Slashdot Mirror
Justice Department Censors ACLU Web Site
phr1 writes "According to the Washington Post, the ACLU was forced to remove a paragraph from their online press release, that specified what kind of information FBI agents could request under the Patriot Act that the ACLU has been suing over. "
They said its time to get Mr. Bush and his Nazi party out of the white house.
This would be a useful item to offshore. Anyone care to put up a mirror of the current page before the Google cache updates?
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
Who defends the ACLU when their liberties are infringed? The ACLCLU?
They should've just redacted it using Adobe Acrobat. :-)
I have posted a copy of the censored paragraph on my weblog. Enjoy!
Mod down, disgusting dead baby jpeg.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Surely what a FBI agent can request would be defined in the PATRIOT act itself, and the ACLU would be free to describe the content of the act itself?
Or am I expecting too much of the US government...
ACLU Was Forced to Revise Release on Patriot Act Suit
Justice Dept. Cited Secrecy Rules
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 13, 2004; Page A27
When a federal judge ruled two weeks ago that the American Civil Liberties Union could finally reveal the existence of a lawsuit challenging the USA Patriot Act, the group issued a news release.
But the next day, according to new documents released yesterday, the ACLU was forced to remove two paragraphs from the release posted on its Web site, after the Justice Department complained that the group had violated court secrecy rules.
One paragraph described the type of information that FBI agents could request under the law, while another merely listed the briefing schedule in the case, according to court documents and the original news release.
The dispute set off a furious round of court filings in a case that serves as both a challenge to, and an illustration of, the far-reaching power of the Patriot Act. Approved by Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the law gives the government greater latitude and secrecy in counterterrorism investigations and includes a provision allowing the FBI to secretly demand customer records from Internet providers and other businesses without a court order.
The ACLU first filed its lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of such demands, known as national security letters, on April 6, but the secrecy rules of the Patriot Act required the challenge to be filed under seal. A ruling April 28 allowed the release of a heavily censored version of the complaint, but the ACLU is still forbidden from revealing many details of the case, including the identity of another plaintiff who has joined in the lawsuit. The law forbids targets of national security letters to disclose that they have received one.
ACLU lawyer Ann Beeson said the court order also means that she "cannot confirm or deny" whether the ACLU is representing the second plaintiff. The group is the only counsel listed in court documents.
The dispute over the ACLU's April 28 news release centered on two paragraphs. The first laid out the court's schedule for receiving legal briefs and noted the name of the New York-based judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero.
The second paragraph read: "The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' "
Justice lawyers said that both paragraphs violated a secrecy order and that the ACLU should be required to seek an exemption to publicize the information, court records show. Justice spokesman Charles Miller declined to comment yesterday.
"It simply never occurred to us that this information would be covered by the sealing order, because it's completely non-sensitive, generic information," Beeson said.
The dispute was partly resolved yesterday. Marrero ruled that the briefing schedule could be publicized, along with edited versions of other court filings. But the paragraph describing the information that can be sought remains absent.
=-=-=-=-=-=
my god. WTF is wrong with the government of this country?
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
The idea that our government is 'protecting' us by feeding our culture of fear and banning legitimate free speech...from the frikin' ACLU!!! [Yosemitie Sam mode on] %#@$#%$
No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe.
"It's all just meme meme around here"
I did. The ACLU web site accepts donations.
I've never done something like this before. I rarely write letters to politicians, and I don't make donations to political parties. But as I get older I realize that if I don't start putting my money where my mouth is, I may not be heard.
Take back your country.
I mean, imagine you are an FBI administrator with a real love of America and freedom. Suddenly, you are given these insane powers by the Patriot Act, powers that you know to be unconstitutional and just plain bad for a democracy.
If I were in that situation, I'd go after the ACLU. How better to get the law repealed, while keeping your job?
Or they could be evil bastards. Either one.
Also, how can it be illegal to disclose the types of things that may be requested under the law? We can't be subjecting people to laws they are not even allowed to know about now can we? This sounds more like the behavior of a certain former leader the US just ejected from Iraq. Say it ain't so.
