Justice Dept. Asked For Broad Swath of IndyMedia's Visitor Records 244
DesScorp writes "In a case that tests whether online and independent journalism has the same protections as mainstream journalism, the Justice Department sent Indymedia a grand jury subpoena. It requires a list of all visitors on a day, and further, a gag order to Indymedia 'not to disclose the existence of this request.' CBS reports that 'Kristina Clair, a 34-year-old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us, said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department's subpoena,' and that 'The subpoena from US Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded "all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us" on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to "include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information," including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers' Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.' Clair is being defended by the Electronic Frontier Foundation."
That's change I can believe in (Score:2, Insightful)
Say hello to the new boss.
Re:That's change I can believe in (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a long shot, but this might be the Obama administration's way of killing these kinds of subpoenas.
If BHO, the Attorney-General and the Secretary of Homeland Security decided to stop issuing these subpoenas, that would last at least 4 years and maybe eight, but that would be it. If Congress passed a law that forbade him from issuing these subpoenas pro se, he might abide by it, but the next guy might not, would be able to tie it up in the courts, and the courts might eventually let the thing pass.
However, if he sends out a subpoena to someone who isn't really doing anything wrong, who is likely to fight the case tooth and nail, and if the admin makes the demands of the subpoena so egregious that no court in their right mind would find it acceptible, he might be able to extract a ruling from the supreme court that says these subpoenas are illegal, or at least get good language for a test on their reasonableness. It's very sneaky but for a lawyerly mind it has a certain elegance. The upshot is that no president can ever again send out these kinds of subpoena, by order of the supreme court, and all the while the administration looks like a zealous investigator.
It's a long shot and a conspiracy theory, though.
Re:That's change I can believe in (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really, no, if he wants to keep the next guy from doing it, too. Besides, if it got out that he was forbidding warrants like this, Republicans would scream bloody murder and claim that he was putting the nation at risk to protect the rights of dirty hippies.
If you wanted to ban these warrants for evermore, and you are the president, this is the only way in the US system you can do it; the only other modality is by getting Congress to pass a law, but it's questionable he'd have the votes for it, and he'd put himself at significant political risk.
Re:That's change I can believe in (Score:4, Informative)
Judiciary Justice Department
Judiciary includes:
* The Supreme Court
* Lower Courts
* Special Courts
Executive includes:
* The President
* The VP
* The Department of Justice
* Loads of other departments
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies.shtml
Re:That's change I can believe in (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:That's change I can believe in (Score:5, Informative)
Because Obama personally ordered this? If you knew anything about the US system of governance, you'd know that the Judiciary is separate from the Executive.
And if you knew anything about the US system of governance, you would know that the Justice Department is not part of the Judiciary, it is part of the executive. Not that this necessarily has anything to do with Obama or the White House, although all such requests of media organizations are supposed to be approved by the Attorney General, which would be the White House. It is likely just a prosecutor asking for something hoping that indymedia will just comply. Once they questioned the subpoena, the Justice Department backed down from their threats and withdrew the subpoena. Good for them and good for the EFF. This is basically identical to the AT&T case, except tiny indymedia didn't back down and just provide the information requested. And the government folded immediately because legally they didn't have a leg to stand on.
The big threat discussed in the article is the "you may not disclose this request". Holy Crap!! Absent a court order, what the heck makes them believe they can issue a secret subpoena that is probably illegitimate and order you not to discuss it!? I hope that part is fully investigated and if that is really an official policy of the US attorney's office that it is changed immediately. Talk about ripe for abuse!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, they're separate. That's why it's sheer coincidence that criminal charges against Obama supporters (Bill Richardson, the Philadelphia voter-intimidating thugs) were dropped in spite of objections by career DOJ lawyers.
Re:That's change I can believe in (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently you are the one that knows nothing about the US system of governance:
United States Department of Justice: [wikipedia.org] "The United States Department of Justice ... is the United States federal executive department responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice... The Department is led by the Attorney General, who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is a member of the Cabinet." Emphasis mine.
The federal judiciary branch is the supreme court; the DOJ is an extension of the executive branch into judicial affairs. However, law enforcement has traditionally fallen to the executive branch, so the DOJ's existence is arguably appropriate.
