U.S. Goverment Responds to EFF's Indymedia Motion 474
bergwitz writes "In a response to EFF's motion to unseal, the U.S. government claims that Indymedia hard drives were seized as part of an international "criminal terrorism investigation," and thus the U.S. District Court's gag order should be upheld." This will help refresh your memory.
Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You just reminded me... (Score:4, Interesting)
Huh? Where do you live, Citizen? AmeriComplex is the largest MMOLARP on the planet, featuring 300,000,000 LARPers playing 24/7!
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Informative)
> about Bush?
Well, the headlining article is about Bush, so lets pull it up, shall we?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/10/bush.
Why, wouldn't you know it - it's a big long piece of praise for Bush's appointment for Attorney General, consistantly calling him a "moderate". Of course, this ignores Gonzales's heavy hand in the Patriot Act, secret trials, tribunals, et al.
Not good enough? Lets take a FAIR look:
http://www.fair.org/activism/cnn-psyops.ht
http://www.fair.org/activism/cnn-aljazeera.html (CNN to Al-Jazeera: Don't report civilian deaths)
http://www.fair.org/activism/cnn-casualties.htm
http://www.fair.org/activism/dobbs-annan.html (CNN attacks Annan for saying that the Iraq war was illegal, something that most international law scholars agree with)
http://www.fair.org/extra/0303/reliability.html (probably one of the more telling - they covered Reliable Sources for 1 year. The results? Media insiders were 76%. Right-leaning guests outnumbered left-leaning guests 2:1. Laura Ingraham came on almost as half as often as all left-leaning guests put together. White guests were 194 to 9, worse than Fox's Special Report. Male guests outnumbered female 155 to 48 (over 3 to 1). Not a single public interest group appeared during the entire year.)
http://www.fair.org/reports/fox-cnn-guest-list.
(Comparing Fox's "Special Report" to CNN's "Wolf Blitzer Reports" - CNN had 38 Republicans and 29 Democrats; Fox had only *6* Democrats)
I could keep going with dozens more. CNN is slightly right of center from a US perspective, which makes it solidly to the right on a global scale. In fact, it's interesting to compare CNN's coverage with CNN International. To market to an international audience, they had to make their right-wing coverage more liberal - so, while the US CNN showed the toppling of Saddam's statue all day with a waving red, white, and blue background, CNNi showed a split screen: on one side, the statue falling. On the other, images of the Iraqi wounded and dead, including Ali Ismaeel Abbas.
(BTW, if anyone wants to attack this, you can't get away with just attacking FAIR: you need to attack *the content*).
Re:Translation: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're looking from the right, it must be on the left.
Your post looks like a political ad. It's full of deceitful numbers that support only your point of view. For example, why compare Fox's "Special Report" with CNN's "Wolf Blitzer Reports" instead of comparing the entirity of the network's content? Your were trying to make a point about the network, not Wolf Blitzer, r
Re:Translation: (Score:4, Insightful)
(BTW, if anyone wants to attack this, you can't get away with just attacking FAIR: you need to attack *the content*).
from your comment:
HAHA!!!! You point to *FAIR* as an unbiased news source???!! You might as well pull up Baghdad (there are no American tanks here) Bob!!!
HAAA!!! You can't read.
Re:Aren't all lefties terrorists? (Score:4, Insightful)
I define a terrorist as someone who is willing to use terror against civilians as a means to further their cause. By this definition, the US administration is a terrorist organisation. Not only that, I believe that the US can now be classed as a religiously fanatic state sponsor of terrorism.
Just ask yourselves, who is responsible for spreading fear throughout the US and the world? What colour alert level is the US on this week?
Shitdrummer.
Re:Aren't all lefties terrorists? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you mean "before those of the US government"?
Re:Aren't all lefties terrorists? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are correct if you are suggesting that the US did not orchestrate the 9/11 attacks. However, you are dead wrong if you are claiming that the United States has never blown up unarmed civilians, going to work or otherwise. In war, the civilian populations are almost always the ones who suffer the most, and the United States military has its share of civilian deaths under its belt.
Look here [comw.org] for a few examples of what I'm talking about. [Note that that page says, from the "2003 Iraq War", but it should probably say, "2003, 2004, 2005, ... Iraq War"] Many of these could be described as unfortunate accidents, as happen in a war, but remember also that it was the United States that employed the practice of striking "economic" targets in the first and second Gulf Wars; that was the euphemism they used for the killing of civilians in their workplaces. What was the World Trade Center but a very large economic target, and those innocents murdered but "collateral damage" (as the military likes to term it)? I'm not trying to justify 9/11, but you should think about these things in perspective. We're not in a position to decry such acts when they occur on our soil if we happily commit them abroad.