What? Saying what the government can do under the patriot act is illegal?
Given that the act itself is made publicly available by the justice department itself(warning: PDF), can we expect the DOJ to take action against itself in the near future?
Note that the Post article itself quotes the paragraph that the ACLU was forced to remove. Heh.
The dispute over the ACLU's April 28 news release centered on two paragraphs. The first laid out the court's schedule for receiving legal briefs and noted the name of the New York-based judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero.
The second paragraph read: "The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' "
And three paragraphs up...
The second paragraph read: "The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' "
Nice one, Washington Post!
someone should get it over to them ASAP, before it disappears.
This is all very distressing. These fascists must be stopped. I wonder when they'll have our Kristalnacht or when will these neocons burn down the Capitol Building. These are dark days we are living in.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Here's Google's cache of the offending press release. Judging from the story link, this looks like the censored text:
"The ACLU has led opposition to controversial portions of the Patriot Act, filing a challenge to Section 215, another provision that allows the FBI to gain access to sensitive records, and filing briefs before the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to oppose expanded wiretaps. With support from a broad right-left coalition, the ACLU has also encouraged passage of approximately 300 local resolutions against anti-civil liberties portions of the law, and has urged Congress to leave in place the "sunsets" for Patriot Act provisions set to expire in 2005."
"The parties have agreed to a briefing schedule in the case. The ACLU will file a summary judgment motion on May 17, 2004; the government will respond on June 7, 2004; all briefing will be completed in July 2004. The court is likely to schedule arguments in the case in late summer 2004. The case is assigned to Judge Victor Marrero."
But wait! I went to the ACLU's actual page and found the same text. Cruising through the most recent press releases turned up a new release that tells the story. Long story short, this story's already out of date (the info has been reinstated)! That doesn't mean that the government didn't fuck up, just that at least one judge hasn't lost his/her mind.
I get a warm feeling inside knowing the Bush administration is busy protecting our freedom from the likes of Al Qaida and the ACLU. Freedom of speech is highly overrated. Just ask Kim Jong Il or Fidel Castro or Saddam or even those brave and forward thinking U.S. legislators who passed the DMCA.
The ACLU is a group of activist lawyers.
Some are there because they honestly believe they're working for the greater good.
Some are there because of a particular world-view they want to force on everyone else, some are there simply for notoriety.
Lawyers actually think things like: "ooh think how famous I'll be when I make Christmas illegal!" or "my career will take off when I get those convicted murderer/rapists admitted to Harvard for free under affirmative action!"
There are a lot of forces at work destroying this country. The ACLU is one of them. Thanks to them the KKK can burn crosses in a public park (freedom of speech), but it's illegal to put a manger scene up in the very same park at christmas ("seperation" clause).
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose to a governmental entity the -
(A)
name;
(B)
address;
(C)
local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations;
(D)
length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;
(E)
telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and
(F)
means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number),
of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena or any means available under paragraph (1).
(3)
A governmental entity receiving records or information under this subsection is not required to provide notice to a subscriber or customer.
"Freedoms Revoked in Defense of Liberty"
Does any and all of this remind of you of Mcarthyism? Where McCarthy sent his FBI drones out after anybody who mentioned anything liberal or against "his" representation of U.S. policies?
Remember how anyone who spoke out against the USA was labelled a communist and harrassed by the FBI?
Now when you are not a huge advocate of US policies and speak out...you aren't labeled a communist...you are labeled a terrorist.
Interesting how history repeats itself. Bush=Ashcroft=McCarthy.is that the removed paragraph is now printed in full in the Washington Post, a publication orders of magnitude more popular than the ACLU's website.
...
Gotta love the law of unintended consequences
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
I've never been so ashamed to be American than now. It really upsets me that Donald Rumsfeld can go to Abu Graaib and make jokes about not reading the newspapers any more. Boy, that's real funny Don. It's like Bush making the "funny" video about not being able to find any weapons of mass destruction. Not everything is a laughing matter. There are some things which aren't laughing matters: our civil rights, the respect and trust of the rest of the world, and the lives of American soldiers and innocent Iraqis.
