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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Gag? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by More Trouble (211162) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @05:56PM (#10464570)
    "(14:20) Rackspace has issued a "no comment" response concerning the FBI's actions."


    Given that Rackspace seemed reasonably communicative about the Swiss Secret Service issue, I wonder if the "no comment" implies some invocation of the Patriot Act [aclu.org].

    :w

  • what about diebold? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jaromil (104349) <jaromil@dyne. o r g> on Thursday October 07, 2004 @05:59PM (#10464597) Homepage Journal
    My supposition is the following:

    Diebold threatened the italian indymedia website, along with other
    IMC hosted there, one year ago, for hosting documents discussing
    the numerous scandals about their voting system.

    This case was taken up by the EFF and they WON in court.

    Now, just before the elections in USA, Diebold is coming back
    under cover to strike back.
    Of course they will never declare Diebold is behind all this.
    Then who would be next, slashdot? just search "Diebold" in the archives if you
    don't remember well wassup...

    of course, just my 2 cents
  • by stratjakt (596332) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @05:59PM (#10464605) Journal
    Blaming the RNC sounds like something a rabid anti-bush website would do.

    But, TFA that I read on nyc.indymedia.com has a quote from Rackspace saying the request came from Swiss authorities.

    I read elsewhere that they got in some shit for publishing photos and identities of undercover swiss cops.

    I'm sure they know what they did, but they won't say anything so long as they can lead everyone to believe it's "evil Bush" behind it all.

  • by Dr.Knackerator (755466) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:00PM (#10464615) Journal
    i mean if they published names is that really wrong? its a public event, its on telly so by default you could be recognised in the audience, by going you agree your privacy is compromised in some way, your details will probably go onto some list of people to call back.

    if you stood outside the entrance, took photos of the people going in and published them, would that be the same thing? if its a public place whats the problem?

    has there been intimidation? or is this just fear because its the republicans in power?

    there are plenty if privacy concerns just by being a voter, your details are available to be seen locally (speaking as a UK citizen myself). and if you don't tick the right box then hell its available to anybody who wants it, anywhere, possibly for cross referencing with the phone book so burglars can find your phone number if if looks like you are out. well having a pretty rare name and being involved in something where a lot of people know i've got a load of expensive gear - i don't register to vote. I know people who have been repeatedly hit and vanloads of equipment nicked.

    as another point, really is there any need to go? its on the telly. like all political conferances its just preaching to the converted and you are just there to applaud on cue to make the pictures look good.
  • by erick99 (743982) <homerun@gmail.com> on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:04PM (#10464660)
    This will surely get me modded down....but....I have been doing a informal count of posts that are pro or against Bush. So far I am showing about six to one, against Bush versus pro-Bush. I don't know if that means the Slashdot crowd is overwhelmingly democrat and/or liberal, or, the pro-Bush side is unusually quiet?
  • by radish (98371) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:06PM (#10464688) Homepage
    The best theories are so far that they either (a) posted photos of undercover swiss police officers or (b) posted publicly available info concerning members of the RNC.

    If (a), what on earth does this have to do with terrorism or indeed the FBI. If (b), this is public info, they just collated it. Again, what does this have to do with the FBI, or indeed terrorists.
  • by lifeblender (806214) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:09PM (#10464706)
    Do you still think that ELECTIONS are the targets? The targets are commercial, not political. Why would anyone that hates the US (or more specific parts of it) enough to kill civilians care about our democratic procedures? Anyone that is angry at the US is angry at groups already in power.
  • by jmorris42 (1458) * <jmorris@nOSPAM.beau.org> on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:12PM (#10464732)
    > 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....

    Saying indymedia is a 'media' site is more absurd than claiming slashdot is part of the media. indymedia is a political site, and prides itself on riding as close to the edge of the law as they think they can get away with.

    So lets lose the 'The Man is supressing the press.' angle. Rackspace wouldn't have coughed up the server without the proper legal paperwork so everyone just chill until the facts come out as to what sort of evidence they are looking for. Try to keep in mind that the FBI isn't usually one of the rogue elephant agencies and for this case several different governments probably all had to sign off on it.
  • some background (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GirTheRobot (689378) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:12PM (#10464736)
    Earlier last month, the Secret Service requested visitor logs from Indymedia to determine who posted personal info about GOP delegates. It looks like Big Brother really wanted that info.

    See link [wired.com] for more info.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:12PM (#10464737)

    AFAIK (but of course IANA(French)L...) is is illegal to publish photos of police in France and this is why the info about the two under cover cops in the photos and the actual photos were taken down from the IMC site, almost a week ago...