Looking a little farther back, there was Operation: Just 'Cause [my apostrophe ;-)] in which the US invaded Panama in an attempt to seize General Manuel Noriega, in which somewhere between 300 and 3,000 Panamanian civilians (depending who you ask) were killed in waves of indiscriminate neighborhood bombings, and thousands more were rendered homeless. There are many more examples, if you would care to study our military history. Nothing can possibly justify the slaughter of nearly 3,000 innocent people in the United States on September 11th, but if you look at our history, you'll see that our government and military haven't exactly let civilian lives stand in the way of their objectives either.
You're half-right. The "rich jerks" part is dead on, and the bit about using religion to accumulate power could conceivably be applied. Of course, there's no way to truly understand the motivations of our leaders, but there's little doubt that they have thus far taken advantage of panic and fear to further their political careers. As for the killing of political dissidents, it hasn't happened in this country so far (at least, that we know of ;-), but just look at all the other countries that bear the mark of US-sponsored totalitarianism. How about Nicaragua, with the US-trained death squads and terror groups? Or Chile, where the US helped install the brutal tyrant Auguste Pinochet? Or Israel, which is to this day supported by US funding and weapons, and which freely executes alleged "terrorists" (including a paraplegic in a wheelchair) without any trace of due process, and without even any regard for the civilian lives that happen to be around when the missiles hit? The list goes on.
True. I'm very glad to live in a country where we have such liberties that, even as they are being gradually eroded by panic and fear-mongering, are much greater than those experienced in most other places in the world. But your comment about the grandparent poster wanting to join a terrorist organization doesn't even make sense. H
Re:Aren't all lefties terrorists? (Score:5, Insightful)
And like I said, there were the many civilian "economic" targets destroyed by the US in Iraq. One could argue that the World Trade Center was just an "economic target" in the war against the United States. What exactly is the difference between that terrorist attack and the American missiles that rip through hospitals, schools, and places of commerce?
And how about this [electroniciraq.net] video clip, showing a US helicopter crew firing on a group of unarmed civilians? Last time I checked, blasting civilians into a bloody spray as they walk down the street serves no military purpose.
Obviously, not all the civilian deaths in the Iraq conflict were the result of attacks specifically targeting civilians. However, I still call into question the judgement of those in command, who made the decision to exercise military power, knowing full well what the cost would be. After all, you try explaining to the man whose entire family was slaughtered that his loved ones died because of recklessness instead of malice. Do you think it makes much difference to him?
Re:Aren't all lefties terrorists? (Score:4, Interesting)
How about if it was an indiscriminate kill free-fire zone, like we had in Vietnam? Or what if the ojective really was to get attention and cause fear, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What if we started arbitrarily kidnapping and holding people hostage without any form of due process, like Guantanamo? What if we shoved people into roofless huts until they froze to death, like we did to the Japanese in WW2? You can say that's all in the past now, but as we are repeating most of the same pattern it really isn't.
The "terrorists" didn't do what they did because to "get attention and cause fear." They did what they did as an attempt to dislodge us from our complete financial support of Israel's occupation of Palestine. The "terrorists" didn't occupy the school in Russia to get attention and cause fear, they were attempting to convince Russia to dislodge their troops from Chechnia. Heck, the Basque sepratists didn't blow up the Madrid underground to cause fear, they did it to change the cost-benefit equation of continuing to occupy the territory.
It's not a big difference. If anything the terrorists are more noble in their cause, as they are spending their lives for an ideology they believe in, as opposed to the current administration who is merely risking other people's lives for financial gain.
We live in a morally ambiguous universe. Not because "They" are clean, but because "We" are dirtier than we imagine.
Re:Aren't all lefties terrorists? (Score:5, Informative)
William Calley was charged, and convicted, but got "house arrest" for a few years. His actions were apparently condoned by your then-president, who set him loose. They were just gooks, after all.
http://www.vietnam-war.info [vietnam-war.info]
Re:Aren't all lefties terrorists? (Score:5, Informative)
He was the _leader_ of Hamas at the time of his assasination. He was _killing_ people. He was _ordering_ the deaths of more civlians through suicide bombings, and openly admitted and challenged Israel to it.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1989, and later on released in 1997 - following which we went back and started a spate of attacks on civilians through suicide bombings. The Hellfire missile hit him and all the people who were killed were his aides and his bodyguards.
Yeah, it's sad that Israel has lowered itself to the level of the militants whom they're up against, but when peace does not work, what is it that we could do against people who would not go against the word of "God".
Ask yourself this: even if a man is guilty, is it right to kill him without trial, without provocation, without immediate threat, and at the cost of innocent lives?
He was guilty, a terrorist who was leading a terrorist group at the time of assasination, who was a threat and would have ordered more, had he been alive. And oh, there were no innocent casualties - the only people who were killed in the vicinity were his aides and bodyguards.
If Osama were out there and we could kill him, do you expect us to stay our hands because we've not had his trial?
