U.S. Lists Web Sites as Terrorist Organizations 507
mgcsinc writes "The United States for the first time has placed a web site on the list where it normally places terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, placing several conditions on Americans' interactions with the website. Certainly, few could challenge the latest addition, but how could this ability to effectively squelch internet speech be used by the government with less valid rationale in the future?"
Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah (Score:2)
Websites don't directly kill, Guns and People do. (Score:2, Interesting)
> anyone? It is the bullet that's fired by the gun
> actuated by the finger connected to the hand
> dangling from the arm that carries out the action
>, fuckwad.
There is a key difference. When you pull the trigger, you set in place a series of events that are irreversible. If it hits it's target in a place that will kill someone, you are the direct cause.
When you post something on a website, people (may or may not) read it. They may or may not be i
What's Interesting About This Is. (Score:5, Interesting)
Jewish group Kahane Chai or Kach, which is suspected of organizing attacks on Palestinians.
This is a first!!!!
Re:What's Interesting About This Is. (Score:2, Interesting)
Wrong. It's not a first, nor a last. The Kahane Chai group and its predecessor have LONG been labeled by the State Department as a terror group. In January 2001 (this was months before 9/11), the FBI raided the headquarters of a Brooklyn group that maintains the Kahanist Web site, and tried to locate documents linking them with Kach or Kahane Chai. That's worth repeating: They raided a terror group's web host service just to hunt these guys down. The US and Israeli intellgence se
Re:What's Interesting About This Is. (Score:3, Informative)
Kahane Chai has publicly assumed responsibility for a number of terrorist attacks of Palestinians, including Baruch Goldstein's slaughter of 29 people in the Ibrahim Mosque in 1994. Since March 1994, both Kahane and Kach have been outlawed [ict.org.il] by the Israeli g
Re:What's Interesting About This Is. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's Interesting About This Is. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's Interesting About This Is. (Score:2)
I think a web site that puts up its views is protected HOWEVER the second they start to organize a possible attack (like its members do) then its not free speech anymore.
Re:What's Interesting About This Is. (Score:2)
In America, the authorities are supposed to prove such allegations before punishing the perpetrators. This is admittedly inefficient, since it's pretty much impossible to do this "the second they start," but our system of law has worked pretty well for 200 years. Folks who don't like it ought to consider moving to a country where the state gets rid of dissidents before they can cause an
Re:What's Interesting About This Is. (Score:2)
I think you have it backwards. People keep telling me that if I don't like this whole "pre-emptive" attitude that our new Evil Overlords have, that I should leave the country. Which is it now?
Re:What's Interesting About This Is. (Score:2)
This reminds me of how 8 months ago I sat through some of my professor's (at college) lectures about the Iraq war and this one history teacher told of three likely outcomes.
1.) The kurds taking advanta
Re:What's Interesting About This Is. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, so since you haven't seen any in only 6 months, then you think its over? The US's worldwide approval ratings have hit solid bottom. Legitimate scholars are NOW saying its ok to hit the US because they are the invaders.
Things WILL get worse, believe me.
Re:What's Interesting About This Is. (Score:3, Informative)
Of course. Kahane Chai and Kach did not get on the State Departments limited and arbitrary list of terrorist organizations by publishing. They got there by murdering people and committing other acts of terror in Israel, Palestine and the United States. Baruch Goldstein, who killed 29 worshippers at a Hebron Mosque
Re:What's Interesting About This Is. (Score:2)
Probably!
Re:What's Interesting About This Is. (Score:2)
Re:What's Interesting About This Is. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, attacking innocent people is terrorism, regardless of their ethnicity or faith, and regardless of whether the attacker operates in opposition to or on behalf of an established government.
But this word has been such a propaganda vehicle for so long that it no longer has any useful meaning.
Re:What's Interesting About This Is. (Score:2)
Re:What's Interesting About This Is. (Score:2)
They, of course, neglected... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:They, of course, neglected... (Score:2)
1984, right prediction, wrong year. (Score:3, Insightful)
From there there is not that far to outlawing voting for the opposition. USA citizens should have brought their government to heel when they had the chance(the constitution gave them that power) but now they would have to collectively each commit a crime(a terrorist crime no less) to exert their own constitutional rights... From there, how far to outlawing a repeal of a politician? I guess Arnold's election scared all the politicians with thoughts of "he ain't one of us"...
Re:1984, right prediction, wrong year. (Score:2, Interesting)
Not everything you disagree with is 1984. Fuck. Bush is temporal. E.g. he prolly won't be voted back in...
Or how about instead of pinning all your problems on one fucking guy you guys take responsibility for your own actions. Stop acting so paranoid and just relax!
Tom
Re:1984, right prediction, wrong year. (Score:2)
Aren't we all?