This is not to say that Obama ordered this, but as he is the CEO, if you will, and appointed the guy that directly oversees it, he definitely bears some responsibility. As this particular case is not terribly high profile, he probably wasn't briefed or asked about it. Regardless, it is certainly within his power to tell them to stop.
Re:That's change I can believe in (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, the subpoena was issued on January 23rd, which was indeed after the Obama administration took power, so Obama's acting AG or AG Holder would have had to sign off on it at some point. While perhaps the original case was started by the Bush DOJ, this subpoena was signed off on by an Obama DOJ pick.
I would find it hard to believe that either the Bush or Obama administrations would demand such a subpoena without a pretty bulletproof case, because of the attention paid to it. Even the conservative a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>> The irony is, if the right wing actually supported the left on some of their basic rights issues, they would get another break on government power.
No. The irony is that the right wing and the left wing are identical.
Re:That's change I can believe in (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the irony is that you guys don't have a left wing, or even a middle of the road party, its all far to the right.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I thought NASCAR always turned left...
from a saudi's perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
the american left and right wing is far to the left
what makes his perspective any less valid than yours?
or rather, with what arrogance do you suppose your ideological perspective is a valid perspective?
the truth is, ideology is a bell curve in any country, and within the usa, which is a democracy, the right and the left compete over the middle of this bell curve for support. this keeps the left and right wing in the usa from becoming too radical, because if they do drift too far right or left, they would lo
the political spectrum IS one dimensional (Score:4, Interesting)
there are of course a million dimensions of ideology. there's gun toting right wingers... who grow pot on their rural farms. there's gay people... who are mostly right wing in thinking (the log cabin republicans). there's very religious people... who are utterly socialist in their thinking about taking care of the community, by the community. etc., etc., etc, ad nauseum. for every issue, there is a dimension of opinions. and there's a million issues. and you could mix up make up the most seemingly contradictory impossible ideology of various opinions on various issues, and you'll probably find at least someone out there who believes that with a serious straight face
but there's not a million dimensions THAT MATTER. there's only one that matters
there is one dimension which hangs over all ideological dimensions, and is, in effect, the master dimension. we don't talk about left and right wing because we are simpletons and reductionists, we talk about left and right wing because this is an entirely real and completely dominant ideological pivot, a genuinely valuable metric to use when debating politics:
rate of change
those on the far left want change too rapidly. faster than society can adapt to and absorb. resulting in societal overheating, friction, and eventual societal break down and anarchy. those on the far right don't want change at all, or even backwards movement. which results in stasis, stultification, and impoverishment due to feeble backwardness and ignorance
so what is the most valid rate of change? society determines that, at least in a democracy, with competing parties constantly seeking out the most support from the most people by seeking the most moderate rate of change in the center possible, while straddling and waffling to keep their radical fringes reasonably happy as well. democracy is self-correcting and self-seeking on the sweet spot of rate of change for its population. you see that in the current healthcare debate
democracy works, it really does. it doesn't work from the perspective of "this is my ideology and i want everyone to agree with me", which is the usual retarded criticism of democracy from fringe idiots
but democracy DOES work from the point of view of: "this is the bell curve of ideologies out there. find me the sweet spot and make that the value system of the government in charge"
and when a government most accurately reflects the will of the people, you have met really the only metric possible for determining validity of a government. stability, legitimacy: it enables peace, tranquility, education, progress, economic growth, and everything else you value in good governance and a happy stable rich and productive society
but of course, loud, ignorant ideologues from the fringe will never see the value in such weird concepts. social stability? pffft. to them, the government is evil, corrupt, fascist, communist, corporatocracy, idiocracy, etc... zzz
Re:That's change I can believe in (Score:4, Interesting)
And, just out of curiosity, what exactly *are* the right's basic right issues the left is not supporting.
Freedom of Speech? Supported by the ACLU.
Separation of Church and State? ACLU
Not being searched without probable cause? ACLU
Not being arrested without evidence? ACLU
Not allow evidence taken under false pretenses? ACLU
Not allow arrest to be maintained without trial? ACLU
Not being beaten until you confess after arrested? ACLU
The great basic right supported by the right?
The right to make a grand, impressive and ultimately doomed armed stand against an encroaching military dictatorship having done absolutely nothing to stop arrests, torture, planting evidence, unfair trials, and religious theocracy . . . after the sudden realization the dictatorial powers they supported for years it might actually apply to them and its too late to stop it.