    If these photos is the excuse that the FBI are using then I suspect that it is just an excuse...

  • by elgaard (81259) <`kd.loga' `ta' `draagle'> on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:16PM (#10464771) Homepage
    One explanation is that not everyone here live in the US. Outside the US Bush is not popular, left or right.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:18PM (#10464807)
    When anti-abortion groups post this information on doctors who perform abortions, it is considered a threat. Why is this any different?

    Because when the cops grab those hard disks, they have a warrant in their hands that says why they're grabbing the disks: the suspects intend for people to take violent action, which is of course illegal.

    In this case, what they've been told is: "As the request originated with the Swiss police, I can only speculate on what they saw or what they were concerned about."

    In other words, this is different because we're not seeing any Constitutionally guaranteed due process.
  • Where can they go? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hotspotbloc (767418) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:21PM (#10464827) Homepage Journal
    Is there any place in the world where they could host their servers that would be free from the long arms of the US DOJ?

    Why do I suspect that IM's drives will be returned to them wiped clean? Shutting down any nationwide media outlet is a pretty scary thing. Agree or disagree with them, they still qualify for "freedom of the press". Or atleast they did. I serious hope this is not a trend before the November Elections.

  • by BlastM (663010) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:21PM (#10464830) Homepage Journal
    It is a sad reality that government organisations use bully tactics for political purposes. If I were running, say, an independent media company, I wouldn't be running my website, the main distribution method off a rack server with 19 other countries' IMCs.

    In fact, this is what Freenet [sourceforge.net] is designed for.

    Decentralise and conquer!

    IMCs are like the guerillas of news media. They should start (contuinue) using this to their advantage.
  • by SoulPatch (798403) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:26PM (#10464879)
    Its great because as a nation we do not subscribe to the slaughter of private ownership/individual liberty rights espoused in your sig.

    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.

    Admittedly, this is an American perspective only and few Americans in a politically-correct world would agree (out loud).
  • by jrumney (197329) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:29PM (#10464916) Homepage
    If there's a job that needs doing that carries a high risk of blowing their cover, they should have given that job to uniformed officers. Undoing their incompetence through the court system is not going to work. The photos are out there now, and whoever stands to benefit from seeing them will get their hands on them somehow, whether they're posted on Indymedia or not.
  • by Quinto (253271) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:31PM (#10464945)
    501(c)3 organizations are prohibited by the tax exempt tax laws from making any endorsement of, or any published statement against any candidate for an upcoming election.

    This all could be related to IRS suspecting a violation of tax law.

    Not being too informed about indymedia in particular, this is just a guess on my part. However, the way that other /.'ers portray indymedia in posts, it seems possible to me that indymedia has made or published direct support for or direct statements against candidates for election.

  • by strredwolf (532) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:38PM (#10465021) Homepage Journal
    Indymedia... that name vaugely rings a bell...

    Indymedia...

    Google is my friend. Google Group search for Indymedia in news.admin.net-abuse.* (email and sightings especally)...

    64 threads [google.com] (some with hundreds of examples of related spam) sight some examples.

    What does SPEWS, SPAMHAUS, and other DNS RBL's say? Nothing. Take it with a grain of salt.
  • by jrumney (197329) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:45PM (#10465103) Homepage
    This should serve as a warning to all people and companies outside the US. If you do business with US companies, you will be held to US laws, without the protection of the US consitution, since that only applies to Americans on American soil.

    The sooner OPEC switches to the Euro and isolation of the US world bully begins, the better IMHO.

  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:48PM (#10465130) Homepage Journal
    RNC delegates "accosted" in NYC? There's nothing special there - haven't you ever been to NYC? What did these stuffed shirt Red Staters expect, showing up in the toughest Democrat constituency in America with dazzled stares? That we'd leave them alone, out of politeness, and gratitude for their paltry cheapskate tourism, that scared away the usual crowd of spenders?

    And these "reports" of campaign HQ shootings: let's see some citations. You're not talking about the one attended by the serial baby-crying sign dropper, Republican agent provocateur, are you? If you really believe this crap, you better change the channel from Fox News, maybe go outside and talk to some humans. Maybe someone would explain you that "Communist blacklisting" was the rightwing authorities secretly locking out unpopular workers from legitimate jobs. Today, it's known as "no fly lists" and "terrorist watch lists", and "Florida voter purge lists" - all created by Republican authorities to suppress the fair representation of Democrats and other opposition to their fascism. That doesn't make their opponents communists.
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:53PM (#10465191) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, the Rev. Moon's Washington Times would never investigate those reports to see if they're just another Rove frame job [nydailynews.com]:

    In the 1996 Alabama Supreme Court race between Democratic incumbent Kenneth Ingram and Republican challenger Harold See, Rove printed anonymous fliers attacking See, his own client. The purpose was "'to create a backlash against the Democrat,' as Joe Perkins, who worked for Ingram, put it to me," Green writes.