With the increase of destructiveness available to sociopaths, any society must abrogate some rights of its citizens. E.g., nobody much minds that we may no longer carry box-cutters onto jetliners.
But, what's the non-partisan litmus test that tells me whether some new abrogation is a net win/necesssity, or instead embodies the authoritarian ill intent of the evil bureaucrat? (...already assuming those are mutually exclusive...)
Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
They are NEVER the bad guys. Simply because you don't like the form of speech or the civil right that they are defending at any given moment doesn't make them good or bad. They are, de facto, good. Please keep in mind a quote by Supreme Court Justice William Brennan: "If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
This applies to flag burning (as a veteran, I'm for it as valid political speech). It also goes beyond the First Amendment to ALL the other Amendments. Separation of Church and State is and must remain a solid wall. Offensive speech must remain protected regardless of your (or anyone else's) sensibilities. The ACLU is there to ensure this for the most offensive to the most inoffensive. There is no such thing as an OK and minor violation of Constitutional principle or of ANY Constitutional Right.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
The problem is yours not theirs. They support everyone's right to free speech, not just the speech you approve of. They may defend people who's speech I find offensive, but that doesn't put them on the wrong side. Tell me exactly when have they picked on school kids? Other than fighting for kids not to have to say the pledge, not to have to pray, not to have to take drug tests, not to have school publications censored, etc?
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Too bad the mass public doesn't know that these kind of government antics are going on right underneath their noses.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
If that asshat gets another 4 years, he's a "lame duck." Beleive it or not, there's things even BUSH won't do, for hurting his chances of reelection... Call me a member of the tinfoil hat crowd, but after seeing this, I wouldn't be surprised if another 4 years gets us a secret police force.
To a bystander this looks like Kafka in action. He was criticizing the Soviet system and the apperant lack of rights of the small man within the gearwheels of power. The rights of the people is what stops the ones in power from abusing their position and is important in any political system. Communism could have worked if it had those checks and balances as well as american corporatism will fail without them. America without free speech is just a totalitarian regime with election teaters playing in the media every now and then.
How do you choose between bad and worse? Do you people feel that its your own people who become presidents or are they choosen beforehand and you just choose between the few "approved" candidates?
Once slipped the rights of the people is utterly hard to recover and sometimes as history has shown us impossible.
Dont you wonder what the founding fathers would think if they saw america of today?
HTTP/1.1 400
In Soviet Russia.............
Man, I can't even finish the joke, because it would be:
(A)Too Ironic.
(B)Liable to get me a ticket to Gitmo.
(C)Foolish to criticize the government without using 50 anonymous proxy servers.
(D)Too Ironic.
Today's show is brought to you by the number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0: 25
If there's a law that is in order, is restrictive, but anyone can go and read it and just don't do the prohibited thing, or do the forced thing, it is some kind of freedom restrictions, but may be within reasonable limits.
If there is one law which forbids something and another which makes publishing the first one secret and learning WHAT exactly is forbidden, so you just know there are certain things you're not allowed to do, but you won't learn what those things are, until you face the court for violating them... That's a state of terror.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Huh? I am from Wisconsin. Feingold was the only one who voted against it. Thank God for him.
The record is here.
Wellstone voted Nay... don't you just love misinformation. Conspiracy theorists love that!
Or do you consider those that defend child molesters good guys?
Unfortunately, yes. Seems the case your link refers to was essentially about people wanting a publisher held responsible for the crimes of its readers. Extrapolate away, folks.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
The second paragraph read: "The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' "
Oooooo... Secret information! Your turn!
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
If you think that freedom to practice religion means that you are free to infringe on other people's religions by placing your God's image and commandments in public arenas, you aren't thinking hard enough. The only way that a society can exist with freedom of religion is if every religion's philosophies are treated equally in the eyes of government. If you expect your ten commandments to be posted in a courthouse, you should expect the religious laws of every other person in the community to be given equal time. And how hypocritical would that look, when the first of said commandments is "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me?"
