there have been pro-choicers.

    Eileen Janezic was a total nutcase, and is probably one of the few who you really could say murdered someone for their pro-life views.

    Byron Looper was only slightly less of a whacko, but there is zero evidence that he killed anyone because of their views on abortion. He was convicted of murder in the first degree for killing someone so that he could be elected in his stead. If you make the assumption that the only reason anyone would want to be a politician is to take sides on the abortion issue, then you might be right, by your definition. You'd be silly, by mine.
    The murder of pregnant women by pro-abortion men happens far more often than most people imagine. At least three studies have shown that the most common cause of fatalities among pregnant women is murder, and statistics show that almost one-third of these are due to pro-abortion men who kill their wives or girlfriends simply because they are pregnant.
    Ah, look, cut and pasted from the web site. Sadly, their numbers are actually spurious (drawing conclusions for the entire country based largely on behavior in heavily populated and low-income areas) and their assumptions are odious ('anyone who murders their pregnant girlfriend is by definition an abortion rights advocate, and is the moral equivalent of all other abortion rights activists'.)

    That would be laughable, if it weren't so sad.

    And the corollary has apparently not occurred to these people yet. That is to say, if, with abortion legal, people still kill their partners because they get pregnant... ...how many more will kill their partners if abortion is illegal? Because it sure as hell won't be less.

    -fred
  • Independant Media? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stu72 (96650) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:49PM (#10465693)
    Why is it that a site so proudly "independant" is so rigidly uniform in it's content?

    If the National Post (rigidly right wing Canadian paper) will publish Linda McQuaig and others, why aren't there any divergent viewpoints on Indymedia?
  • by aminorex (141494) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:54PM (#10465730) Homepage Journal
    Idea that people who have positions of *public responsibility* are the ruling class and therefore exempt from the norms and standards that apply to us *little people*, such as being tracked by our enemies in databases containing private information, is pernicious, antipathetic to democracy, and morally absurd.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 07, 2004 @08:03PM (#10465797)
    He was paraphrasing. I really doubt he was trying to actually quote a Bush administration official. So as an American who has been watching the Bush administration with great interest, I'd say he is exactly right, as long as he's paraphrasing. The quote marks are an informal convention, not an indication of an actual quote. Hope that clears things up for you.

    Not that Kerry's proposed foreign policy isn't only a hair different anyway, but that's another story. Why foreigners like him is something I cannot explain. Didn't he help start a war the rest of the world is complaining about and Kofi Annan declared was illegal under the UN Charter? Not exactly a good guy.
  • by CedgeS (159076) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @08:06PM (#10465825) Homepage Journal
    The first amendment guarantees the right to hold stupid, idiotic political opinions. If you don't like it, there are other countries with different constitutions, feel free to emigrate. Personally, I like the Bill of Rights just fine, thank you.

    The first amendment guarantees the right to hold stupid, idiotic political opinions. If you don't like it, there are other countries with different constitutions, feel free to emigrate. Personally, I like the Bill of Rights just fine, thank you.

  • by Fantastic Lad (198284) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @08:31PM (#10465996)
    If the National Post (rigidly right wing Canadian paper) will publish Linda McQuaig and others, why aren't there any divergent viewpoints on Indymedia?

    Apples and oranges.

    Indymedia definitely has an agenda. There is no question about this, and that agenda is to tell those stories which the National Post will never, ever touch. Linda McQuaig, as admirable as her socialist/Marxist thinking is, remains little more than a showpiece to give a lousy paper some legitimacy. (They call it, 'controversy' and they use it in a large part to sell ad spots.) Indymedia doesn't need to do this. Their primary concern is not money-making or winning false legitimacy.

    Linda McQuaig is also carried in the National Post for another reason; so that people can ask exactly the question you asked; so that they can feel as though there is a legitimate reason to scorn and ignore alternative news sources.

    But I think that this is unwise. Linda McQuaig will not, for instance, be allowed to report on the true events happening in Israel. Canwest Global, (which owns the National Post), has been caught re-wording stories about the war on Palestine so that unaware readers will want to favor the Israelis [www.cbc.ca].