Ah, terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah, terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Iraq DID have ties to Al Qaeda (Score:4, Insightful)
"Iraq had ties to orginizations that supported terrorism."
And the US had ties to organizations that supported terrorism (check your Central American/Afghanistan/etc. history). One man's "terrorist" is another man's "Freedom Fighter".
In fact we even had direct ties to Saddam while he was gassing his own people.
We should invade ourselves.
Re:Iraq DID have ties to Al Qaeda (Score:4, Funny)
"If we supported Saddam killing the kurds, we would have NOT started the first gulf war."
Really? That's funny. I thought we launched Desert Shield/Storm because Saddam invaded Kuwait. Up until that point we really didn't give a rat's ass what Saddam did as long as he was Iran's enemy. Rummy sure was chummy with him.
But what do I know, I only fought in that war.
"God damn it! I'm surrounded by F-ing morrons on slashdot"
Yep, that must be it. Everyone else is a moron. Reality-based morons. Must be rough being you. Hey, did you know that there were no WMD in Iraq when we started this latest war?
Re:Iraq DID have ties to Al Qaeda (Score:4, Insightful)
even stranger, I agree with you.
Not hard to. Osama was one of the U.S.'s biggest buddies at the time, and Iran was the great Evil, we looked the other way when iraq used the British supplied gas to attempt to erase the Kurds, because they were better than Iran, right?
Iran-Contra? remember?
Re:Iraq DID have ties to Al Qaeda (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Iraq DID have ties to Al Qaeda (Score:4, Informative)
Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1983, our government knew this, and yet we still sent Donald Rumsfeld over there to shake his hand and make nice because he was fighting against Iran. You know that infamous picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein and smiling? Understand that at that very moment Saddam was using chemical weapons on Kurds and Donald Rumsfeld knew it [gwu.edu]
Seven years later, Operation Desert Storm was launched in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, a reason which is completely unrelated to the previous use of chemical weapons. Your argument that this invasion means we could not have supported Saddam during his attacks on the Kurds is baseless and ignorant. Have a nice day.
Re:Iraq DID have ties to Al Qaeda (Score:4, Interesting)
We didn't start it, he did with the invasion of another country
In point of fact, had Bush told Saddam that he didn't approve of the invasion plans when he FUCKING ASKED FOR PERMISSION, none of this would have happened. Yeah, Saddam's a nasty guy, but we aren't angels either.
Re:Iraq DID have ties to Al Qaeda (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes. If we act according to the UN, then why did we invade in the second war against the wishes of the UN?
We should have invaded the first time, or not invaded the second time. Either way, a Bush was wrong. So which one was wrong?
Re:Don't even waste your breath (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh goodey. You mean in the First World War there were Good Guys vs Bad Guys as opposed to a bunch of brainless empires killing each other's cannon fodder off? News to me!
And in the WWII I seem to recall something about that Red Army thing who seem to have captured some city called Berlin despite the fact that the Germans had 190 divisions fighting in the East compared to 59 in the West..
and saved the entire globe from Communism
Err..no. Mr. Regan taking credit notwithstanding (he was fond of that particular gig) the USSR collapsed from within due to its loooong lasting structural weakneses which were seeded at the time of its creation. As far as Communism is concerned, it merely underwent some transformations and is alive and well, last time seen spending lavishly in China while sipping Martinis.
To these people the US and everything that we stand for is evil and they are rooting for us to lose
You see the saddest part is that the US was at a time a beacon of freedom and Enlightement, to which most of the world looked up in awe and inspiration. Then people like you, who use terms like "niggerlovers" got in power. Now the US is a rotting corpse of its former ideals, a zombie lurching about looking for blood and brains, a terryfing and sad sight, made more frightening by the fact that the rest of the world now knows with certainty that even the fairest and healthiest of nations are not immune to this terrible disease which seeks to lower the curtain of Dark Age back on our civilization. A disease feeding on greed, ignorance, hubris but most nurished by religious bigotry and zeal. This sad truth is only reinforced by the images of toys and candy handed out to children whose parents are murdered that same evening as "collateral damage" or "insurgents and terrorists".
It's better to just ignore them and their message of hate and move on knowing that the vast majority of us stand for the right thing
Right. Ignore discourse, ignore dissent, ignore information, ignore facts because you are Right by nature. Or perheaps made Right by your religion. Or a word of your pious leader. Onward Christian Soldiers.
Re:Don't even waste your breath (Score:3, Interesting)
Very observant. Yes indeed they are nurished by the same thing. While King George seeks to remake the world into a neo-con Christian-capitalist utopia, Osama and crew seek to remake the world into a Islamic Empire known as the Caliphate. They are the two sides of a very ugly coin. You should also realise that they need each other badly. In the absence of Osama, Bush would have difficulties frightening his sheeple into spending trillion
Re:Iraq DID have ties to Al Qaeda (Score:5, Informative)
And that is the answer that we were not given before the invasion.
but it did have ties to those that supported Al Qaeda.