    I find it totally predictable that a Bush apologist would get behind this Republican terrorism. Have you taken all the shots you can?
  • by yamla (136560) <chris@@@hypocrite...org> on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:54PM (#10465194)
    Read up on the article available here [wikipedia.org]. While you may consider this a success, very few people could afford the kind of costs necessary to fight a case like this (hence, the EFF). Heck, I personally couldn't afford a lawyer at all at the moment (hence, I have been unable to collect on a $20,000 court judgment in my favour). Furthermore, it took them more than three years to get the settlement. Very few small businesses could survive something like that. Steve Jackson Games almost didn't, and had to lay off eight employees. These employees didn't receive any compensation.

    You may consider this a success, I consider this (and other similar cases) a perfect example of the system failing.
  • by Squeeze Truck (2971) <xmsho@yahoo.com> on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:57PM (#10465226) Homepage
    Personally, I like the Bill of Rights just fine, thank you.

    As originally drafted, or as it stands now?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:00PM (#10465255)
    In case you were wondering why we need independent media, take a look at this AP newswire article that "slipped out" today, claiming that Bush has already won the election:
    TV station reports that Bush has been elected President [boingboing.net]
  • by Grishnakh (216268) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:03PM (#10465284)
    So what is the best place to live if you want the most privacy and freedom, anyway? Other than a privately-owned island?
  • subversion (Score:4, Interesting)

    by electricdream (413007) <altjeringa@@@gmail...com> on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:06PM (#10465313) Homepage
    Whether this is in regards to Swiss Undercover Agent, or the Posting of RNC delegates information you may rest absolutely assured that had any of the Big 5 derivatives ( you know viacom, time-warner, murdoch , disney and that german company ) done the same thing their assets would have been seized as well.

    One only has to look at the sesuire of CNN's equipement after Robert Novack revealed that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent to conclude that indymedia is being treated equally.

    Oh hold on... that never happend! Oh well So much for Freedom of Press!

    That any media organization whatever would have it's harddrives, presses, or any other method of publication seized without explaination or public discourse is an afront to a free society and should be seen as a crime against the people.

    Bush 1895!
  • Sod that. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Colin Smith (2679) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:18PM (#10465404)
    They are a global organisation, use a global filesystem, replicated servers. Hell, the software is even free, all they have to do is set it up:

    OpenAFS or Coda.

    As long as a single server survives your sites stay up.

  • by Jerf (17166) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:19PM (#10465421) Journal
    You Righties see America as something to which you owe loyalty, and you see and the President, Senators, et al as demigods.

    That is complete, utter, biased, trolling, ideologist bullshit, and so is your +5, Insightful.

    Instead of generalizing, why don't you get to know some real, non-radical right-leaning people? (Of course, I can judge the left based on the radicals but that wouldn't be fair either, no?) You'll find they are people, just like you. Most of the time, they even have the same concerns. They just differ on priority levels and solutions.

    Oh, how convenient it is for you to dismiss "the right" as, apparently literally, animals. You are much, much more part of the problem than the solution.
  • by benzapp (464105) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:22PM (#10465442)
    (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.)

    This is complete utter bullshit. The majority of arrests were of the bicycle brigade which WAS blocking streets and making it difficult for many old and infirm people to get home. Our old subway system doesn't have elevators in most stations, so people who can't use stairs are stuck riding the bus or taking taxis. Is it fair to force some old lady to sit in a bus for an hour because some communist students can't figure out how to persuade people in more rational fahions than blocking streets?

    The other arrests occurred after police officers were attacked, one of whom is going to be seriously fucked up for the rest of his life. There is ample video footage of surround protestors doing NOTHING to stop the perpetrater of that crime from nearly kicking the cop to death, and many encouraged it.

    Thankfully, I am not in a position of power because people like that would be executed for failing to act as a responsible citizen. It is a basic staple of civilized society to come to the aid of your fellow citizens.

    None of those protestors would have been arrested if they stopped the violence and informed police who the criminal was.

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

    Another non-NY resident talking about shit he doesn't know about.