Yeah. I'm suitably impressed.
Pug
Not to disclose the request (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not to disclose the request (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, Indymedia is the sort of outfit that would be ideologically opposed to just knuckling under and they got actual legal help from the EFF(even then, though, once they dropped the initial request, the EFF's lawyer had to push to get them to back off from threats around disclosure). How often, though, do you think that that demand for secrecy, completely without legal basis, is simply obeyed by outfits with less spine or worse lawyers?
This can't be the only time that that demand has been made.
Re:Not to disclose the request (Score:5, Insightful)
How often, though, do you think that that demand for secrecy, completely without legal basis, is simply obeyed by outfits with less spine or worse lawyers?
Considering most of the major telecos went along with wholesale spying on the American public, I'm guessing the number of organizations even challenging a request like that is going to be pretty small.
I thought the courts already vacated the secrecy demands, except in terrorism related cases. Either I'm mistaken or the Justice Dept. figures there's no downside to bluffing.
Re:Not to disclose the request (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish y'all would stop bashing Obama's Justice Department.
Yes there are problems, but he's aware of them, and he's doing his best to solve these problems in his own way. He doesn't need us criticizing him, so just cooperate with the subpoena instead of making a fuss about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This should be modded Insightful not Funny. I was so pissed that people were saying exactly that when Obama voted for immunity against the telecoms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The sad part is I'm quoting a Babylon 5 episode from 1995 (a Nightwatch guy defending EA President Clarke). Nothing really changes
RETAIL spying... (Score:2)
Only the calls with one of the ends outside America [mit.edu] were ever "spied" on. Whether that's legal or not, it is hardly a "wholesale" spying on a public, the majority of whom have never been abroad nor personally know a foreigner. For domestic calls, the only things captured were the fact of the calls — not the conversation itself.
This, I believe, was always legal — the government never needed a warrant to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if it were illegal, calling it "wholesale" is a flamebait...
Oh, jeez, I'm sorry. They monitored every mode of electronic communication running through the US. Phones, email, web, everything. And there's evidence the monitoring occurred regardless of the origin of the calls.
Would that be "retail" spying then? I'm not sure what label to attach to such a massive invasion of privacy. You're right that "wholesale" just doesn't do the scope justice. Perhaps "universal" or "galactic" might fit bett
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the government is tracking who I call, how many times I call them, when I call them, and for how long, it's still "spying" on me, even if they don't record the actual content of the phone calls.
So, yeah, "wholesale" spying is still the appropriate term here.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While capital might be going a bit far, it should certainly be a felony in my mind to commit such obvious fraud. Fraud how? Fraud by standing on one's obvious power base and claiming authority one does not in fact have. The Justice Department ought to be held to a high standard here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not to disclose the request (Score:4, Informative)
Yes but the date of the subpoena's issuance was *under Obama's watch*
"On February 1st, 2009, Kristina Clair of Philadelphia, PA -- one of the system administrators of the server that hosts the indymedia.us site -- received in the mail a grand jury subpoena from the Southern District of Indiana federal court."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Rather than political finger pointing, I find it more interesting that U.S. Attorney Morrison [justice.gov] has been with the DOJ for 17 years. Sadly, this is probably more indicative of how the DOJ does business than who was in the White House the day the subpoena issued.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the eff analysis, they say its not only fishy but legally unfounded in this sort of case. If it was a court order and was targeted it would have been legal witgh the gag order. But this was a shotgun blast with a grand jury
Re:Not to disclose the request (Score:5, Interesting)
It actually says something much much louder... that they issue these requests ALL the time and they regularly get them answered.
This was fought because it went to a small, independent admin. How much do you want to bet that these requests go out to larger companies and get answered quickly and quietly without us ever hearing about it?
Don't hang onto visitor stats (Score:5, Funny)
Fuck that subpeona.
In the ear.
With a Siberian ice dildo.
Re:Don't hang onto visitor stats (Score:4, Funny)
With a Siberian ice dildo.
Well, OK. As long as it's Siberian. Do you have your import papers in order for that item? Of course, the court acknowledges that's it's *a* Siberian ice dildo, not *your* Siberian ice dildo.
