Slashdot Mirror
Secret Service Seeks Indymedia Logs
sunbird writes "The Justice Department has issued a subpoena seeking IP logs from Calyx, the ISP for nyc.indymedia.org, after individuals posted [1 | 2 | 3] the names, addresses, and phone numbers of some of the RNC delegates. The subpoena was issued as part of an ongoing investigation of voter intimidation. As reported earlier in this Slashdot article, the Justice Department tried this before. Calyx, represented by the ACLU, responded, claiming that '[t]he only intimidation taking place here is the Secret Service intimidating people who speak out against the government.' [Full text of the letter available here] Read more: Indymedia.org | NYT"
Is whether the people posting the information are willing to post the same information about themselves.
individuals posted [1 | 2 | 3] the names, addresses, and phone numbers of some of the RNC delegates.
What I don't understand is the purpose of this release. People protesting and hacking in the name of the democratic party is only going to piss off the undecided people.
Being a shmuck isn't any less evil even if you think you are doing it for the right reasons.
If I were a moderate and had to choose between the party of McCain and the party of hackers and hippies... I know who I would pick.
Obligate disclosure:
Physician who is a democrat... so my morals are screwie already. (grin)
Having said that I don't understand this on two fronts
1. What possible benefit could the list could be to somebody? I mean it's not like these are potential swing votes. To me it would only give the Republicans political fodder for demonizing us democrats.
2. Why is simply posting it illegal? From the article
*warning* shameless plug to get myself (and yourself) a free ipod follows:
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
wasn't it ? isn't this a little over the line...?
you think it's easy, but you're wrong...
Secret service logs YOU
^^
What i think is humorous is that rncdelegates.com goes to lengths to hide the contact information only providing a hush mail account, on a seperate linked site no less, when they make this claim as justification for providing home contact information for delegates: "Where is the privacy of citizens when the USA PATRIOT Act is the law of the land? Where is privacy when "Big Brother" in the form of government and corporations worms his way ever further into our lives?" Where's their dncdelegates.com site? I'm all for free political speech and contacting representatives, but isn't this a bit hypocritical and biased?
Yeah, watch the liberals complain about this, then not complain when people post the information for abortionists.
How about not logging every single thing to begin with. My proxy logs go to /dev/null.
Also, isn't this kinda similar to big brother asking the libraries about the list of books checked out by somebody? The simplest solution was the libraries stopping to keep track of who checked the book out after it was returned.
Free XBox, PS2
Watch as the government makes it mandatory for discussion boards to maintain logs for a much much longer time. And to edit/censor posts in real time to prevent children from pornographic material...after all the children must be secured.
See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long
It's one thing to publish a known politician's info. They are opening their lives to the public (by definition, they serve the public). But, it's not necessarily right for a delegate's (often a common civilian) husbands/wives/kids to have to suffer harrassment simply as a result of their parent's or spouces political affiliations.
How are they public officials? They aren't agents of the government, they don't hold any sort of public office. They represent a political party, which is a separate entity from the government.
What if it were a Republican-oriented website with information for harrassing Democratic delegates? It'd be splashed all over the NYT before the Secret Service even caught wind of it, and the American Criminal Lawyers' Union wouldn't even touch the case!
Idiots, don't do something illegal then run a duck when they agents come calling.
If Kerry was the answer, it must have been a stupid question.
The UN - The largest "political" cause of death.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
I've been wondering for a long time if it's illegal to publish publicly accessible data, in this case, people's phone numbers and addresses.
If on the same publication, there's no further "instruction" (like spam them, kill them etc), is it legal?
I thought about this not because of the politicians, but those paparazzis - imagine if every one of them's name, address, children's schools, schooling time, school address are published.
Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
You can't even peacefully wear a "No Bush" T-Shirt to a political rally now adays without being arrested for trespassing.
Your rights to free speech, and your expectations of privacy are gone now.
Politicians as part of our so called "open" government should have no expectations of privacy. Just who is supposedly representing us.
Our objectives are to: - Supply anti-RNC groups with data on the delegates to use in whatever way they see fit.
Uhh... Reading something like that makes me not want to give the benefit of the doubt. What could any 'anti-RNC' groupie do with that new information that is not unethical or harassing? They don't vote Republican, so the delegate really isn't interested in what they have to say, so that's out.
Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
I think the message is pretty clear here. "Shut them down" with a list of all that personal information..... Indymedia might have a good agenda in there somewhere, but it will be overshadowed by their efforts to silence those who disagree with them.