Fewer ties than Saudi Arabia. Did we invade there? How about Iran?
If ties to al Qaeda was the litmus test, then we still struck the wrong place.
Re:Iraq DID have ties to Al Qaeda (Score:5, Informative)
Look at the facts: [washingtontimes.com]
Also: [cbsnews.com]
So, in reality, Haliburton may have been trading with the "axis of evil" Just like Prescott Bush did!
--jeff
Re: Ah, terrorism (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
And that's sad
Re: Ah, terrorism (Score:3, Informative)
Really? Iraqis are allowed to protest?
Re: Ah, terrorism (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: Ah, terrorism (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Ah, terrorism (Score:3, Funny)
Will someone please think of the children???
Re: Ah, terrorism (Score:5, Funny)
"Still better than North Korea".
I'm sold.
Re: Ah, terrorism (Score:5, Informative)
At least.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:At least.... (Score:2)
Next thing we read is (Score:3, Funny)
Nothing Important, People (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Nothing Important, People (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nothing Important, People (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:Nothing Important, People (Score:2)
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.
Re:Nothing Important, People (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Nothing Important, People (Score:3, Informative)
... 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?
Re:Nothing Important, People (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Land of the free??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Land of the free??? (Score:2)
I guess no less free than UK, Italy, and Sweden.
Re:Land of the free??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Anybody still... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anybody still... (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:But your honor... (Score:2)
Re:But your honor... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But your honor... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But your honor... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But your honor... (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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!
That's always been the case (Score:5, Informative)
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
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.
Re:That's always been the case (Score:3, Informative)
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
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
What the hell's going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What the hell's going on? (Score:5, Interesting)
Since the FBI isn't talking, no one is quite sure who requested the actual seizure. Getting that information from the FBI is the first step towards unravelling this case.
oh, it was terrorism related... (Score:4, Funny)
Everyone back to their business.
Cuz (Score:5, Funny)
Most Slashdot readers... (Score:5, Funny)
How do we know? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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?
This is to be expected (Score:4, Interesting)
mirrored operation (Score:2, Insightful)
Loophole you can drive a truck through: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Loophole you can drive a truck through: (Score:2)
For Pete's sake. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:For Pete's sake. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For Pete's sake. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:For Pete's sake. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
The All-Purpose Excuse (Score:2)
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.
Perhaps this will refresh... (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/10/17162
Ahhh... this brings back memories (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
the truth about freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:the truth about freedom (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Sheesh, Make Up Your Minds (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would the MAN do this otherwise? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
UC-IMC Links (Score:3, Informative)
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]
Re:It pertains to an ongoing terrorism investigati (Score:5, Informative)
Get the photos of the swiss cops here with this torrent [zaerc.com]
it was nothing about terrorists, just people taking pics of cops that were trying to intimidate activists.
Re:It pertains to an ongoing terrorism investigati (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It pertains to an ongoing terrorism investigati (Score:2, Informative)
It was playing the heavy, nothing more.
Re:It pertains to an ongoing terrorism investigati (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, thanks to the internet, the protesters are taking pictures of the troublemakers and they're sticking up the pictures and saying 'Who the fuck is this person breaking this car window? If anyone knows who this is, tell us.'.
Well...they're undercover cops. Duh. Everyone suspected that, but that's what all this racket is about.
Logically, it makes no sense, if you've infiltrated an organization, and they post pictures of stuff, to say 'Hey, that's our undercover cops! Take those pictures down!'. That's just crazy. If they don't know they're undercover cops, don't tell them. If they do know, well, you're screwed anyway, pull them back in.
But these undercover cops are there to cause problems so the police can escalate the force used against the protesters. Having their faces plastered around is likely to be rather bad PR.
Except, of course, the traditional news is completely ignoring this.
Re:It pertains to an ongoing terrorism investigati (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It pertains to an ongoing terrorism investigati (Score:5, Insightful)
Of all the millions of servers out there, they picked IndyMedia's. And how many days should it take to copy a hard disk for investigation, or to make another copy to put back into the server in place of the original? Couldn't most people do it in half an hour?
It's not so much that they needed the evidence for their terror investigations that demands an explanation. They sought to do more harm than necessary to gather their evidence. Their actions were an assault on the free press and possibly an unlawful seizure, violating two constitutional amendments.
Interesting (Score:2)
Kind of like a gag order, eh?
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Re:US Legal system sucks ass (Score:2)
I ended up voting for Kerry but he also voted for the Patriot Act so it wouldn't have made any difference even if he won.
Re:I could be mistaken... (Score:2)
Re:I could be mistaken... (Score:3, Interesting)