The ACLU is doing what it always does: it's trying to protect the rights of the minority from being squelched by a well meaning but misguided majority. There is no shame in having a secular government. After all, government is about keeping things in order right here and right now. Religion's about the afterlife. If you think the two should be mixed, then mix them in your church -- and expect the Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Ba'hai, and Zoroastrians in your neighbourhood to do the same. Render unto Caeser what it Caesar's, man.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
to solve our government problems is to prevent
their secrecy. We need to create a movement
where *all* candidates take a stand on one
simple issue: will they allow all their public
dealings to be recorded and put in the public
domain.
Those that have something to hide or an agenda
to keep hidden (which is probably 99% of them)
will say something about security. The only
need for secrecy resides in a very few elements
of military decision making. All other policy
decisions, especially those that go before
congress, must be compeletely on the record.
The fuckers are supposed to be "public servants",
so let's make them be just that. Servants don't
have privacy. If they really want to serve us,
then they don't want to hide anything, right?!
The only time they are not on record is when
they are in rooms with their spouse that have
no communication devices.
Simple. This will be the only way to draw a
line between the persons who seek to serve the
community and those who are seeking to serve
themselves.
I'm sick of this shit.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
It's one thing to complain about how bad these things are, especially in a forum where nobody is likely to disagree with you, and another to actually do something about it. What can we do? How about making every effort to beat Bush and the Congressional supporters of the Patriot Act in November? You can send up to $2000 to the candidates before the party conventions (I think) - why not put your money where your mouth is? Or if you are lucky enough to live in a state that is actually up for grabs (e.g. not California and New York) do some campaign work for your favorite non-Bush candidate...
But...
Damn me if they're not on the right side in this one.
And the brethren went away edified.
Supposedly the US believes that a person who freely joins a country is just as much a citizen as one born to the land (other than that not being a president clause). The behavior of the officials sending Arar to Syria says otherwise: this should frighten any naturalized US citizen. The US sending Arar to Syria was an expediency issue: they could outsource the extraordinary rendition(*) they wanted for Arar. His Syrian past was convenient to the US officials wanting to work on him. (*torture)
Here are links to 24 articles about Arar and his torture, and here is what his lawyers write
Here are the paragraphs that were removed, (per the Washington Post)
[The dispute over the ACLU's April 28 news release centered on two paragraphs. The first laid out the court's schedule for receiving legal briefs and noted the name of the New York-based judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero.
The second paragraph read: "The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' " ]
Presumably the FBI wants to keep it a secret because it will be embarassing when it comes out. It's probably some overbroad order against an ISP or telco.
In the newspaper article:
The second paragraph read: "The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' "
so the ACLU can't disclose that, but the newspaper can.
Uh-oh, I think I just heard the sound of more legal filings to get that redacted from the story
e to the pi i plus one equals zero
If the ACLU defends the far-right loonies, you get peeved and stop donating. If they don't defend them, they're fscking hypocrites and the entire purpose of their organization is negated. Which do you think is worse?
The reason the ACLU exists is to fight for *anyone's* right to speek freely, no matter how bizarre or offensive that speech may be to the ACLU's members. Defending someone's right to disagree with you is the highest possible expression of free speech.
0 1 - just my two bits
How about....
"MICHAEL JACKSON hasn't seen article about Justice Department Censoring ACLU Web Site"
Or
"KOBI BRYANT in Court; Court Rules ACLU Violated Anti-Terror Law"
At least they'll get read.
It is not unconstitutional to vote against judicial nominees that you do not agree with. This is all the Republicans did to the Clinton nominees that they didn't like. If this is all the Democrats in the current legislature were doing, I would have no problem with it.
But this isn't what they are doing, is it? The constitution states that a majority (51%) is required to confirm judicial nominations. We currently have the majority as required by the constitution to confirm these nominees, but the Democrats are using obscure senate rules (not constitutional rules) to change that requirement to be a super majority (66%). That is not constitutional. If you don't like them, vote no. Don't try to weasle out of it just because you know you are going to lose.