    The graffitti is EVERYWHERE. It is much more coordinated than random acts of spray painting. People use stencils, custom graphics are added to subway advertising, and fliers are applied to private property. This is all in addition to the regular bullshit involving markers and spraypaint.

    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?

    I agree with your license plan. All protestors in the future must be licensed, and their names, telephone numbers, home address, and place of employment must be published on a city website.

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

    by dtfinch (661405) * on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:22PM (#10465444) Journal
    They seized the servers from Rackspace, but the bulk of the property belongs to IndyMedia. Rackspace got a warrant and a gag order. And the FBI gets many of its warrants through a special court which has never denied a request, thus eliminating true judicial review. And IndyMedia, the apparent (uncertain) target of their investigation, received no warrant, and no explanation. This borders on unconstitutional.
  • by MourningBlade (182180) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:27PM (#10465486) Homepage

    Once hardware is seized like this, it and everything on it will never be returned. Whether you are guilty or not.

    In the past ten years we've seen the courts get savvy to (some) electronic equipment. Search and seizure of documents involves taking the documents, because you need the physical documents to read them. Search and seizure of data on a computer involves copying the information off the hard drive, then leaving with that copy.

    The more technically-literate courts will no longer allow the police to get a warrant for your computer itself, only the data on the computer. Unless, that is, they need serial numbers or fingerprints, not just "this is the data that was on your computer on date x/x/x."

    This is why, if you're ever served with a search warrant, it's important to read it. The police are infamous for taking more than was involved in the warrant, and you will have a very, VERY difficult time getting it back.

    So, the question becomes: how did the FBI get a warrant for seizure of equipment (not just data)?

    I believe that if the warrant turns out to have been for the data and Rackspace provided the hardware, then there might be civil liability involved.

    Of course, the whole damn question is moot if it's PATRIOT: you'll never get to see the warrant.

    Makes me wonder: if you can only see a warrant after 5 years, and the statute of limitations for unlawful execution of a warrant is 3 years.... Made up numbers, of course.

    This is another reason why you want judicial review of warrants: what the police are allowed to take or search changes over time. When it's the police deciding what to search or take, they take what's easiest for them.

    Side note: this is true even if you have review inside the organization. One thing that a judge will do that an internal board will almost never do is say: "Fuck the cost, and fuck the extra time it'll take you. This is the way you're going to do it, or you won't do it at all."

    The internal board is always mindful of the budget.

  • by internic (453511) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:31PM (#10465522)

    It certainly will galvanize their supporters.

    As for the rest of the population, most will never hear of it unless the rest of the media picks it up. Perversely, this will only happen if Indymedia is wrong and the major media give a damn about what's going on in the country. If Indymedia is right and they're all corporately controlled mouthpieces for the hegemony, then it will get no mention or only a perfunctory "The anarchist terrorist al-Jazeera subsidiary Indmedia was raided by the FBI today to seize evidence of Emmanual Goldstein's trechery..."

    Personally, I think Indymedia is half right, and I think most of the major media neither know nor care about Indymedia enough to cover it, or else they don't think it will interest the public. They're too busy preparing stories about the candidates' facial expressions during the debates.

  • by waynelorentz (662271) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @07:31PM (#10465525) Homepage
    I can't think of any cases where prominant Republican party members ... were targets for assassination.

    There was an item in the news today that someone fired several shots into the Republican headquarters in some city. In the Carolinas, I believe. So, just because you can't think of it doesn't mean there isn't violence directed at the GOP.
  • The definition of libertarian is one who is for minimal government intrusion in both personal and economic life.
    Not exactly. Capital-L Libertarians hold those beliefs, true, but small-L libertarians (AKA civil libertarians or social liberals) are much more varied when it comes to economic policy.
    A person for minimal government intrusion in economic life and more intruusion in personal life is a conservative.
    Eh, "conservative" has so many definitions piled on it that it's essentially meaningless by itself. Social conservatives (e.g., Jerry Falwell) are the ones who want to legislate morality. Paleoconservatives (e.g., John McCain), on the other hand, are essentially moderate (capital-L) Libertarians, idealizing smaller government.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 07, 2004 @08:02PM (#10465786)
    There are a number of Right-Wing sites that have been using this exact technique to target "liberals" - furthermore, the information is being read over the radio on the verious ClearChannel outlets that carry e.g. Limbaugh and Savage.

