Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Goverment Responds to EFF's Indymedia Motion

Comments Filter:
  • Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @07:59PM (#10782521)
    It'd be rather embarrasing to admit we clamped down on a leftie news site just for political reasons.
    • by Sylver Dragon (445237) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:05PM (#10782585) Journal
      You're viewing this all wrong. Those leftie news people are terrorists. They are questioning the One True Government. Attempting to report anything negative about the current government and/or administration undermines the authority of the government, and makes it harder to protect you from terrorists. If the government didn't clamp down on these people many True Americans might die, and the terrorists would have won.

      • Re:Translation: (Score:5, Informative)

        by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @10:03PM (#10783545) Homepage Journal
        Richard Perle on CNN [cnn.com] called Pulitzer-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh "the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist".

        Wolf Blitzer followed up by asking why Perle was accusing Hersh of being a terrorist. Instead of calling it a misquote, Perle said "he sets out to do damage".

        Perle was Reagan's assistant secretary of defense. Until February 2004 he chaired the advisory Defense Policy Board.

      • by rmohr02 (208447) <mohr.42@osuOPENBSD.edu minus bsd> on Thursday November 11, 2004 @01:33AM (#10784863)
        I forget, are we at war with Eurasia or Eastasia?
  • Ah, terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tim C (15259) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:00PM (#10782526)
    The 21st century's answer to Communism when it comes to ignoring due process.
    • Re:Ah, terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)

      by wrinkledshirt (228541) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:07PM (#10782597) Homepage
      It's even better than Communism, though. At least that had the U.S.S.R. as its main symbol, so when the U.S.S.R as we knew it fell, politicians had to shift off that war onto something else (arguably the "War on Drugs"?).

      Now, though, it's been shown that the War on Terrorism can continue without any substantial nation-based symbol and can continue ad infinitum. Look at Iraq, and how a "terrorism threat" was conjured from practically nothing out of that country. Think it couldn't/wouldn't happen again if the war in Iraq was suddenly won, and the government's ratings were in the dumps, and a new enemy was needed?

      Check out the PNAC [pnac.info]. It's not a football conference, but the latest way of governing the American people. Frightening and brilliant, and it's working.

      Anyhow, all that means is that every now and then, things like this are going to happen.
    • Re: Ah, terrorism (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JeanBaptiste (537955)
      "The 21st century's answer to Communism when it comes to ignoring due process."

      Because, yeah, 'ignoring due process' is only done by countries that promote anti-terrorism. Never mind that 'ignoring due process' (by American standards) is also practiced by China, North Korea, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, several African nations such as Nigeria, Somalia, Etheopia, as well as others. None of these countries ignore due process because of 'terrorism', they have other reasons. But in all of these countries 'du
      • Re: Ah, terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Moofie (22272) <lee.ringofsaturn@com> on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:16PM (#10782692) Homepage
        Other countries are not the Gold Standard of civil liberties. The Constitution is the Gold Standard of civil liberties, and it's being shredded.

        That's the problem. We don't need to become less free to be safe. We're already much safer from terrorism than we are from getting eaten by sharks, so "safe" is not an issue.

        The issue is control, and that should ALWAYS be resisted.
        • Re: Ah, terrorism (Score:2, Insightful)

          by JeanBaptiste (537955)
          I agree with what you have said.

          My problem, I guess, is that we are still more free than most people have been and are. So the gov't wants to see what library books I've checked out. Terrorism is a minor threat, I agree with you. Thats why we are not instituting internment camps as FDR did in WW2 to the japanese, germans, and italians. Thats why Bush has not declared himself the sole ruler of America, as Abraham Lincoln did. I dont fault old Abe or FDR, they did what they had to do. But you cannot se
          • Re: Ah, terrorism (Score:5, Interesting)

            by bhima (46039) <Bhima.PandavaNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:46PM (#10782907) Journal
            You know, America is more free than some places. But it's fewer places than it was in 1980 (the year I became an American) and still fewer than in 2000 (the year I left).

            And that's sad

          • Re: Ah, terrorism (Score:3, Informative)

            but as far as human rights go, especially women, the afghanis are far more free, and the iraqis are able to protest US involvment. Great. Try protesting under Saddam, or Castro, or Jong-IL.

            Really? Iraqis are allowed to protest?