    Indymedia and other alternative news sources are needed exactly because they do not fall beneath the control of such influences. Or, at least, that was true until the FBI entered the scene.


    -FL

  • Re:No jurisdiction (Score:4, Insightful)

    by multiplexo (27356) * on Thursday October 07, 2004 @08:33PM (#10466007) Journal
    They wouldn't be obliged to take down the server in a foreign country. Believe it or not, UK soil is subject to UK law, not American law.

    I've got some bad news for you sunshine, Tony Blair, the British PM, is G.W's bitch. I don't know what Tony gets from sucking Bush's ass but it must be something good given the way he does it.

  • Re:due process? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by actiondan (445169) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @08:40PM (#10466047)
    Get some perspective.

    My post was in response to it's parent (as posts usually are ;) )

    In the last few years, the assumption of innocent until proven guilty and the right to know the charges against you and defend yourself have been encroached upon.

    Search warrants have been around for a long time, but sealed warrants and gagging orders are becoming more and more common.
  • Re:...and? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Antique Geekmeister (740220) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @08:41PM (#10466061)
    No. The FBI, among other things, is in the business of following the president's and their director's orders. This can, and historically has, included blatantly illegal acts from the faking of subversive activities to discredit "leftists" in the 1960's to their handling of Whitey Bulger as both a Boston gangleader and mob informant, done so badly that the FBI actually helped convict innocent people of murder to protect Whitey. Many FBI agents are competent investigators dedicated to fighting bad people who commit crimes. Their directors often are not.
  • by FredFnord (635797) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @08:44PM (#10466075)
    Actually, they are independent in nearly every sense of the word.

    They are also biased in at least one sense of the word.

    Fox News is certainly not independent in most senses of the word. Their degree of bias will be left as an exercise to the reader.

    -fred
  • by Antique Geekmeister (740220) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @08:45PM (#10466084)
    Not under the Patriot Act: the level of judicial review is non-existent, they don't need a court order, and you can't even go screaming to the press about how you and why you got raided. The ACLU is going nuts because it can't publish information about cases it is trying to fight the nastier bits of the Patriot Act, not even their client's names or what was seized. It makes it very tough to get the law changed when it's illegal to discuss the effects of the law.
  • by 0x0000 (140863) <{zerohex} {at} {zerohex.com}> on Thursday October 07, 2004 @08:49PM (#10466112) Homepage

    I would agree with you about this part...

    'd bet about anything that most of the 'against' votes on Slashdot came from Libertarians, be they Big L or Little L.

    ....but as near as I can tell all the Libertarians I knew (personally knew) voted for Bush in 2000. I don't know many, but the ones I know all jumped to the Right.

    To give them credit, they thought that "neo-conservative" meant "new conservative" and didn't realize that "conservative" to the Bush camp means "bloated, deficit-spending fascism in pusuit of Global Dominion" and not "lean, low-powered, balanced budget, states rights, small goverment."

    Some of them have seen the light since 2000, but it is really too bad, imo, that they did so too late. The Republicans played them, then tossed them away, and they (the Libertarians) will probably never recover, since by nature their ideology can only exist with Freedom as a co-requisite, and Freedom is in seriously short supply in the US since 2000.

  • by krunk7 (748055) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @08:57PM (#10466158)
    I've read through a good bit of posts and it seems that many feel the "problem" with the release of their names is that it would be some sort of threat to the delegates.....But here's my question:

    If these are the people who ultimately elect my President why do I not have a right to know exactly who they are? And why would my (the represented's) knowledge serve as a threat in any form or fashion?

    The next thing you know, someone will be explaining why we shouldn't release the President's name to the public for security reasons.....

  • by 0x0000 (140863) <{zerohex} {at} {zerohex.com}> on Thursday October 07, 2004 @08:58PM (#10466161) Homepage
    Could it be that the anti-Bush-haters have overtaken the Bush-haters? Does that leave anyone who actually like Bush?

    No. The plain fact is there are no Bush supporters - only people who hate Kerry are voting for Bush. Of course, only Bush-haters are voting for Kerry, so the rest of us - those that don't hate - are just screwed.