    I agree, it's a threat. Shut them down, eh?
  • by Thomas Shaddack (709926) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @08:03PM (#10465799)
    Couple more such raids, and sooner or later somebody comes up with an idea how to make realtime mirroring of content between a swarm of servers. Think RAIW, Redundant Array of Independent Webservers. Identical, strewn across jurisdictions. Could also serve as a neat load-balancing, and, if combined with an array of "hidden nodes" that would upload copies to eg. Freenet, practically impossible to shut down.

    Given that the demographics behind Indymedia and behind various open-source projects overlaps to significant degree, it's the virtually only possible reaction to the mounting pressure.

  • by Tired and Emotional (750842) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @08:08PM (#10465848)
    Some of the text suggests they required Rackspace in the US to hand over the drives in England.

    They probably do have authority to do that. The demand is being made to a US entity on US soil.

    It does get interesting if the demand cannot be complied with without violating European and/or British law. This might be the case here as European laws prohibit exporting data bases to countries lacking adequate privacy law, such as the US. So by making those disks available to the FBI, Rackspace could be violating European privacy laws. It would depend upon what was on them and also whether those laws contain exceptions to cover these cases.

    There is (or used to be) a law in Britain making it illegal to assist the US in attempts to enforce their laws on British territory (ie to claim extra-territorality (sp?) ). I doubt that that applies in this case.

  • by TomRitchford (177931) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @08:08PM (#10465849) Homepage
    > Further, I can tell you that the vast majority of protestors were not city residents.

    I live in New York City and that's the most ridiculous crap I've ever read. Many of my friend were arrested. Dozens if not hundreds of people I know were there. Dozens of New York City organizations representing thousands of people were there.

    One of my friends were held (for well over 24 hours) with a family of French tourists who had made the terrible mistake of stepping out of their hotel while the police were rounding them up.

    They were, apparently, very upset because they didn't speak English well and of course the police would not tell them what they were charged with -- or attempt to communicate with them in any way!

    For some reason people think that the Republican National Convention somehow trumps the Constitution. I personally don't get it.

  • by Grishnakh (216268) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @08:20PM (#10465925)
    You seem to have a rather odd definition of freedom. "Freedom" doesn't mean free from crime, or freedom to commit crimes. Freedom means being free of unjust oppression, freedom to speak your mind, freedom to read what you want, and most importantly to think what you want. Freedom means liberty. There's no guarantee of safety here. As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither."

    Of course, being free to speak your mind isn't all that useful if your country is overrun with crime and someone will shoot you for saying something they don't like, but that's really another issue (having well-functioning law enforcement and justice systems).

    Too much crime in the US just shows that 1) we have too many laws which create criminals and black markets, such as all the anti-drug laws, and 2) we have a dysfunctional society which rewards people for committing crime, or makes it too difficult to support themselves legally. This has little or nothing to do with liberty.

    Too many people in jail is simply a function of the crime rate.

    Firing people isn't really oppression, and it's rather disingenuous to make that comparison I think. Oppression is the government putting you in a concentration camp because you were born in the wrong place or to the wrong people, or slavery, or not being allowed to participate in the political process. At-will employment practices are just a labor vs. management issue. You're free to start your own business, and never fire anyone. Of course, I think there's a good case to be made that it's impossible to compete with large, entrenched companies, but that's just a fine issue dealing with taxation, anti-trust laws, etc. It's certainly not oppression.

    Now if you want to seriously talk about ways that freedom is lacking in the US, there are some real examples, such as Dmitry being arrested for making a speech, the DeCSS issue, anything to do with the DMCA, people being held in Guantanamo, the PATRIOT act, etc. Pointing out America's crime problem is just distracting from the issue currently under discussion.
  • Re:due process? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Antique Geekmeister (740220) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @08:35PM (#10466015)
    Guilty or not of any crime, which is a matter for a trial to decide, you still have to obey the subpoena or face having your facilities closed, and potentially getting arrested and hauled off to jail while clueless people rip equipment out of your racks.

    I urge you to take a look at the history of anon.penete.fi, the anonymous remailer, and how it got shut down due to being raided for the name of a person who posted secrets about Scientology, and the police were falsely told that anon.penet.fi had actually been used to steal the secret documents. (The documents in question had been available in California court records for years: the Scientologists just wanted them secret because they're so embarassing.)

    Unfortunately, the provisions of the new "Patriot Act" are so nasty that if invoked, RackSpace may be prohibited from even admitting that they were raided. Take a look at the Patriot Act provisions about getting names from libraries of who checks out books and the inability of the library to every discuss the matter: the law is incredibly nasty.
  • by BaldingByMicrosoft (585534) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @08:43PM (#10466072)

    Here's one possible source for the reference:

    The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)

    "The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq -- is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran -- the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports).
    ...
    Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for example). You'd have foreign funds stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there'd surely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisis scenario.