            "United States troops opened fire on a crowd hostile to the new pro-American governor in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul yesterday, killing at least 10 people and injuring as many as 100, witnesses and doctors said." "US troops accused of carnage," Sydney Morning Herald, 16 Apri

        • by dont_think_twice (731805) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:07PM (#10783118) Homepage
          We don't need to become less free to be safe. We're already much safer from terrorism than we are from getting eaten by sharks, so "safe" is not an issue.

          Which is exactly why I am declaring the War on Sharks. This world cannot tolerate one more senseless death to shark attack. We cannot sit back and wait for the sharks to attack us. We must go on the offensive and attack the sharks. Every shark that we kill in the Altantic Ocean is a shark that cannot attack us in New York City. Let me mako this very clear: Either you are with us, or you are with the sharks.
          • by ATMAvatar (648864) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:48PM (#10783419) Journal
            Before you start your aquatic invasion, you might want to consider that you are more likely to be killed by a vending machine than a shark. If you do start the War on Vending, can I be your Haliburton and take all the caffienated drinks that spill from your fallen prey?
          • Not only do you have to worry about sharks, but you have to worry about sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads...

            Will someone please think of the children???
      • by Boronx (228853) <evonreis@mohr-enginee r i ng.com> on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:22PM (#10782733) Homepage Journal
        New Motto for George Bush's America:

        "Still better than North Korea".

        I'm sold.

  • by SkankinMonkey (528381) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:00PM (#10782528)
    At least they didn't cite god's will as the reason. ;)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:00PM (#10782530)
    Linux banned as terrorist OS
  • Despite the conveniently edited write up above such that the response appears to be an inflammatory one dismissing the EFF's claims on "terrorism" grounds, there's not much of anything to see here. Basically, they say the documents should remain sealed because 1) the EFF is not in any position to request that they be unsealed, that's up to Rackspace and 2) the documents are part of an ongoing investigation that could be jeopardized by the unsealing.

    Nothing to see here, move along move along. I'm sure, of c

    • by captnitro (160231) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:11PM (#10782642)
      I object to the term 'tinfoil elitist'. When I wear my hat, it is made of only the most generic proletariat foil.
    • by jfengel (409917) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:15PM (#10782675) Homepage Journal
      Does the executive branch get to claim unilaterally from claiming that the investigation is ongoing, or does some judge get to investigate that claim? If not, is there any check on the executive branch's ability to make that claim for anything they choose to seize?

      I left my elitist card at home; I'm genuinely curious.

      As far as I can tell from RTFA, this is just the government's response to the motion; a judge still gets to rule. Yes?
      • Yes, a judge still has to rule on the situation.

        And yes, the judge can (and probably will) request further information on the case regarding its progress and how it would be jeopardized by the release of information. That information will probably not become public until such time as the investigation is complete, but it will almost certainly be provided.
    • "... that's up to Rackspace..."

      Is it not also up to Indymedia to defend itself? If the EFF believes it needs to uphold certain rights, then how is it not in the position to do so in this case? So are we to stop questioning the government?

      "...the documents are part of an ongoing investigation that could be jeopardized by the unsealing."

      Your reaching on that one. Are you making excuses for the government without any knowledge on this matter beyond that which you've read in the news? If you do, then by
      • ... dude. Read the goddamn article. That's what the GOVERNMENT is saying. It's not anything out of the ordinary or unexpected. It's up to a court to decide the validity of the response.

        Christ.. is it just me or does Slashdot actively make people dumber?

    • You missed the fact that the "ongoing investigation" is described as an ongoing "criminal terrorism investigation".
      That photographing secret police who are photographing protestors puts one under suspicion of terrorist activities is truly a frightening development.

      But you know, maybe you're right. Maybe I should just stay at home, eat my porrige and think happy thoughts. After all, Government is here to protect and coddle us sheep, aren't they?
  • by toxickiwi (799307)
    This is just a crazy, they call it the 'land of the free' but how free are you? Next thing you know they will be blocking website's to USA IP addresses if the FBI can't get it hands on the physical hardware.
  • Anybody still... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by incom (570967) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:03PM (#10782566)
    going to even try to refute that the government merely has to cry terrorism to get whatever it wants? Where are you now apologists.
    • To the cynic in me, it's a clear-cut case of abuse.