Whatever your stance on publishing these kinds of lists, Indymedia is one of the few remaining grassroots information outlets left on the internet, free from corporate money, sleaziness and lies. It would be a shame to have them shut down, and would really represent the end of the Internet as we knew it.
:-(
Sure, there are Indymedia branches in many countries (mostly European) but if we get our own version of the Patriot act the way we're getting software patents and DMCA and other crappy corporate America anti-freedom laws, I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with only CNN and other big-money propaganda machines.
to have to suffer harrassment
Where did you get harassment out of this? I didn't read anywhere that there were complaints of harassment made by any of the RNC families. I only read that the SS was harassing the people who feel that we should know the identities of the committee members who pick the token figurehead that we have the satisfying privelege of casting our wasted vote for.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
An open question to anyone who thinks that posting the personally identifying information of GOP delegates on a (mostly) radical left-wing website isn't about intimidation, I ask you this:
What do you think it's about when the personally identifying information of physicians who terminate pregnancies is listed on anti-abortion websites?
Note that I'm not arguing against free speech here. Publish whatever directory you want, but it goes both ways.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
to get through ALL the linked documents, in the most semantic sense of the phrase, posting this info about delegates can be considered intimidation. I'm not voting for Bush myself but in this has to swing both ways.
If a rule applies to Republicans, it has to apply to Democrats.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Is publishing their personal information any different than me drafting up a list of "red pinko communists" with your name on it knowing that it will cause you social stigma and may destroy your career and friendhips?
Lets not kid ourselves, nobody is going to use this information to send these men fruitbaskets or singing telegrams.
Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
Your phone book, as you pointed out, does not specifically list only one group of people. It basically lists all people.
This delegate list was published to make these delegates targets of attack, whether physical or non-physical. The purpose of this would be to attempt to pressure the delegates into changing their votes, and by proxy to pressure delegates not listed to also change their votes lest they become targets.
Whether it's illegal or not, it certainly stinks. It's a sad situation when people feel they must create pressure or threat like this in order to see their political party win. Of course to those of us who fall in the middle ("moderate") of the two parties, it pushes us AWAY from the freaks who do these things.
So on the far left we have the radical SUV torchers, the information warriors (posting delegates' information), the "hackers" who vow to disrupt RNC technical services, the "make no mention of God anywhere, at any time" athiests, and of course the "you make more than 50k, you're rich! give it to us!" people, etc. etc.
On the far right we have the "no abortion under any cirumstances" folks, the "Christian is the only religion" folks, and the "police state is safer" folks.
Call me a pragmatist, or call me short sighted, but the former group scares me more personally, and immediately. I don't want my vehicles burned, my personal info posted, my money taken away (although you're welcome to all my debt if you like).
Seems I'm rambling.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
to real protesting? Whatever happened to actually telling the people what's really going on in the shadows and giving the public a REAL reason to vote for or against a cause. Now, we're just terrorists in our own country.
I haven't seen a single political ad that discusses the truth or isn't hyperbole. It's too bad the people of America are too dumb to research politics themselves and not buy into this advertisement bull shit.
How about those who are merely registered Republican voters? Are they too de facto government officials? Where do we draw the line? Poll watchers?
NSA logs YOU.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
It's funny that people cry "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" when they are being investigated for involving themselves in this crap.
I will never understand why people think that because they are "speaking out against the establishment" they should be able to do whatever they want to speak out, and be beyond reproach.
"Hard work never killed anyone." -- Some Dead Guy
Even if you feel they are seriously misguided, if you want to influence them you do it with kindness and respect. Whether they are really being put at some risk by having their names, hotel rooms and phone numbers posted really depends on the random action (Or hopefully lack of action) by some crazy wingnut. Would you want your mother getting a threatening call at 3am? The secret Service has a legitimate concern for their wellfare.
As a protest action it was stupid and arguablly endangering. About as self-indulgent and counter-productive as breaking windows and setting fires at the WTO.
Certainly, it seems to me to be pointlessly cruel. The fact that the perpetrators hide behind anonymity rather than stand up and explain themselves betrays a coward's conscience.
As Gandhi, King and Mandella proved - effective change is possible... RTFM!
"Knowing everything doesn't help..."
If you can tell me a way to investigate avenues of illegitimate funding by only using a name, address, phone number, and hotel room without doing anything illegal I'll be impressed. But you can't. There is nothing productive that can come out of this besides a letter to his home (which will unlikely be read, and won't cause his magic conversion to the other party.)
Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
Well, let's see: first of all, you bring up a case that you actually know nothing about (the Florida case that you mentioned) and used the unsupported supposition that DoJ is doing nothing about it as evidence for your case.
Next, you link to the Georgia GOP website, which lists names but does not list addresses or phone numbers, which may not be publicly accessible if, for example, a person's phone number is unlisted.
Then you attach vitriolic labels like "racist" and "classist", which really have nothing to do with the reality of this case, in an attempt to make DoJ seem more "evil" than it really is.
And then somebody mods you interesting? I'd lean more toward funny, myself.
"free from corporate money, sleaziness and lies?" Get over yourself.
More accurate to say they're one of the most popular collective information outlets, and that their sites generally adhere to a left-wing, anti-corporate political slant. Sleaziness is in the eye of the beholder (read the clips attached to this page), and I really don't think you want to be vouching for the truthfulness of everything everyone at IndyMedia posts.
There exist a whole hell of a lot of grassroots "media outlets" that don't take advertising, they just haven't gotten the publicity of IMC. You could start your own in seconds for less than US$10 a month, just pick your favorite webhosting provider and go to work.
Read some of the coverage. Some things are more simple, like have people blocking hotel entrances, or event locations. Other things get more personal, like groups waiting at places like restraunts or theaters and trying to fight with attendees. Some have gotten worse. One police detective was put in the hospital.
I don't care what party you are with. That's just wrong. Protesting is an important right, but protesting doesnt' mean you can do things like that. Yes, stand and voice your concerns, but getting into fights, or attempting to get in the face of any and every attendee is just a annoying.
"Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." - Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Not trying to be funny, but there is some violence inherent in this system.
"Teachers leave us kids alone
The fiasco in Florida was sad, but Bush was elected by the rules that we have in place. I have a hard time believing that nearly 100% of the hanging chads were votes for Gore. I thought the fiasco afterwards where Gore's vote count kept rising but Bush's remained nearly steady reaked of corruption in the counting process. If that's really the case, it must mean Republicans are just smarter than Democrats, or at least able to understand simple instructions. If you are for anarchy, go ahead. Methinks you are off your rocker though.
Before you go flaming me as a racist, imperialist republican, know that I will be "throwing my vote away" on a third party. I have little love for George W. Bush, but given the choice I would choose Bush over Kerry for one reason alone, Kerry's lack of integrity. This man will say or do anything in his quest for political power and social acceptance. He claimed to have thrown away his medals in a protest march, turns out he still has them. He got two of his purple hearts under suspicious circumstances. He came back and said that he himself committed war crimes as well as witnessing them and doing nothing about them on a daily basis. He lied about being in Cambodia. He joined the military because he though it would help him attain his goal of getting into politics, when public opinion turned against the war he did as well to get public sympathy. After 30 minutes of mud-slinging against President Bush at the DNC, he told the audience with a straight face he hoped the election wouldn't get dirty.
The kicker was when I saw him on C-Span giving a speech at the University of San Diego. He kept spouting off all the great things he would do without explaining how he would possibly accomplish any of it. Finally he was harping on gas prices to cheers from the audience. He actually had a solution for that one. He would go to OPEC and the Arab leaders and get them to increase production to lower gas prices. "Wow", I though, "Is it really that easy?" Not two weeks later he was calling Bush "disgusting" for trying to do the exact same thing. He made it seem like a back-door plan with Bush getting favors from his family friends in Saudi Arabia just to help him in the election. What's Bush supposed to do, run the economy into the ground before the election? He should do his best to help America at all times. John Kerry is the one I think is disgusting.
What, like in 2000? Yeah, right.
Well, right now you're modded "Insightful", so at least one mod shares your knee-jerk tinfoil-hat mindset. That doesn't mean you have any actual insight, however. It's easy to be cynical. When you're cynical you can just lean back in your chair, lick the orange stuff from your Cheetoes off your fingers, and sneer at everything. Doing something to effect real change is much more difficult.
To the extent that the "major parties" get preferential treatment under US election law, I actually don't disagree with you. However, the fact remains that convention delegates are *not* government officials, are generally *not* public figures, and so retain the same rights of privacy as anyone else. Yourself included, even if you chose to attend a convention as a delegate for some reason.
So, yes, people with that kind of power over the politicians who will spend 60+% of your hard-earned cash every year should be publicly accessible.