    This is a small snippet from something I ran across here: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html [ratical.org]

  • by ndpatel (185409) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @08:59PM (#10466162) Homepage
    hey, i'm not going to take a side, except to say that it'd be awesome if we knew what was going on here. a prominent critic of a sitting president has been silenced, setting a bad precedent. furthermore, they did not charge the critic, but subpeona'd the ISP. that's not good.

    so, let's force the people with access to start asking questions.
    nytimes [mailto]
    newsweek [mailto]
    o'reilly [mailto]
    msnbc [mailto]


    plus you can go to various other websites and fill out their forms--CNN, for example.
    again, no sides taken, but let's try and cause a stink--this is a big deal. I'll even make it easy for you--copy'n'paste!

    The FBI has effectively shut down Indymedia.org (IMC) by issuing an order to RackSpace US to hand over server hard drives located in London. As a result, over 20 local Indymedia sites have been shut off. At this time, no one knows why the FBI wants the drives or what they are investigating. It is also unclear why Rackspace US complied with a demand for materials held by Rackspace UK. Indymedia is a vocal critic of the Bush Administration, and also of the mass media. There is some history of this administration's dislike of Indymedia: before the RNC, there was a Secret Service order to shut down nyc.indymedia.org, which was organizing protests. More information can be found at the general Indymedia site, http://www.indymedia.org.

  • by timbrown (578202) <slashdot@machine.org.uk> on Thursday October 07, 2004 @09:03PM (#10466187) Homepage
    And owner of 4/5 of the IMC UK [indymedia.org.uk], DNS and mail servers, I'm quite startled to get back from the pub to this. Couple of interesting links: The global view [indymedia.org] The local view [indymedia.org]

  • Would Karl Rove, the man George W. Bush nicknamed "Turd Blossom", do something destructive to get George W. Bush re-elected? The books say he would.

    Books about those who designed
    the Bush administration's deliberate dishonesty

    There are many excellent people in the Republican political party in the United States. But there is are people who say they are Republicans who might be called "Re-money-cans". (There is no "public" in Remoneycan.) They are only interested in money and power and they achieve them by using dishonesty as a tool. For example, the Remoneycans have been running advertisements on U.S. television claiming that George W. Bush is a more experienced military leader than John Kerry, who opposes him for the 2004 presidential election. During times when people in the U.S. feel threatened, a large percentage of them feel that violence is the only answer, and the ads manipulate that feeling. The ads may be very convincing if the viewer does not know the truth, that John Kerry is much more experienced, as the Military Service Records for Bush and Kerry [findlaw.com] show. Also see the essay Bush's Military Records Show He Shirked [failureisimpossible.com].

    1. Boy Genius: Karl Rove, The brains behind the remarkable political triumph of George W. Bush by Lou Dubose, Jan Reid, and Carl M. Cannon, 2003, PublicAffairs. Reviews: Powell's [powells.com] Barnes & Noble [barnesandnoble.com] Amazon [amazon.com]

      The secret of Karl Rove's success is that U.S. voters don't want to believe there is widespread corruption in their government. Therefore, if lies are extreme enough, they will be accepted.

      President George W. Bush has a habit of giving disrespectful nicknames to those with whom he works. "Boy Genius" is one of President Bush's nicknames for Karl Rove. President Bush also calls Karl Rove, "Turd Blossom". The term refers to a flower that grows in the feces of a cow.

    2. Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove made George W. Bush presidential by James Moore and Wayne Slater, 2003, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, USA. Reviews: Powell's [powells.com] Barnes & Noble [barnesandnoble.com] Amazon [amazon.com]

      An Amazon review about the present U.S. president, George W. Bush, quotes the book: "Karl Rove matters to all Americans, many who have never even heard his name. While the president chafes at the description of Rove as 'Bush's Brain,' he can hardly deny that every policy and political decision either goes through, or comes from, the consultant," write the authors, leading them to pose the question, "Who really runs this country?"