      But, with me as devil's advocate, you really can't prove it until a FOIA request is successful.

      Enter the cynic again: That'll be in about four to eight years.
  • But your honor... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Phoenix Rising (28955) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:05PM (#10782579) Homepage
    ... we didn't serve IndyMedia - we served RackSpace.

    Ah, the complexities of an information society. According to the government, you'd better own the equipment, not just the data. Data owners apparently have no standing to sue if they aren't directly served, even if it's their data that's confiscated.
    • Yes, but the EFF *is not* Indymedia. Has *Indymedia* asked for the papers to be unsealed?
    • Uhh... if the only copy of their data is a website somewhere, then they're idiots (albeit Real Men [irtc.org]). So the feds have confiscated their backups; restore from the originals (or, in the case of web-sourced data, mirrors that they should regularly / continuously take). There's no excuse for relying on a provider for anything more than connectivity; if you need more than that (in terms of security, for example) you ought to be your own provider.
    • Re:But your honor... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by parliboy (233658) <parliboy.gmail@com> on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:15PM (#10782674) Homepage
      Query along those lines

      In many jurisdictions (here in Texas to be sure), server leasing is considered leasing real property, just as if you leased an apartment or a car.

      Now, let's say the government confiscates your leased car. Do you have standing to retrieve your car, or do you say back to the car company, "Take it up with the government"?
      • Re:But your honor... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by drayath (158040)
        Ah, but what if your leased apartment contains all your property, files for the buisness you run etc.
        If the goverment take the appartment *and all its contents* sure it might be up to the landlord to sort the appartment out, but it if definatly your right to query over the things within it that belong to you that were taken.

        i.e. Surley in the eyes of the law
        leased property containing stuff belonging to you
        should be the same as
        leased server containing data belonging to you!
    • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:47PM (#10782916)
      If the government needs something I have in a bank safe deposit box, they go and serve the bank with a warrant. If they need my employee records, they serve my employer with a warrant.

      A warrant is just a legal declaration that allows law enforcement to etner a place they may not normally enter or seize something they may not normally seize. Law enforcement can't just come and take a computer randomly from a company or person. They have to get a warrant from a judge to do so. However the warrant is to enter the premises or seize the goods, so it is presented to the persons concerned. They don't go, present it to you, and ask you to go get the goods, then maybe alter them, before you hand them over.

      Also, Indymedia has standing to sue, they didn't however, the EFF did and that was part of the judges ruling (read more than the /. blurb). The EFF has no standing. However, even if Indymedia sues, doesn't mean records will be unsealed. There are plenty of cases where revealing specifics will screw an investigation, and in those cases the judge generally keeps the records sealed. They are unsealed at trial, when the case is dropped, or if it drags on for too long.

      Nothing has changed in an information society, except that we'll probably see more seizing of computers to get at data used in criminal activities. It's no different than if you had a physical book with your accounting of illegal activities in storage or at a bank. They'd serve the place that physically had the book to get it. They aren't going to serve you and hope that you give it to them unaltered and intact.
      • Also, Indymedia has standing to sue, they didn't however, the EFF did

        Incorrect. Read the response:
        "Movants Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF"), Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center Foundation ("UCIMC") and XXXX XXX ("XXX")"

        and that was part of the judges ruling (read more than the /. blurb). The EFF has no standing.

        Incorrect again. This was not a ruling from a judge. This was an argument by the DOJ. The judge has not ruled yet whether or not they have standing.

        Furthermore, if you read the
  • by Bull999999 (652264) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:05PM (#10782583) Journal
    As far as I understand it, the Indymedia was hosted in UK but the FBI seized it on the request of Italian and Swiss governments. Is there an active interest in this matter by the US government other then just complying with the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties (MLATs) [state.gov]?
  • by the-build-chicken (644253) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:09PM (#10782627)
    ...you should have said earlier.