Re: (Score:2)
No. With a spoon!
Why a spoon?
Because it hurts more! ^^
P.S.: I think the quote was from "Robin Hood - Men In Tights". But I can't find in online.
Re: (Score:2)
Negative, that's a quote from the actual "Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves" movie.
I believe it's Alan Rickman that utters the line to his worse-than-useless brother.
PS - Yes, I am aware knowing this movie even reasonably well makes me lame.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I have nothing better to do right now than look that up. [imdb.com]
Re:Don't hang onto visitor stats (Score:4, Insightful)
A battery backed RAM disk (DRAM not SRAM) with a large red button to interrupt power to the PC and the RAM disk!
Ooops! I musta kicked out that pesky wire again, damn!
You could call it a patriot act HDD.
And why are websites still keeping this info? (Score:4, Insightful)
I want to know why admins keep this information if they are running a website that could be the subject of a subpoena? Delete the fucking shit already and be done with it. Then, when the feds come knocking, you simply reply, "I'm sorry my http.conf is setup to direct logs to /dev/null. Have a nice day."
Re:And why are websites still keeping this info? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And why are websites still keeping this info? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're not interested in seeing your rights eroded?
That's right, just close your eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
So, they issue a subpoena, then withdraw the request. The subpoena states that they cannot disclose the existence of the request, yet you read about it at CBS, so that provision wasn't exactly effective.
What part of this is eroding your rights? That it's possible for the DoJ to send out nonsensical subpoenas and then withdraw them? That seems likely to happen in any organization where the people doing the work are humans.
Re: (Score:2)
The part that is eroding your rights is that a *government agency* is trying to bully people into forfeiting their rights. That the *DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE* is informing citizens that they aren't allowed to exercise their rights. Regardless of whether or not they're right, and whether or not it would hold up in court, when the government deliberately attempts to redefine your rights to its liking, your rights are being eroded.
Re: (Score:2)
Do they honestly expect that logs from last year will still be available and contain the info they are demanding?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't run any sites that will likely be the subject of a subpoena
I don't think you've really thought about that statement very much. :p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... and your firewall and access logs aren't on the tape backups either ....
Re:And why are websites still keeping this info? (Score:5, Funny)
You are now ordered to supply us with a printout of all information in
http://www.infoworld.com/t/tech-industry-analysis/court-rules-content-ram-memory-discoverable-705
In what some are calling a "rogue" decision, the Los Angeles District Court ruled on May 29, 2007, in Columbia Pictures Industries v. Bunnell, that data stored in a computer's Random Access Memory --that's correct you read it right, in its RAM -- is discoverable.
Re:And why are websites still keeping this info? (Score:4, Funny)
100110010111010100100101101001110101010101
100110101110010101010100000000110110101010
001011010010100101100110011010000000111110
000000000000000100101110110100011010010100
I'll send you some more as soon as I finish formatting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't that crap thrown out when somebody finally told them that after a server's shut down, the RAM information is, you know, not there anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
I would have handed them my RAM stick from my PC and said, "Here you go. Recover it," and watch the fucking fool judge waste thousands of dollars trying to get it,
Re: (Score:2)
I believe they told them to re-enable logging.
Re:And why are websites still keeping this info? (Score:5, Funny)
Sure Officer, you can have the RAM and its contents. Let me turn off the system and pull out those modules for you...
Re: (Score:2)
Intentional destruction of evidence -- now that's a surefire way to stay out of jail!
Re:And why are websites still keeping this info? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:And why are websites still keeping this info? (Score:4, Informative)
If you do ever get a subpoena, don't smugly assume you know so much more about technology than people in the justice system. It won't go well for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... It was a joke. Head on down to Geek Squad and get some humor recognition routines installed. - sigh.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe your problem is that you shop at Best Buy for humor?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the policy says explicitly not to do this. But then, you probably don't read many of the NIJ publications.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"The problem is that if this becomes "discoverable", you can't simply do a dump of memory, you have to actually prepare it in
a manageable, readable way. Otherwise, eager $500/hour lawyers will do this manually for you. At your own costs.
Merill Lynch did a "here you go" when asked for some files and brought a few hundred backup tapes. The judge was not amused and fined them an extra few million $."