    The 2-party system has got to be torn down. Especially since it is now a 1-party system since the Right has succeeded in enforcing their control over the setting of the agenda, and e.g. Kerry can only react. As near as I can tell there is no Democratic platform this year. And probably no Democratic Party, either. Just a loose coalition of "People Against Bush". There are a lot more of them that is getting reported, of course, but it's still all just bullshit as long as the Demopublicrat system stays in place....

  • by thrillseeker (518224) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @09:06PM (#10466214)
    Its also not against the law to fail to stop a crime. Its just not a citizen's job. Thats why we have the police in the first place.

    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

  • by AK Marc (707885) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @09:16PM (#10466265)
    >>But you get that when your foreign policy is "Fuck the earth".

    >Your misconceptions about the Bush Administration are astounding.

    Yes, the foreign policy isn't "Fuck the Earth." The foreign policy is "You mean there are places outside the US, really?" And the net effect is that a president that couldn't find London on a well marked map of England just makes arbitrary decisions with no thought to the consequences, but won't ever reconsider them because changing your policy when new information is revealed is being wishy-washy, and that is left for senators.
  • by d474 (695126) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @09:18PM (#10466277)
    This "unknown" reason as to why the FBI took the hardrives/servers from Rackspace was more than likely given to Rackspace. However, probably due to some obscure clause to the Patriot Act that allows Britain and the US to work together or something to "fight terror" - the Feds can gag Rackspace from revealing that reason. Or even worse, the Fed's probably don't even need a reason other than "National Security - now shutup and hand over the hard drives".

    Hey, those that make the rules and enforce the rules can, essentially, do what ever they want and there is not a damned thing "Joe Citizen" can do about it.

    And to those of you that think the wheels of a brave new orwellian world aren't already in motion: nothing to see here, go back to sleep.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 07, 2004 @09:25PM (#10466326)
    I suppose we should quite legislating anything in the Bible right, I mean thats what Fallwell is going off of for what he wants.

    So, alright, yay! Murder, theft, rape, incest, etc. are all back in.

    The entire criminal code is legislated morality stupid. The question is how far reaching should it go? You gotta remember there was no such thing as separation of church and state until this century. Read the 1st amendment it says: CONGRESS shall pass no law. So that means anything not performed by congress or that isn't a law is legal. 10 commandments in a courthouse is not congress passing a law. Words mean what they mean, the people who wrote the constitution had a particular meaning and purpose in mind (which is well documented) and thats what we should go by when we read it because that is what it "says". Any time we try to put something between the lines like separation of church and state as we perceive it now, is violating the intent of the author. The only LEGALLY valid way to CHANGE that is by changing our constitution.

    But instead, the courts have changed everything based on definitions of words that they MADE UP ON THE SPOT to fit thier personal views. The court doesn't have the authority to CHANGE the meaning of the constitution, only whether or not a law is valid and acceptable within the constraints of the constitution as defined and intended by the authors.

    End of rant. In otherwords, if Jerry Fallwell legislates morality that doesn't violate the constitution, and does so by the proper legal processes as defined in the constitution. That means elected officials agreeing with him, and passing laws based on that. If you don't like that, then don't keep elected people who agree with Jerry Fallwell--thats the american way. And if you can't get other people elected then that means that is the will of the people, whether it is out of ignorance or knowledge.
  • by Temsi (452609) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @09:30PM (#10466353) Journal
    "In fact, the liberals are only non-militant when it comes to defending *this* country"

    OK, first of all.. when you preface something with "In fact", please make sure what follows actually is fact.
    This is a neocon distortion of the truth, and you're very likely to hear that diatribe from Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.
    Liberals, (a word and a definition which is not synonymous with leftists) are peaceful, but will use violence in self defense. Violence and militarization is and shall always be the last possible option when settling a dispute of any kind.
    Leaders are more effective when they lead by example and by being respected, than if they use force and/or fear. The first option may take a little longer in some cases, but it's better for everyone in the long run. Ruling by might is a silly and naive idea.