    Everyone back to their business.
  • Cuz (Score:5, Funny)

    by Goo.cc (687626) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:11PM (#10782643)
    They might as well have responded with a "cuz".
  • by jd (1658) <imipak@yaCOLAhoo.com minus caffeine> on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:14PM (#10782667) Homepage Journal
    Appear to be confused about this statement, claiming that it had to do with terrorism. No, it had to do with criminal terrorism. Other sorts of terrorism (as demonstrated by John Ashcroft's singing) are entirely legal. Please, please keep the distinction in your minds. Criminal terrorists are Bad. Legal terrorists are Good.
  • How do we know? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bodysurf (645983) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:16PM (#10782688)

    that John Sutton (the US attorney) isn't full of shit when he writes:

    "...3. "As further grounds for the denial of the Motion to Unseal, without waving the forgoing, the U.S. would show that the sealed documents pertain to an ongoing criminal terrorism investigation. The unsealing of the documents on file in the matter would seriously jeopardize the investigation. The non-disclosure is necessitated by a compelling government interest..."

    unless we get a little more details that the vagueity that is the above?

    • No. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:54PM (#10782974)
      And you don't in criminal cases. Sorry, but law enforcement can't, and won't, tell you why in a case like this. That's the whole point of having it sealed in the first place. They told the judge, who then decided it was appropriate to keep it sealed. That's how it works, and how it has worked. Real common to see that sort of thing in, say, organized crime busts.

      However some people seem a little confused. Sealed isn't a permenant sort of thing here. Just during the investigation. It'll be unsealed either when charges are brought, or when the investigation ends. It'll also be unsealed if the prosecution is dragging it's feet and it gets challenged successfully.

      However, in cases like this, you just have to wait. If you really care don't have the typical American week long attention span and actually keep an eye on it. Then in several months when something happens, look in to the reasoning, and if it's bad, challenge it.

      However you cannot in fairness (or legally) tell them "You have to tell me beforehand why it's sealed" because that ruins the point. It's just like someone telling you they need to keep something secret (like a supprise party for you on a certian date), and you demanding to know what it is. Well if they told you, that would defeat the point, now wouldn't it?
  • by nenya (557317) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:21PM (#10782717) Homepage
    Look, as long as the Patriot Act remains largely untested in court, the Justice Dept. would be incredibly stupid not to milk it for all they can. I'm pretty sure this kind of thing will be eventually overturned, but Congress passed the law, so now we've got to deal with it. Dealing with it will probably take the Courts striking down enough provisions that they send it back to Congress for a rewrite. This will probably take several years. Till then, it's a process. So far, it's a process that still seems to work. Give it time.
  • mirrored operation (Score:2, Insightful)

    by xoba (725894)
    web operations and data that are clustered or distributed around the world would be immune to a single site's seizure.
  • By citing Article VI of the Constitution and using it to say that treaty obligations require the seal, the government can conduct any black bag job it wants just by arranging a "confidential" request from any "friendly" foreign power.
    • Not quite. The Constitution still trumps treaties. A treaty that involves forcing people to house foreign soldiers, for example, would not fly because the forced housing of soldiers in time of peace is forbidden by the Third Amendment. Should a treaty be found to be unconstitutional, that treaty (or at least that section) would be unenforceable.
  • For Pete's sake. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rindeee (530084) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:27PM (#10782766)
    Disclaimer: I'm not trolling (if I were I'd of posted anonymous).

    The EFF has become a high-tech version of the ACLU. To some that may be a complement. To others it may have a negative connotation. To me it's the latter. It would seem that the more sensational a case is, the more potential there is for an EFF/ACLU to get involved, no matter the merits. I'm not implying that neither does any good, as they do certainly have their share of just causes, they just seem to be getting fewer and further between. Just my observation peppered with my opinion.
    • by kaldari (199727)
      So you're saying that the US government shutting down 20+ online news sites for a week without any explaination ISN"T IMPORTANT? I have to wonder what sort of trampling of our rights you WOULD consider important. Would you care if the FBI seized Slashdot's servers? The New York Times?
    • by dietz (553239) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:14PM (#10783178)
      It would seem that the more sensational a case is, the more potential there is for an EFF/ACLU to get involved, no matter the merits.

      Here's what I don't get about your "point": There's nothing about this case that makes it sensational. There were no naked people, no animals hurt, no child molestation, etc.

      If you think this case is "sensational" you think so because the very idea of the government clobbering free speech without even giving an explanation is an injustice. If you disagree with that sentiment, there's nothing "sensational" to this story at all!

      So, what sorts of cases do you think the EFF/ACLU should pursue that aren't sensational?