One of the guys who is running against Russ Feingold is running ads right now specifically attacking Feingold on his voting record for the PATRIOT Act. The funny thing is, this guys name is Russ Darrow, and he made his millions selling cars! A politician who used to be car salesman? I can't stop laughing. I don't think I agree on Feingold on any issue other than his opposition to the PATRIOT Act, but I might just vote for him anyways.
I saw a video of Rumsfeld the other night that was broadcast by the Daily Show and Rumsfeld actually said this:
"But one thing appears reasonably certain, and that's that those who make allegations of a culture of deception, of intimidation or cover-up need to be extremely careful about such accusations."
Wow. That's from a DOD Town Meeting, May 11, 2004
This is what we're dealing with people.
If you're feeling philosophical, try this one:
Or maybe this:
Someone ought to send a book of these things to G. W. Bush, David Blunkett, John Ashcroft and a few other choice "representatives" in the US and UK.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
...for christ's sake. Yes, the people at the top are responsible. It's their affiliation that matters. That's the way it works. The people in charge now absolutely refuse to be responsible for anything- there's no accountability. Two of the top people in this mess couldn't even be bothered to read a 60 page report made available to the world online detailing the abuses. THE top person- W- probably hasn't read it yet. I guess pictures saved him the trouble. The men who made the decision to invade that country and put those troops in this position to begin with were Republicans. However you feel about the war, that is fact.
My good looks paid for that pool, and my talent filled it with water.
That is factually incorrect. I can not know wether you intentionally lied or are merely ignorant. The ACLU in no way attempted to prohibit the publication or private distribution of any book that promotes the "Intelligent Design" mode of promoting theism. Rather, they have worked to prevent it being 'taught' in public schools along side science. "Intelligent Design" is not science becuase it can not be tested. It is an offshoot of religion, and as such, should not be promoted in public school science texts or classes. (Except, perhaps, in University level psychology classes that discuss pheomenological frameworks?) At issue is the fact that theists are attempting to promote religion through public institutions by presenting this pseudo-theory as comparable to actual cosmological theories.
They also support restricting religious speech in many, many venues, such as student-initiated prayers, spontaneous group events, etc.
Furthermore, the ACLU is not acting to restrict religious speech, per se, in any way. Rather, they are attempting to prevent situations where publicly funded events and facilites are used to promote religion and, in some cases, coerce those who believe differently from the mainstream. Nothing prevents Christians from meeting at a nearby chruch before a football game and having a prayer rally. There is no reason to, immediately before the start of a game, use the stadium PA system to perform a religious ritual, other than to 'stake a claim' on the the proceeding, regardless of the sensitivities of those attending. At issue is the use of the publicly owned equipment. If, at the middle of the second quarter of every game, members of the crowd broke into a vocal prayer that did not use the school's equipment, but was simply spoken aloud, the ACLU would have no problem with that.
Imagine what it would be like for a Christian to move to a town and pay taxes, only to have the Pagan majority in the town use tax dollars to buy and sacrifice a goat on the field before all their home public high school home games. The ACLU would be all over that!
I hereby propose the creation of a new mod point, -1 Tinfoil Hat.
Or, since this is Slashdot, perhaps that should be +1 Tinfoil Hat.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
Actually, no, the Constitution doesn't specify 51%.
Relevant paragraph in Article II:
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
So it looks like treaties take 2/3 of the Senators that show up that day (assuming there is a quorum), but no fraction is specified for the rest. As the Senate is pretty much left to work out its rules by itself, and those rules provide for unlimited debate (what is currently stopping the vote), there's not really anything unconstitutional. Also, the closing of unlimited debate (for this stuff) only takes 3/5 of the entire Senate.