    It's apparent from your post that you don't see a difference between leftist and liberal, which is really a shame, because those two ideals are so different, and it wouldn't make you look so ignorant.

    For the record, I'm a liberal, not a leftist.
    Just like there are conservatives who are not right-wing.
    John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger and many other Republicans are not right-wing, but are actually conservatives.
    If you don't know that there is a difference between those ideals (liberal vs leftist, right-wing vs conservative), then you simply have no place participating in this discussion.

    All the groups you mentioned are not liberal groups, altough I'm sure Hannity or Limbaugh would call them that (a further display of their complete ignorance about these groups, liberalism and the left).

    So... in short... your answer is not really an argument, it's just a rehashing of old and tired diatribe.

    "So, when Leftist organizations start posting names, locations, and other personal information of people who oppose them, the first and only logical conclusion is that the poster expects the people on the list to be at least harassed and potentially physically attacked."

    I think you're projecting quite a bit here. To you it might be the first and only conclusion, but that tells me more about you than it does about the people who posted the information.
    As you can see from my original post, my first assumption is that they're trying to put political pressure on them, not incite violence.

    Now, seeing as you seem to be on the right-wing side of things, do you consider Freedom of Speech to be a right or a privilege afforded to us by the State?
    Think about it for a moment.

    A right is something which the government cannot take away. A privilege is something the government, as an extension of society, can limit and reduce or even revoke.

    So, since freedom of speech is a right, the government cannot limit its usage in any way, shape or form, without violating the 1st Amendment.

    Ponder for a moment what the words 'unalienable Rights' mean.

    Ponder also the notion that the Constitution gives powers to the government, and not vice versa. The government is an extension of us, not our owner. We tell the government what it can and cannot do on our behalf, not the other way around. Remember: "Of the People, By the People and For the People"?

    We're all members of the same club, called The United States of America. We have basic club rules which we use as the basis for other rules we come up with to make the membership more enjoyable. Those basic club rules are what we call the Constitution and its amendments (the Bill of Rights). Those rules are what we must always go back to whenever there's a dispute or confusion about what other rules can and cannot dictate. They are also what we use to control how much power those we've chosed to enforce the rules, get to use in their efforts to enforce them.
    The laws of the games being played, cannot violate the basic rules of the club, nor can the enforcement of the laws of the games.

    This is very clear and simple to me. Either you believe
  • by notsoanonymouscoward (102492) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @10:01PM (#10466532) Journal
    Reichstag fire anyone?
  • Oh, awesome! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Fantastic Lad (198284) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @10:20PM (#10466618)
    Great link! The Road to Serfdom comic is what the internet is all about. (Though the fact that it was published by an American auto giant is rather telling.)

    That is, I can see what it had to do with Germany, but I don't think it's at all fair to use that example to condemn socialist thinking. I very much doubt that the con-job which went down in Nazi Germany would have met with Marx's approval!

    Basically, what I mean in regards to McQuaig is that she appears to abhor greed-motivated social policy. (See for example, this piece of hers on economics and the homeless [straightgoods.ca].)

    I think people who work against greed and injustice, deserve respect, and that those who deliberately ignore the lessons of kindergarten, (ie., how to share and play fairly; things we all instinctively know are right), are not worthy of respect. It seems to me that the primary thing which angers those of the conservative mind-set is simply their being told that they should not be allowed take and self-serve without limit, without regard to others or the world they live in.

    I've yet to meet the diehard conservative who, with all else stripped away, is anything more than a selfish kid struggling to make-believe greed into something wholesome-sounding.

    Anyway, with regards to Indymedia not being balanced in its view. . . This is true, but my thought is that Service-to-Self thinking is fundamentally structured in such a way that it is incompatible with Service-to-Other work, and after a point, it becomes in fact impossible for the two apporaches to accommodate each other at all.

    --This is certainly a reflection of my own take on how reality works, and I don't expect everybody to agree with me. I see reality as a war zone between those who are seeking their higher selves and enlightenment, and those who are seeking their lower selves and the ultimate dissolution of the soul. I see the black hole as being the physical metaphor for self-service.