    3. Bad Boy: The life and politics of Lee Atwater by John Brady, 1997, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts. Reviews: Barnes & Noble [barnesandnoble.com] Amazon [amazon.com]

      Lee Atwater and Karl Rove worked together, but Lee died of a brain tumor when he was 40. Mr. Atwater also had no interest in government policy, but only in how to get someone elected. For example, see the top of page 103 of the hardcover edition: "Indeed, Lee had no interest in the policy loop." Another quote, about his sexual involvement with women other than his wife, from page 151: "He [Lee Atw

  • by eric3xxx (203205) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @09:48PM (#10466471) Homepage
    Honestly, the consequence of the name release people showing up in various consumes and annoying the delegates:

    http://www.basetree.com/photos/no-rnc/republican-t hree-ring-circus.html [basetree.com]

    Big deal, and in any case the list of names was reposted from the Tampa Tribune (and other sources):

    http://www.tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro/MGBLDGQ6LXD. html [tampatrib.com]

    Disclosure: I occasionally post photos to Indymedia but I have nothing do with the day-to-day operations. In other words: I know nothing!
  • 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." Not surprisingly, this interim government of the Jacobin were the first "terrorists."

    Terrorism started as a tool of government. Now, everybody can be a terrorist. Yay for the democratization of terror.

    I have no doubt that these Indymedia assholes would try a Committee of Public Safety given half a chance.
  • by bugg (65930) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @11:48PM (#10466833) Homepage
    From where I'm sitting, the democrats and republicans are both right wing.

    If you want to know about what the media actually does, check out a documentary like "Independent Media In a Time Of War" (feat. Amy Goodman). It's filled with facts like this one, from FAIR: [fair.org]

    A report about the war coverage [fair.org] reveals that "Nearly two thirds of all sources, 64 percent, were pro-war, while 71 percent of U.S. guests favored the war. Anti-war voices were 10 percent of all sources, but just 6 percent of non-Iraqi sources and 3 percent of U.S. sources. Thus viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war; with U.S. guests alone, the ratio increases to 25 to 1."

    The five companies, for the record, are NewsCorp, Disney, Viacom, General Electric, and AOL TimeWarner- between them, 90% of the television news audience.

    NewsCorp is easy to show (see: Fox), for Disney, take a look at the whole Eisner/Farhenheit 9-11 story, for Viacom, check out MTV refusing to air paid spots against the war, for General Electric- well, General Electric is a major arms manufacturer, so I shouldn't need to go any further than that- and for AOL TimeWarner and to reinforce all of the above, well, there's the FAIR source I already cited.

    Then there's radio, where you have ClearChannel hosting pro-war rallies, and pressuring its stations not to air anti-war songs.

    The reason why Republicans may get confused when I say the media is right-wing is because they assume that the Democrats are left wing. It's an unfortunate reality that both Republicans and Democrats are centrists, and the center of participating Americans is far to the right.

  • by Kooglebot (597765) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @11:54PM (#10466877)
    Funny, the story mostly just said:

    ``Bush-Cheney campaign workers in three Florida cities said they were intimidated by chanting labor union activists.''

    Yes, there were AFL-CIO protesters there, but has any *independent* person or persons confirmed the Bush campaign's version of events? How do we know the people causing the damage were really with the AFL-CIO, if we were inclined to scepticism on this point? The story you cited doesn't help us with that question.
  • by killjoe (766577) on Friday October 08, 2004 @12:26AM (#10467086)
    Have ever asked yourself why people who preach peace, non violence, anti-semitism (and tolerance of all religions) would shoot at people and burn swastikas?

    That's right they would not. It's not liberals that are doing that. It's most likely right wingers who already do those types of things trying to make liberals look bad.

    Liberals tend to do things like form human chains and lock themselves to objects. The right wingers OTOH have a history of killing and burning crosses.

    BTW. I would love to be wrong. I would love it if the liberals finally stopped being wimpy and started killing republicans. It's about time to stop being a doormat.
  • by Darth23 (720385) on Friday October 08, 2004 @12:59AM (#10467256) Journal
    Sometimes the simplest explanation are the most accurate IMO, This is purely a case of political repression.

    The federal government has a LONG and storied history of illegal attempts to thwart political dissent. cointelpro [wikipedia.org]is only one of the most famous examples. The wars agaisnt political dissent continued through the 1990's [4reference.net] and continues to this day.

    To go from a few random acts of violence to soem conclusion that this justifies seizing IndyMedia's servers is more than a stretch. But luckily, under the Patriot Act, the feds don't actually have to go before a judge or produce any evidence or anything icky like that.


    This entire country has recently been through a massive disinformation campaign (WMD's anyone?), most people should be more suspicious of an action of this kind, especially so close to national elections.


    I'd wager that in a few months the Indymedia 'investigation' will quietly end with no charges being filed and no explainations given.


    Unfortunately for whoever is coordinating this latest governmenteffort, dissent and public disbelief in Official Government Lies has pread far beyond the underground radical fringe. Heck, you can buy Fahrenheit 9/11 at WALMART... where they sell guns and everything.