Here's what I worry about. If the Shrub wins re-election (he's surely got another pointless war up his sleeve) then Brother Jeb wants his turn on the throne. Can America-as-we-know-it survive 16 years of Bushness?
"Time is the only true purgatory."
Samuel Butler
Re:1984, right prediction, wrong year. (Score:2)
You know, you might try actually reading the article, rather than just spouting off. I realize that this is novel behavior for a slashdotter, but it can actually help. The government is not, in fact, planning on censoring the web sites or making them directly illegal. They are saying that it's not OK to give money to the sites, which actually makes sense- that money will go into the hands of people who will use it to commit murder and other terrorist acts. Since that would classify as aiding and abettin
Consider this. (Score:2)
If you consider this about an anti-abortion group, would a site containing anti-abortion retoric by the same group who bombed an abortion clinic. Would that make any donation to their website or materials used in a picket would be considered supporting their terrorist activities?
Re:1984, right prediction, wrong year. (Score:2)
True enough, but consider this: Under U.S. law, it would be illegal to provide money or other material support to the designated Web sites
Technically, if you clicked on a banner ad at one of those sites, and the site made money from from the clickthrough, you are now providing money to the site. Actually, if they made money from impressions, you'd be providing money merely by visiting the site.
Now, I do
paranoia strikes again (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:paranoia strikes again (Score:2)
Re:paranoia strikes again (Score:2)
Re:paranoia strikes again (Score:2)
There is nothing wrong with Kahane.org! (Score:2, Insightful)
Can anybody figure out what this means? (Score:5, Insightful)
For example...
I'd love to get my hands on whatever obfusicator our politicans ran on the USA Patriot Act [epic.org]. What a mess:
SEC. 201. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.
Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1274), as paragraph (r); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565), the following new paragraph:
`(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism); or'.
Trying to figure out the new powers granted the government in the USA Patriot Act involves a ridiculous array of search-and-replace scavenger hunting.
What do you mean by tapped? (Score:2)
In this particular instance, we are talking about a publically available website. Something that any member of the general public can see. Whether we are talking about a website or someone exercising their dog in a public park, the government can observe any activities that the general public can view. They can read the website, or watch you exercise your dog in the park, no special considerations required.
Or are you concerned abou
Re:Tap How?? (Score:2)
Tap the Internet how? It's not like there's a single wire anywhere along the way to easily connect into. Short of tapping at the receiving end where all the packets converge again at the destination web-site, you'll need to do that for every single site and then trace back every IP address -- including those using anonymous proxies.
Possible? Yes.
Expensive? Very yes.
Worth the effort? Ask the RIAA!
Re:Tap How?? (Score:2)
Re:Can anybody figure out what this means? (Score:2)
What a land we live in... we're all free, so long as we're not suspected of being against the government. Fantastic.
i.e. we ain't free peeps, sorry.Re:Can anybody figure out what this means? (Score:2)
I am now confused (Score:2)
I thought that the US government was on the side of Israel in the war against Palestine. From the news reports the war over there was about Israel trying to stop Palestine from suicide bombing.
So who is the US govt for in this war? The Israel terrorists or the Palestinian terrorists.
PS this is not meant to be a troll. I'd really like to know the stance of the US govt wrt this war.
Re:I am now confused (Score:2)
So in this p
Think Kahane (Score:2)
Regardless of which side the US Governent is one, Kahane is the kind of group that would be blocked.
Re:Think Kahane (Score:2)
Just a minor point... you mean the LATE Meir Kahane.
For those who don't know who Kahane is, he founded the JDL (think Irv Rubin -- the guy who hanged himself in prison). While I believe that Jews have the right to defend themselves, Kahane was nothing but a thug.
The US is opposed to all terrorists (Score:2)
It just happens to be the case that right now you see many more killings by Palestinian terrorists than by Israeli terrorists. This is probably because Israel is in political control of the region right now.
When (if?) peace is achieved and some of the settlements are evacuated, you can expect to see a far greater degree of activity from Israeli terrorist groups. Right now, they would have to be strategic morons to do anything. (Obviously there are at le
Re:The US is opposed to all terrorists (Score:2)
I think this is only true if you consider the killings of Palestinians by the Israeli military to be non-terrorist in nature. This distinction may not make a lot of difference to the dead Palestinians, who have died in much larger numbers than Israelis have.
Re:I am now confused (Score:2)
All cynicism aside, the US position is to seek peaceful resolutions, and to minimize the extent of combat operatione when they become necessary.
Guerilla/militant fighting, terrorist actions, and coups d'etat are not condoned, at least not according to official policy.