    With these two types of people, as they say, "Never the twain shall meet".


    -FL

  • Re:Oh, awesome! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stu72 (96650) on Friday October 08, 2004 @12:00AM (#10466922)
    re: serfdom & GM - the cartoon on that site may have been printed by GM but the book is not. It's a classic in economics, I heard of it a few months ago and just finished it and it's brilliant.

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/02 26 320618/104-7283673-0905557?v=glance

    The basic point, analyzed from a multitude of angles, is that in order to provide for the promises of as socialist utopia (or any utopia for that matter) personal freedom (thought/speech/action) must be sacrificed completely. He makes a strong point that contrary to popular believe, economic freedoms are closely tied to freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc. And that without the former, the latter will quickly disappear.

    re: bullies

    I have no doubt many people attracted to the capitalist system are greedy selfish bullies, but under a socialist regime those same people would still exist and they would merely be attracted to power & influence in the socialist state infrastructure. Unless you advocate giving people personality tests at a young age and shooting those who look like they might be bullies, then I don't see how socialism will fare any better.

    Further, while I was tormented by bullies as much as anyone on /., I've come to realize that while I might hate them, once they grow up their aggressive nature sometimes gets things done that wouldn't happen under more introspective, analytical leadership.

    The socialist utopia would work great if the only people in it were community minded open source programmers. But those wouldn't be the only people in it. And the bullies would soon rise to the top once again. At least in the current system you have enough freedom to steer clear of most of them.

    k I'm done :)
  • by jargoone (166102) * on Friday October 08, 2004 @12:43AM (#10467189)
    I find it ironic that a bunch of anti-violence, anti-gun, peacemongers, like Democrats would behave this way. The anti-Bush crowd is foaming at the mouth. Have you all had your shots?

    Is there another article you forgot to link to that shows that Democrats were convicted of these crimes? Because this one sure didn't.

    Democrats aren't the only ones in the Anti-Bush crowd, you know. Not by a long shot.
  • by WindBourne (631190) on Friday October 08, 2004 @12:55AM (#10467240) Journal

    I think that you have it backwards.

    Bush is clearly biased against the facts.

  • by 10Ghz (453478) on Friday October 08, 2004 @02:29AM (#10467596)
    America's bourgeois nature (life, liberty, and property ownership) is what sets it apart from the European model where power is held at the top and it trickles down to its subordinated 'chattel' population.


    I'm from Europe. And I must say that finding out that I'm part of "subordinated chattel population" is certainly news to me!

    I think there are two possibilities:

    a) Their brainwashing is excellent since I haven't figured this out yet, despite living here 27 years.
    b) You are just talking out of your ass.

    Have you ever been to Europe? For a longer period of time? Do you even own a passport? What is your source of "news"? Rush Limbaugh and Fox News?

    So, Americas "borgeuos nature" (which includes stuff like life, liberty and property ownership) sets it apart from Europe (which presumably doesn't have those things). Funny, I'm alive so I obviously have life. I have all the essential freedoms a person can have. And I sure as hell own my car, my house, my television, my computer etc. etc. etc. so I obviously have property!

    Knowning all that, I'm placing my bets on the B-option.
  • god bless america (Score:5, Insightful)

    by br00tus (528477) on Friday October 08, 2004 @02:59AM (#10467697)
    When the elected Nicaraguan government did the same thing to newspapers for the same type of reasons (actually the newspapers down there were much more flagrant than Indymedia is being accused of), Reagan said Nicaragua was becoming a totalitarian regime, and the US should invade the country.

    Unlike other countries, it's very rare for Americans to come together and work in a way that might be perceived a threat to the power of the powers-that-be, specifically the idle class that lives off the profit generated by American workers. This type of repression is uncommon because American workers so rarely come together to form our own media, organize in unions and so forth. One reason is because of a sort of Catch-22 that a society of isolated, individualized people has less of a foundation to come together to do so. Another is the massive machine - the world's largest army, prison system, intelligence system, military-industrial complex, lobbying efforts, corporate media, PR industry, fundamentalist churches, corporate law firms and so forth that attacks such efforts for workers to organize together and have their own voice. Faced with attacks by such, people become like Pavlovian dogs and go to their atomized lives of individualized exploitation, and buck the system less. Nonetheless, I think American workers will continue to try to organize together, but I pray that that the US machine continues to get foreign pressure, especially from workers organizing in foreign countries.