      I think perhaps you're confusing "sensational" with high-profile. The problem is that it's often the EFF/ACLU's involvement that makes a case high profile. Like when the ACLU argued that Nike should be allowed to lie in marketing materials: that case really only became high profile because the ACLU got involved, not the other way around.
    • by Fnkmaster (89084) * on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:50PM (#10783442)
      How are there no merits here? You think the government should have the right to seize property without due process, without judicial oversight, and without disclosing the nature of why they are seizing the property?

      The "justness" of the cause is measured by the fact that our government is abusing its power systematically. Sneak-and-peek warrants, requiring no judicial approval - and now seizing of servers "at the request of another nation", claiming protection under treaty and revoking the property rights of somebody to their leased servers under the guise that the warrants weren't served to them, therefore they have no right to information on said warrants. This all adds up to flagrant abuse, and it makes me disgusted to be an American.

      Sometimes, as in the this case, the EFF is standing up for an organization, IndyMedia, that I find incredibly distasteful. I'm a liberal (which is a good thing - I won't allow that word to be perverted to mean something bad as your ilk keep trying to do), and I share almost no beliefs in common with the radicals at IndyMedia. Nonetheless, I will stand up for their right to express themselves and be free from persecution.

      And THAT my friend is the difference between you and me. I don't think you are trolling, but I really wish you were. The worst part is that you aren't even embarrassed to hold such disgusting views. Now go wash your mouth out with soap and think about how horrible it is that you think that defending civil liberties has "negative connotations", because you don't agree with some people and don't think they ought to have the same civil liberties that you have.
  • very sad (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DM9290 (797337) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:32PM (#10782808) Journal
    It is sad that in the United States you apparently need special standing to request the unsealing of information for a warrant/subpoena.

    In Canada, the PUBLIC is considered to have an interest every time the STATE uses its power to seize something via a warrant/subpoena and any member of the public can request the information be unsealed and has standing to do so.

    On a similar theme, the public has the right to order transcripts of court proceedings for the same reason.

    The process of Justice is considered to be a matter of public interest. Not simply a private matter between the state and whoever the state is screwing over.

    Their argument about the MLAT treaty is persuasive however. It seems to contradict their argument about terrorism however.

    Either the seizure was according to the a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) and was therefore done on behalf of another country, or it was at the behest of US authorities to protect american national security.

    Does anyone know the identity of the unnamed "REQUESTING STATE"? Or is that a secret also?

    Because it seems by refusing to ID the requesting state the government is also necessarily refusing to ID the authority of which specific treaty they are relying on. Pointing out the Treaty would tend to ID the requesting state (in so far as it would be a signatory)

    I don't think you can rely on a treaty if you don't want to identify it to the court. that is just my hunch. Justice is called Justice for a reason.

  • 1939: Get out of Jail Free
    2004: part of an international "criminal terrorism investigation"

    How can you question it? If true, and revealed openly, innocent people can die.

    If false, and cover-up, heads should roll (figuratively).

    I don't know about you, however all I can do is trust that the judge that releases, or holds up, the data is honest and accurate.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @08:59PM (#10783021)
    Anyone remember the raid on Steve Jackson Games [sjgames.com]? ... the sealed search warrents, computer equipment that was never returned, the reasoning for the raid kept secret.

    At least the al qaeda terrorist cells report back to someone that the US claims should be held responsible. The "US Secret Service" terrorist cell on the other hand seem to operate freely in the US without having to report to any higher authority or be held accountable for their illegal activities. Or has Bill Cook and the rest of his cell ever been held in judgement for their actions?
  • by N3wsByt3 (758224) <Newsbyte&freenethelp,org> on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:10PM (#10783140) Homepage Journal
    It amuses me to see people counterargument the fact that this is a blatant abuse by the government of the freedoms that people enjoy in the west, by pointing out how much worse some people have it in other parts of the world. It simply doesn't make sense.

    How is it less a restriction of freedom, because other countries even have LESS freedom? that's like saying you get more hungry, but some are even hungrier then you...So what? Does that fill your stomac? Does it invalidates that you are hungry? No. Neither is getting less freedom any better by noting that others have even less. It doesn't contracdict the issue, and it does nothing to change it. We are not becoming more free because other countries are even less free.