So the US position is to try to avoid chaos. Suicide bombings are the very essence of chaos, and the truth is, nobody has a clue what to do about the
Re:I am now confused (Score:2)
As a Jew and the son of a victim of genocide I am dumbfound
ad revenue? (Score:2)
Under U.S. law, it would be illegal to provide money or other material support to the designated Web sites
So if the site has ad banners on it, and I visit the site -- if they have a pay-per-view plan on their ad banners, then my visit just generated $0.0005 for the website. Would I be breaking the law?
Let's see... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let's see... (Score:2)
Re:Let's see... (Score:2)
As far as intilling fear, I still think goatse wins the price though...
2600?? (Score:4, Insightful)
How long do you think it will be until the MPAA, RIAA, or some other "Big Business" (friend of the Bush family) convinces the honorable John Asscroft that 2600 is a terrorist organization. After all, they talk about security exploits, fun with the phone systems, etc.
If this goes unchallenged, the possibility of abuse against people "not with the team" is almost a definite.
This isn't news (Score:2)
Re:This isn't news (Score:2)
Yes but this didn't happen with a book publisher, TV channel, or whatever, which is why it's on Slashdot.
providing material support (Score:2)
I actually met Kahane about 25 or 30 years ago during his JDL (Jewish Defense League [jdl.org], an only slightly less objectionable org
The List (Score:2)
Domain names are included with the list of the organizations.
Re:The List (Score:2)
How Long... (Score:3, Funny)
"Getting the google counter and endless slashdot mod points is not enough... I want to be an internet terrorist!!!!"
But is it totally wrong? (Score:2)
Anyway, the question is that are such type of actions completely unjustified? I mean I know they are against freedom of expression, but what are the alternatives for a government when faced with such a situation. Take the example of SCO. Even though they emanate a lot of FUD, many people still believe t
Re:But is it totally wrong? (Score:2)
I said this during the Kynhun episode, and I'll say this again:- if you want something restricted, the best you can do is to NOT GIVE IT FREE PUBLICITY. Kynhun had exactly 34 members when the ban first came into place; now it has 200-odd subscribers. Fighting terrorism is both
While they're at it, here are a few more... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why hasn't the KKK been targetted in the war on terror? They've been terrorizing our nation for more than 100 years, and they're very public.
Because the KKK is generally nonviolent (Score:2)
I personally think that hate speech, the most distasteful and disturbing, should also be the most protected, precisely because it's unpopular..."It is a besetting vice of
Confused (Score:2, Interesting)
I will admit to feeling naive about it, but the site kahanetzadak.com REALLY freaks me out. This is the worst kind of racism - it's as bad as American Aryan sites. Total hate. From my point of view, it's as bad an advertisement for modern Judaism as I have ever seen.
The reason I state my response title as "Confused" is that I really wonder if this isn't some reverse-propaganda p
Terror Web Sites (Score:2)
As for privacy concerns, well if the Chinese government can't stop their people from getting to web sites and discussion boards with the help of the biggest US tech companies (Gre
If you RTFA.... (Score:2, Funny)
DANGER!!! (Score:2)
This is the problem (Score:2)
Labels are convenient at times, but they can be over-used.
kahane.org is one of the ugliest websites (Score:2)
Article Summary is Misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
Kahane.com is not being banned for saying bad things. It is being banned FOR CARRYING OUT TERRORIST ATTACKS IN WHICH CIVILIANS HAVE BEEN KILLED IN AN ATTEMPT TO ACCOMPLISH POLITICAL GOALS.
Listing kahane.com as an alias for Kahane Kach just makes it clearer to US citizens that aiding any group claiming that name is a felony.
It makes as much sense to claim that kahane.com is a non-terrorist political offshoot of a terrorist group as it does to claim (as the Europeans did until recently) that Hamas is a non-terroist organization.
This notion that groups which support the killing of civilians can be split into terrorist and non-terrorist components simply does not pass the smell test.
I'm glad to see the Bush administration applying this principle uniformly.
Finally! (Score:2)
And now they'll all get slashdotted (Score:3, Insightful)
Kahane sounds a lot like most extreme right-wing religious groups. The extremists of the Christian right, the Jewish right, and the Islamic right have far more in common with each other than they like to admit.
I'm surprised that the Bush Administration is acting in this area. Bush Jr. (unlike Bush Senior) gets considerable support from the American Jewish community in exchange for his support of Israel. There's got to be more political story behind this.
Re: Adust for Inflation (Score:2)
Well they can either adjust for inflation, or travel in pairs.
Every Jew a .44 -- Make My Day!
The list still isn't complete (Score:4)
Enforcement Possible For This One Only Because... (Score:2)
The people who run this website may or may not have family in the U.S or might want to visit the U.S in the future. Cutting them off from that access is a punishment, certainly.