    Indymedia is one of the few medias out there, one of almost the only medias out there that is not corporate owned and controlled, where anyone can file stories, and which is run and read by working people. Of course the corporate world and their government stooges would see that as a threat.

    The charges are of course nonsense. If Chavez in Venezuela or Castro or Cuba or some other figure did this, Bush would be decrying the totalitarianism of their government right now and the rest of the corporate TV talking heads would nod their heads. Indymedia has open publishing but when "illegal content" is posted it erases it (unless it sues not to like in the Diebold case). I think that legally the idea that there is so much potential "illegal content" out there is ridiculous to begin with, and is something to be thought about. Most of the stuff posted was already floating around the net before someone posted it on Indymedia.

    The problem I guess is Indymedia is a little too free for the corporate soft money bought stooges in Washington DC. They want Indymedia to be more self-censoring, letting any Tom Dick or John Q. Public have his unfiltered say is a little too dangerous. It's ironic that Indymedia is around the world, even in places like Palestine, Colombia and other places you'd expect these crackdowns, but it's the US security forces who are so often attacking this medium.

  • by Alsee (515537) on Friday October 08, 2004 @03:28AM (#10467803) Homepage
    Try learing what seperation of chuck and state ACTUALLY means, rather than the straw man you've been feed that it is some attempt to exterminate religion.

    I suppose we should quite legislating anything in the Bible right, I mean thats what Fallwell is going off of for what he wants.

    No, we should quit legislating things on the grounds of one random bible. Under the constitution your choice of bible has no more and no less standing than the Torah, the Koran, or even the Satanic Bible.

    So, alright, yay! Murder, theft, rape, incest, etc. are all back in. The entire criminal code is legislated morality stupid.

    No, you're the one failing to realize that you can establish the foundation for our entire legal system (at least for the legitimate laws) without refering to religion at all. If you steal my stuff, or stab me, you have violated my constitutionally guaranteed rights. I can use force to protect my rights. The government can also use force in the form of armed policement to capture and imprison you in defense of my rights. It can do so on my behalf. On the other hand you have dumb-ass laws like prohibiting the sale of beer on Sunday. That is a purely religiously motivated law (to promote/protect church attendance), and constitutionally prohibited. It is no more valid than a Jewish or Islamic law prohibiting certain things only on Friday or Saturday.

    You gotta remember there was no such thing as separation of church and state until this century. Read the 1st amendment it says: CONGRESS shall pass no law. So that means anything not performed by congress or that isn't a law is legal. 10 commandments in a courthouse is not congress passing a law.

    Ah, a Constitutional scholar! Not!
    If you want to talk about their original intent I suggest you read James Madison's own writings on the subject. He was the one who wrote it so he damn well ought to know it's intended meaning.

    The intent of the first amendment is that the government is prohibited from showing favoritism of any religious belief over any other. As a government empolyee you are welcome to include the 10 commandments amongst the personal knick-nacks on your desk, but you cannot put up an official ten-foot engraving of the ten commandments on the government building itself. If you COULD do that, then all religions also get that same freedom. The principal of your children's school would have every right engrave a Satanic prayer on the school entrance.

    You are welcome to engage in personal prayer as you please. However you may not abuse your offical position to impose your prayer and religious beliefs on others while acting in an official capacity as an agent of the government. As a government employee you can take personal time to pray, but you cannot abuse your official government powers as teacher or principal to subject students to your prayer. If you attempt to claim you do have the right to do so then I merely need point out that the govenrment cannot grant that right exclusively to your religion - some other teacher would then have the exact same right to subject your children to his Satanic prayer.