    The fact that so many people actually accept the bull that the state says in this regard, is proof of a more fundamental truth about human nature: the fact that, ultimately, for most ppl, freedom isn't the most important, it is security. Contrary to what a great leader once said, most hoi palloi are all to happy to exchange their freedoms for a gain in security, or even an impression of improved security. People want to feel safe, and most don't care all that much about other things, compared to that. They don't care that people get imprisoned without due process, because they are bad ppl and evil terrorists, which should be locked up indefinately - for their (the citizens) protection, of course. they don't care about all the draconian laws that restrict their freedom, because it is portrayed (and seen) as a necessary way to protect themselves.

    A best example is a post I read about the iraqi people. Even though it was presented as a counterargument, in fact the poster gave a prime example of the kind of human nature I just described. He claimed iraqi's were getting far more freedom now then under Sadam. Well, yes. But the irony is, more and more people think the period they experience now is far worse then under sadam. In some area's, even to the point that they would rather have him back. Because, for all the atrocities he did (and a lot of people hated and feared him for it), their was one thing the populace recognise that they have completely lost, and that is security and stability. Humans abhor chaos, one could say.

    I doubt many in the US will have ever seen all those documentaries that actually show how the populace yearns the order that was present under sadam, even if he was a ruthless dictator. Among the populace, they care a lot less about all the so called freedom they have gained, and a lot more about stability and security. what good does it do that you have the right to protest, if you have no job, no income, bombs explode every day, and you can get shot when making the use of the right to protest?

    That's the deeper truth of human nature: by and large, freedom is a a far second or third in the list of most important things. That's why people don't care about freedoms getting trampled, as long as the impression exists it's improving safety and security.
    • >what good does it do that you have the right to protest, if you have no job, no income, bombs explode every day, and you can get shot when making the use of the right to protest?

      The logo of Heinlein's Space Patrol was three circles, representing Peace, Law, and Freedom. They were interlinked so that if any one were removed the other two would fall apart.

      Worth thinking about.
  • by Stormy Dragon (800799) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @10:06PM (#10783568) Homepage
    The Indymedia stuff was siezed at the bequest of other countries and in accordance with international treaty obligations. It's pretty funny to see the same Hate Bush crowd that's always whining about how he thumbs his nose at the rest of the world by ignoring international treaties (Kyoto, CTB, ABM, ICC, etc.) is now whining that how didn't flagrantly ignore international law to defend them.
  • by gelfling (6534) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @10:36PM (#10783762) Homepage Journal
    Why would the Gubmint really care all that much about Indymedia unless it was a big deal.

    For all the chomskyist-libertarians here screaming about the repression of YOUR rights, there is an equal number of people deluded into believing that Indymedia or their Blog is something so momentous that the government felt the need to randomly quash it.

    That's kind of the same worldview that alien abductees have, that they themselves are so significant that beings from the Horehead Nebula would hump it all the way over here to examine them.

    Sorry but no, more than likely something Indymedia did, or some funding source attached to them did something to raise some red flags. Indymedia PRIDES itself on being subversive and doing tangential things with groups that are on the fringes to begin with. Why would this be any different? It probably is not different.
  • terrible news (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @01:30AM (#10784847) Homepage Journal
    Terrorism is the practice of political influence of the people through spreading fear in the media. IndyMedia spreads fear of the state in the media, to influence people to change the state. They are terrorists. When you consider that terrorism is the media action, derived from more or less scary actual events described in the media, it is simply clear that they are terrorists. However, when you consider the vast legitimate, necessary messages of fear when actually scary events occur and are described accurately, terrorism itself begins to take on some nuance. When the stock market crashes, the Wall Street Journal report of the crisis is terrorism, but we need it just the same. Abusing terms like "terrorism", especially to control the media, is a greater terrorism, with no redeeming virtues. These counterterrorists are much more serious terrorist threats than a free press.
  • UC-IMC Links (Score:3, Informative)

    by wayward (770747) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @02:44AM (#10785184)
    Hi, I'm part of the UCIMC, and here's a link to our coverage:

    http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/21702/index.p hp [ucimc.org]

    Here are some earlier related stories:

    http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/21273 [ucimc.org]
    http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/20764 [ucimc.org]

We want to create puppets that pull their own strings. - Ann Marion

Working...