The very name "Patriot Act" is intended to con people into thinking that a law more suited for a fascist country is benign and all-American, necessary to protect mom, the flag, and apple pie. They named the law carefully:
so that it would have this appealing acronym. I say we shouldn't go along with the scam. Don't call it the Patriot Act. Let's call it HR 3162.-John Ashcroft, 12/6/2001
*****
Dear Mary,
I yearn for you tragically,
A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
I think it has been proven quiet well that a bunch of determined yahoos with severly out classed weapons CAN make a significant resistance when they are fighting on their home turf and the folks with the Big Guns dare not go for a scorched earth policy.
And yes, your right, it would screw the pooch for the whole country. As I like to say "I used to be an Anarchist till I realized how much I like my indoor plumbing." But like a nuke, some weapons are better used as a deterrant than on your enemies - Thus the importance of an armed populace. Mind you I don't want a gun in my house. But I want to right to obtain one if I feel it necessary.
This one series of strips (it was in The Dilbert Principle) where they have secret meetings to produce this secret policy document, which all of the employees are required to follow, but none of them are allowed to read. PHB: "Just work on your project, and I'll tell you when you're doing something wrong." Dilbert: "I'll just go back to what I was doing then." PHB: "NO!!!!" Of course, it turned out that PHB wasn't let in on the document either ;)
As hard as Adams tries to be bizarre, he just can out-bizarre real life.
BTW, elections being hijacked is nothing new. Kennedy wasn't likely the first, either. Just remember also, the electors (you know, the people we are actually voting for on election day - as opposed to the candidates whose names are on the ballot) don't have any obligation to vote for who they're pledged to vote for (other than one of honor, and who was the last honorable man you saw in politics?). They could all go in and decide to elect someone who isn't even on the ballot if they wanted to!
This system was devised for a reason, and not for practicality: the founders never really believed in democracy, they were just "new money" who wanted to be rid of the incovenience of the king (or, more to the point, the incovenience of the king's taxes). To be blunt, American democracy has never worked the way it is billed to work, and still works exactly the way the founders intended. It was, and is, a boldfaced lie - a charade to delude the ignorant by making them believe they have a voice in government. Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses, but I say democracy is the real culprit.
Aristotle held that all republics eventually degrade into oligarchy. Some would say they all start that way, too.
You've got all your information from US propaganda. The situation there is quite different than they tell you.
First of all, chechens were a minority living in hill area (only hill area) until USSR formed. Flat part of Chechnya is actually Russian land, Kossaks lived there. During USSR period several lands were transferred to Chechnya -- soviet rulers cared only about ease of management.
Second. When they decided to break up they did ethnic cleanising. They expelled more than half million of Russians, killed tens of thousands and FUCKING NOBODY in the west gives a fuck. Why? Because it's in west's geopolitical interests to maintain hot spot there.
Third. They HAD their independence. Between first and second chechen war they had more than two years. Eltsyn was forced by the west to accept surrender and chechens were left alone after the first war. And almost everyone was convinced that if chechens want their independence then they can have it, we'll just maintain tight border. But chechens created massive slave trade and kidnapping operations all around the region, thousands of people were kidnapped, many were killed who could not pay the ransom. It was on such big scale that it even touched me, one of my relatives was kidnapped (about 200 km from Cechnya), brought to Chechnya and then killed when ransom wasn't paid (it was impossible to find $50000 for all of us when average salary of $200/month is good). Later chechens assembled an army (quite serous) and attacked Dagestan (this is a part of Russia adjacent to Chechnya). Their leaders did not speak about independence. They alredy had it. They spoke about all muslims killing all non-muslims. They spoke about expanding shariat rule. But people of Dagestan are quite culturally different from chechens and caused serious resistance themselves, helping our army. The war in Dagestan and explosions of buildings in Moscow where chechens killed several hundreds of innocent people were final things that made us say "ENOUGH!".
Fourth. Their region has nothing to produce and sell. There is a lilttle amount of oil, enough to produce domesic fuel, but not enough to warrant a pipe or even railroad transportation. This region always was subsidised by USSR! If isolated from Russia 3/4 of them would die from hunger (Russia is sinking incredible amounts of money and food there to feed whole region).
This is one of the finest examples of american and european hypocrisy. They care about liberties and freedom only as long as it suit their own political and economic interests.