    Individuals have religious freedom. The government itself has no religion. The government itself has no religious beliefs. The government itself has no religious freedom. Note that saying the government has no religious freedom is NOT in any way Atheist - the government is equally prohibited from in any way promoting the religious belief that there is no god.

    -
  • by glesga_kiss (596639) on Friday October 08, 2004 @05:43AM (#10468173)
    Reichstag fire anyone?

    9/11 worked out alright for the Project for a New American Century...

  • by gowen (141411) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Friday October 08, 2004 @07:29AM (#10468434) Homepage Journal
    It's funny except that your comment has an historical precedent... During the French Revolution, the Committee of Public Safety beheaded people that "did not want to be free."
    Hell, you don't have to go back that far. Remember "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it"?
  • by mwlewis (794711) on Friday October 08, 2004 @08:02AM (#10468534)
    No. The plain fact is there are no Bush supporters - only people who hate Kerry are voting for Bush. Of course, only Bush-haters are voting for Kerry, so the rest of us - those that don't hate - are just screwed.

    Insightful? Sounded more funny to me, since there are Bush supporters, but most Kerry 'supporters' really just want to get rid of Bush. The only Democrat with any enthusiastic supporters was Dean. Kerry seemed to win because people thought he was less crazy than Dean, and could actually win in the general election.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08, 2004 @08:41AM (#10468714)
    Typical collectivist thinking:
    especially if you consider the views of regular people rather than governments. followed by a reference to a specific region (the Middle East).

    Go to the World Factbook [cia.gov] or other resource of your choice and look at the types of governments in the Middle East (or "rest of the world" for that matter). You'll discover some shocking information they don't teach you in the local MoveOn.org reeducation camps:

    o Nearly all of the Middle East nations use a non-representative government model. Although the former poster references the views of the people, the reality is that the people don't matter at all in the Middle East to their own governments. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, etc. are not representative governments.

    o In a non-representative government, the press is not a free entity. Subsequently, messages delivered by the press are those of the non-representative governments, intended to manipulate public opinion. It is critical that public dissatisfaction with living conditions and general welfare be blamed on someone other than the oppressive government: Jews, Americans, etc.

    If you don't understand or don't believe me, don't waste your time arguing. Travel to the Middle East and discover it first hand. Be sure to take a bunch of your MoveOn propeganda with you and pick a nice friendly country like Syria to protest against the government. I can guaranteee they'll help you understand how wrong you are.
  • by bugg (65930) on Friday October 15, 2004 @10:13AM (#10534891) Homepage
    Really, FAIR is not the reason for my thesis, they merely provide convienent and timely evidence for it.

    Would you like some other proof that no US media offers a leftist perspective? What US media sources rose in protest when the US armed forces were killing journalists in Iraq? In Spain, all journalists had a one-day boycott of government news (turned their backs to the President's press conference and layed their cameras and notebooks on the ground) after the spate of Army killing non-embedded journalists. In the US, you have people like Ann Garrells of NPR, who said that Tariq Ayyub "should have known better."

    What US media has questioned whether the attack on the USS Cole is terrorism? What US media has questioned whether the attack on the Pentagon is terrorism? Neither fits the definition of terrorism under US Law, which requires that the target be civilian in nature.

    What US media pointed out what people like Scott Ritter have been saying for years about Iraq? What US media, in 1991, pointed out that Saddam was willing to withdraw from Kuwait in exchange for an Israeli withdrawl from Lebanon and the Occupied Territories? I mean, that was an attempt at diplomacy, and we undercut it with a war. Yet the media doesn't portray it that way, they portray it as our President "standing firm."

    Have you read Manufacturing Consent, by Noam Chomsky? Check it out- or the documentary if you're pressed for time. It is simply impossible to argue with his institutional analysis, and he has very striking evidence- of course, it's all very old now, but it's still real. Most famous is his comparison of coverage of Cambodia versus East Timor.

    If the Democrats and Republicans do not reflect the center of American politics, how do you explain both of them getting roughly half of the votes? That's sort of proof that they represent the American center, is it not?

[Crash programs] fail because they are based on the theory that, with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby a month. -- Wernher von Braun

Working...