But will t
What is the point of this? (Score:2)
Repugnant as the views expressed on the other sites may be, I really can't see the point in this. If being entered on to the list has any impact at all (except for driving lots of people to look at it and see what the fuss is all about), the site owners can easily relocate the content to a new doma
list of websites (Score:2)
pissing in the wind (Score:3, Insightful)
What is considered support? (Score:2)
A lot of these sites have banner ads. One prevalent "sponsor" (their word) is some site called affordablehealthcare.com. So would I be supporting terrorism by buying medical supplies from them.
On the links page, the articles of people like Alan Keyes, Rush Limbaugh, Senator James Inhofe, and George Will are linked to. Does this make them sponsors of state terrorism.
Heck, Circuit City has a link on their pages. Are they now supporters of terrorism?
One Domino at a Time (Score:2)
There were attempts to ban VoIP (as if you can separate one type of data from another).
Now political speech sites (have we become France verses Yahoo Auctions?)
At the same time our government is setting up anonymous proxy servers to help Iranians visit political dissent sites.
Who is being helped and who is being hurt?
Who has freedom?
SomethingAwful.com (Score:2)
My terrorist act of the day: (Score:4, Informative)
Frankly, I think this is perfectly acceptible action at this time, and I hope that the US does not try to go further and block the sites. When you can read vile words from the mouths of fools, you're often alienated from them easier than if they were underground, secretive, suppressed, and romanticized .
Re:America died (Score:4, Interesting)
"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre."
~ Frank Zappa, 1977
''If this were a dictatorship, it would be a
heck of a lot easier -- so long as I'm the dictator.'' --George W. Bush
"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." George W Bush
Re:America died (Score:2, Interesting)
So, the President's cabinet is responsible to the President, not the other way around.
MOD PARENT UP, GRANDPARENT DOWN (Score:2)
Of course, you're replying to a '+4 interesting' which is horrible tripe. It's a damn shame.
Re:OFFTOPIC!!!!!!!! MUST MOD DOWN (Score:2)
I don't know if that is so. Slashdot, as far as I have seen, is either party-neutral or at the most slightly pro-right.
Although, some moderations indicate otherwise. But, you must realize that the people who moderate are randomly picked and there is no sure way of knowing what party-affiliations they are.
My point is that accusing Slashdot of following party lines is probably not very accurate.
By the way, another way to dil
Re:America died (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:America died (Score:2)
Uhhhh... HUH? From where, exactly, did you produce this number? And why do you fail to make distinctions between "hates the United States" and "is unhappy over how the US has behaved lately?" Most world governments recognize our system as being turbulent - I suspect many of them are now just waiting for the next government in '04 in hopes it behaves more nicely. And the average citizen of the world doesn't rea
Re:America died (Score:2)
Sorry...
Re:America died (Score:3, Insightful)
The first country that springs to mind is Canada.
If you read the article.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even all out blocking was mentioned thusly:
But the law may not enable the United States to block access to the Web sites, if only for technical reasons.
That's funny, I don't recall the bill of rights and free speech being called "technical reasons" when I studied US history in high-school and college.
At the ver
Re:If you read the article.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is correct. One thing we have to understand is that with freedom of speech there comes a price.
In order to allow all points of view to be heard we have to accept that terrorists, peodophiles, facists and all the things we despise in society will also use these rights to further their own ends.
In the end if we try to limit the free speech of the most despicable people in society, we actually give government a met
Re:What? (Score:2)
I am beginning to wish China was slightly more effective in their blocking.
Re:Typical... (Score:2)
Re:It's an open door (Score:2)
Awhile back there was a Christian/Pro-Life website up that listed pro-choice doctors and the order in which they'd been knocked off in. Guess what, the 1st Amendment was no shield for them.
This is no different.
Re:Unnerving visiting the websites listed... (Score:2)
Then again I live in Canada....
WOW ... rite on the money! (Score:3, Interesting)
Since i am not an American BUT i travel a lot to the us for business the possibility of entry denial by immigrations was too expensive for me to risk it.
i could use a string of proxies, but it was too much trouble for sightseeing.
The land of the free indeed.
Re:Chill out (Score:2)
It would have no idea what to do with money.
Re:Chill out (Score:2)
So what would happen if the EFF supported their cause on 1st Amendment grounds? I looked at the websites, and I disagree with the views expressed -- but I don't see anything to warrant suppression.
If the US Government wants to make it a crime to give money to an individual, they should just say so, without clouding the issue by bringing the red herring of the internet into the picture.
It would make as much sense to post the
Re:Chill out (Score:2)
Nothing is being censored, people. Just don't get caught donating money to the site.
So if the government banned donations to the ACLU website, would that likewise not be censorship?
Re:Chill out (Score:2)
Just from
The Real IRA is on the list. (Score:2)