Not exactly. You need to provide it in a usable format IF that format is something you would use regularly. So
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Posting anonymously, since I have insight into this stuff that should probably have a security clearance for (which I do not).
Major companies, internet providers, and telecommunications providers (cell networks, other wireless communications, etc) are being forced into implementing logging and retention of this data on huge scales. When I say forced, I mean under threat of pissing off the government. There are no laws saying these companies have to retain this data for years, and provide it to government
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, you then post anonymously expecting that they don't know exactly who posted it?
Re: (Score:2)
>>>In my company, I'm watching them implement 15 petabyte storage solutions just to keep track of 12 months of http hits
Why doesn't your company just declare "unfunded mandate" and refuse to comply until (or if) a law is passed?
Good luck with that... (Score:5, Informative)
FRCP Rule 37 states: [cornell.edu]
Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.
I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would anyone be shocked by something like this? It's not like it hasn't happened before. One thing about LIberals and Conservatives, they both like control. Their idealogies may not be the same but their methods aren't that different.
I would argue that everyone likes control, but if there is one thing conservatives and liberals can agree on, it is that republicans are not conservatives and democrats are not liberals, despite our flamewars to the contrary.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
BTW, calendar check..., Tim Morrison (the moron who started all this nonsense) was appointed to his federal post of United States Attorney under the Bush (43) administration. So you're right - a right-wing appointed tool acting they way he did... not surprising in the least. Well, OK, there was one surprise. The subpoena was so ham-handed that I rather expected to see that he'd been one of th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Judge Napolitano frequently says
"We have a ONE party system - the Big Government Party - and it has two branches: the republican branch and the democratic branch."
That guy's brilliant.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Funny)
Or as P.J. O'Rourke says, "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then get elected and prove it."
Protections of The Press (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember a Supreme Court case several years ago that dealt with the question of who is considered to be The Press. I think it involved acquiring Press credentials. The Court decided that a member of the Press is anyone who is acting in that capacity, whether full time or part time. It didn't matter if the person was employed by a large corporation, or was part of a middle school glee club.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the SCOTUS had decided "the press" is only those with credentials, it would not revoke my right of free speech (amendment 1) nor my right of freedom to write-down my thoughts (amendment 9). The latter is protected by article 40 of the Maryland Constitution - "that every citizen of the State ought to be allowed to speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects".
Aside -
I also like this particular right: "That monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the princip
Holy old news-A summary in disguise. (Score:5, Informative)
Ok. The news article is new, but the content is anything but.
The subpoena was withdrawn in a one sentence letter [eff.org] in late Feburary 2009 after the EFF sent a letter [eff.org] to the DOJ pointing out the problems with the subpeona.
We're only hearing about all of it now. It is troubling that the DOJ will not come out and say what the original motivation for even sending the subpoena in the first and is being mum about it all.
On top of that, the dates are all mixed up. The subpoena was sent in June 2008, according to the CBS article. However, the EFF says it wasn't received until January 30th 2009. This is important to note as Obama took office the 20th. The EFF's letter was sent Feb. 13th, with a return letter from the DOJ on the 25th.
My guess, it was probably a rookie lawyer who sent a badly worded request to SysAdmin during the confusion of a new president taking office.
Way to miss the "traffic from" in the summary.... (Score:3, Informative)
Whoops. The dates ARE NOT mixed up.
Figures I'd realize this after the dates.
Anywho, the original subpoena was sent on the 23rd of January, 2009.
Why the heck would anyone want traffic that old?
Re:Holy old news-A summary in disguise. (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess, it was probably a rookie lawyer who sent a badly worded request to SysAdmin during the confusion of a new president taking office.
Actually, my guess would be it was sent by a seasoned lawyer who hoped to slip it through during the transition knowing that neither the departing Administration nor the incoming Administration would back such a politically hot potato move.
A question (Score:2)
Since when are lists of readers or subscribers protected information, specifically protect from revelation through subpoena?
A better question (Score:2)
Since when do webservers log your SSN and bank account or credit card numbers?
Re: (Score:2)
The sneaky ones do.
Re: (Score:2)
Please see my other comment in this thread concerning USC 18 2703.