    If the Indymedia people are worth their salt as activists, they'll be able to parlay this government action into increased visibility and increased participation in their efforts.

  • by Galvatron (115029) on Friday October 08, 2004 @01:53AM (#10467441)
    Capital-L Libertarians hold those beliefs, true, but small-L libertarians (AKA civil libertarians or social liberals) are much more varied when it comes to economic policy.


    No, the guy was right the first time. A Libertarian is a member of the Libertarian party. A libertarian believes in minimal govenrment intrusion. A civil libertarian agrees with libertarians on civil issues, but not on economic ones, but without the modifier "civil," that is not implied.

  • by Qrlx (258924) on Friday October 08, 2004 @02:05AM (#10467488) Homepage Journal
    You don't know who shot up Republican campaign offices, and you don't know who burned swastikas in the yard.

    Unless, of course, you were in on it ;)

    Stop being such a Cassandra.
  • Bush (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Analogue Kid (54269) on Friday October 08, 2004 @02:39AM (#10467632) Homepage
    Lots of people like Bush here in Taiwan. That's because he's publicly stated that he'll honor the US commitment to defend Taiwan if China attacks. After France made some weapon deals with China, China set up over 500 missles pointed RIGHT F*#&ING AT THIS CITY(), and China and France started doing joint military drills, Bush sent 7 aircraft carriers into the Taiwan straight as a deterent. Kerry, meanwhile has repeatedly promised China more cooperation on all issues and barely mentioned Taiwan at all. Taiwan is THE issue China has with everyone...

    I don't know much about what's going on with Iraq, but if Kerry wins theres a good chance of having war here... China won't happily tolerate Chen Shui Bian () much longer. Mainland Chinese been threatening to attack for years, and if the US abandons, they will.
  • Sounds fake (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NigelJohnstone (242811) on Friday October 08, 2004 @03:02AM (#10467707)
    "I find it ironic that a bunch of anti-violence, anti-gun, peacemongers, like Democrats would behave this way. "

    The man reporting it that gun shot was Phil Parlock (Republican campaigner).

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091804X.shtml

    The same guy who was attacked (when he was with his daughter) by democrats and had his Bush poster tore up.

    Trouble is he does the every election, so it seems about as fake as can be, this is the 3rd election in which he's done this stunt.
  • by mpe (36238) on Friday October 08, 2004 @05:47AM (#10468187)
    ...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,

    Anyway there exist court orders to prevent "the press" republishing information which has previously been published elsewhere.
  • Is Bush Wired? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gnarly (133072) on Friday October 08, 2004 @06:21AM (#10468267) Homepage
    Maybe they were shut down because Indymedia has been pointing out lately how Bush may have been wired during the debates, and at previous press conferences.

    http://isbushwired.com/2004/10/voice-in-bushs-ea r. html

    Theory is that Bush has a tiny mic (or dental implant) through which Karl Rove, Cheney or some other intelligent grown-up tells him what to say.

    Sound crazy? Then what's that Power Unit [isbushwired.com] with a thick wire doing under his coat during the 1st debate? (Note this was only noticed because the TV network disobeyed the Bush campaign's order not to show candidates from behind.)
  • by gosand (234100) on Friday October 08, 2004 @09:08AM (#10468884)
    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.

    I just heard a report on NPR this morning. A reporter went to a Bush appearance wearing a Kerry T-shirt. He was told by the secret service he would be arrested if he didn't leave. He went to a Kerry appearance wearing a Bush T-shirt. Nothing happened.

    I thought - big whoop. They then went on to interview and describe many others who had been removed with the threat of JAIL from Bush appearances because they were "questionable". One woman had a small Kerry pin on her jacket. One guy had come from a Kerry rally and had a Kerry T-shirt on, which he had covered up with a long-sleeve shirt. At one high-school, several students were removed in tears by secret service officers for having Kerry items on. The list went on and on. One guy complied, and took off his Kerry item, and was still ordered to leave. Some people were put in jail for 2 hours, then charges dropped. The local police said they were following the orders of the secret service, and the secret service said they were following the orders of the white house.

    So now you aren't allowed at a Bush event unless you support him? I guess it is all about the image of having support. It must be pretty easy to have a chanting mob of supporters if you pre-screen the crowd. It sounds kind of like a tent revival for an evangelical con-man.

    I didn't see the report on NPRs website yet, so I can't link to it. But I did just hear it this morning on the way into work.

The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are correct. -- Ralph Hartley

Working...