Re: (Score:2)
The subpoena was for traffic and that would cover both the readers, commenter, and journalists reading and posting on that day. Besides being overbroad on it's face the gag order is clearly unconstitutional. Even if it didn't have the gag and was more specific 1st amendment privilege could be used to defend the "doe's" against the unreasonable release of their stored information unless they targeted non-protected speech.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, but none of that is considered protected journalistic information.
The identity of readers, editorial letter writers, and/or commenters is not protected by journalist shield laws nor is it protected from subpoena. The identity of the journalist may possibly be considered protected if the journalist is anonymous, but I highly doubt it.
The subpoena itself was issued under the authority of USC 18 2704 C paragraph 2. The information requested in the subpoena is the same data listed in the statute listed.
Ple
Retention policy (Score:2)
Dump That Data! (Score:2)
Unless their is some legal compulsion to do so why not just destroy all traces of data that flows to a site every day or two? Just why is there any need to hang on to all of that information?
The date (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect it's simply a matter of when they thought to do it.
IndyMedia tends to have info on a lot of things that the fascist types find inconvenient, such as what weapons were being deployed against protesters in Pittsburgh during the G20 summit and videos of police beating up people who aren't threatening them. By looking at the visitor logs, they can find out who's finding out about their not-so-legal activities, and oppress accordingly.
In other words, this has "chilling effect" written all over it.
Re:The date (Score:4, Funny)
It was one year to the day before the deaths of Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson.
Coincidence, I think not.
Re:This is change (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that, at present, all but one of the states has at least one "fusion center"(and that last one may have gotten one in the meantime) where state and local police forces voluntarily get together with their Fed, military, and private sector buddies for general surveillance state fun, I'd say that the odds of secession over excessive state surveillance are ~0. With the exception of libertarians that the republicans don't listen to, and civil libertarians that the democrats don't listen to, there is broad support, in government and among the public, for pretty much anything that promises "security".There are occasional disagreements over who is sub-human enough to be the public face of the terrifying enemy; but that is largely cosmetic.
With few (and politically irrelevant) exceptions, there are basically no actual "states' rights" enthusiasts. There are plenty of people who reliably take up the "states' rights" banner when they aren't getting what they want at the federal level and then drop it as soon as they are; but that isn't exactly the same thing
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain how revealing private information to the general public would be fair considering the information requested will not be made public.
Or, are you using some strange definition of "fair"?
Re: (Score:2)
You know this how?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean besides the fact it is evidence in an investigation and that it is covered by privacy laws?
Why do you assume it? Why do you think the government would release such records when people just like yourself are much more likely to do so?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tim Morrison is requesting the data in is role as a public official. How would it be fair for a public officials private information to be given to people whose private data has been requested by said official as a part of his official public office? The person is the agent of the public office. Should it not be the public office's data that would be provided? And, isn't that data already provided?
You seek to make this a personal act by Morrison when it is an act by a public official in his official capacit
Re: (Score:2)
At risk of invoking...ummm...I forget who's law, the classic example of the principle I described above was thoroughly tested in Nuremberg, and it is no less valid now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, this is not an illegal abuse of power, or an illegal request, and it is definitely not a "crime against humanity". It is a request for information within bounds of laws and within the duties of his office. He is acting ethically in the discharge of his duties.
People are called to account for their actions in a public capacity when they violate the public trust, commit a crime, abuse their authority, etc. Not when they faithfully discharge their office within the bounds of law.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, court documents are public, that would include evidence. Obviously some information could be redacted, but that does not make it any less public, just obfuscated. Then again, closed court hearings are different, but I suspect the information could still be made available via FOIA requests.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all court documents and evidence are public. Also, I believe that Grand Jury information is not public. And, the court can seal documents and evidence. And, I believe that this sort of information is sealed as a matter of course.
Once sealed by the court, a FOIA request will not net the data.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unhh.... because they *DID* want to make him look bad?
If it had surfaced in January or February, NOBODY would have blamed Obama. Because they waited a lot of people thought he had something to do with it.
Mind you, I'm not predicting that he won't do something similar, or claiming that he isn't right now doing something similar that we haven't heard about. But this particular case should be blamed totally on Bush. Read the dates.
Re:Why wasn't this story reported sooner? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not everything is a left-wing media conspiracy except to reality-challenged bozos like yourself who can't be bothered to think beyond whatever sound bite you were handed this morning.