You'll find that delegates have relatively little power. At least for the first ballot, they have no choice as to how to cast their votes under the current primary system. Their individual identities are therefore as relevant as those of the Electors who actually vote for the President. At least the Electors' duty is Constitutionally mandated! And seriously, is there any doubt about who they're going to nominate? If there wasn't for the Democrats, where there was more than one candidate in the primary field, how can there be for the Republicans?
Incidentally, tax freedom day this year was April 11, representing rather less than 60% of your income.
And the brethren went away edified.
So... what's your:
Name
Home phone number and address
Work phone number and address
Party affiliation
Hotel and room number for the next large event you will be attending.
You seem to think it is fair game for this information to be posted about others without their consent. What about you?
it's hard to argue that the SC is republican, mostly because they take so many sides of seemingly identical issues. but it's actually not either one - depending on the specific jurisprudential issues at stake in each case, the justices may decide seemingly contradictory things.
so you can put them on record as supporting gay marriage, abortion, secret courts, against gay marriage, anti-abortion, pro-federalism, anti-federalism, etc. it all depends on what case the litigators bring to the Court. if i argue a particular set of issues to the Court, they may decide that my argument is crappy and rule in favor of my opponent, solely because i built a weak case. if i argue a different set of issues that differ only slightly from the previous case, the Court may rule for me.
so what looks like inconsistency is actually the much-vaunted "nuance" that kerry would bring to the white house. whether you think nuance is a good thing for the executive branch, too, is one of ideology.
jon
-- http://www.cerastes.org
Last time I checked, the Republican Party was not a branch of government and delegates to the Republican National Convention were not necessarily members of the government.
Given Indymedia's Michael Moore-esque visits to lunacy, the list was placed up there to do one thing and one thing only, intimidate those Republican delegates. These are private citizens participating in the political process, unlike the hundreds of millions of other people who sit on the asses complaining and they don't deserve to be targeted by potentially violent people (don't even give me that peaceful protest hooey).
This is sickening and deserves no defence unless you think targetting people for their political beliefs, whether left or right, is a great idea. Oh wait, I'm sure there will be people who think it is a great idea.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
"...but he has lately demonstrated that his loyalty to his party exceeds his loyalty to his country."
What the hell is this? Did you ever consider that maybe he thinks his party is the best one for the country? I mean, he's a REPUBLICAN Senator for a reason.
I get the impression McCain is about as impressed with John Kerry as he is with a pile of old dogshit in the road. And while he doesn't like Bush, you don't have to LIKE someone to think they're the better candidate for office. As for the accusations about Kerry in Vietnam, if he would talk about a reason to elect him OTHER than the 4 months he spent there, then maybe other people would dwell less on it as well.
"I had more respect for him. No longer."
Your respect was probably going to last only as long as McCain ripped on his own party. Somehow, I don't think he's weeping for the loss of your endorsement.
By the way, here's a standards check: do you also respect Zell Miller or Ed Koch or Ron Silver, liberals all, for going against their party because their convictions tell them to?
My money says you're calling them sellouts. I'd be willing to bet "respect" and "conviction" is a one way street for you.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
is another.
'Here's the list of delagates'
or
'Here's the list of delegates, go make them feel unwelcome.'
If the fact of assault on a delegate
follows then one might look at the logs to see if
the person making the assault is connected with
the site. Even if connected, there will have to
be a case made that the encouragement and info from the site precipitated the action of assault.
I might g read a pyro site and a model planbe site and make my own automaton kamakazi lawnmower motor powered 'son of predator' and use it to smoke a billboard I don't like. No problem for the sites, unless, in addtion to providing the info, they encouraged smoking that partcular billboard. In this case, they are party to my action.
And what's so unfortunate about the pro-gun voting block? I happen to be one of them.
And yes, Hunters are pro Enviroment. The better the enviroment, the better the hunting. You can also argue that (true) hunters are more aware of the enviroment than many of the 'green' party. It takes skill, knowledge, preperation, and effort to successfully stalk wild game, make a clean kill, and prepare the meat.
There's a number of things I disagree with both parties about. I tend to be pro-self reliance, pro-liberty, moderatly green.
I'm for green when it's not economicly crippling, and for providing regulations that encourage companies to still upgrade & improve emissions/pollution, rather than hiding under grandfather clauses.
I don't read AC A human right
There's a certain irony that the people hiding behind anonymous posts which were trying to intimidate convention delagates by publishing their personal details and locations are now claiming indimidation about their mere identities being exposed.
It's just stunningly hypocritical for anyone to claim intimidation by the mere uncovering of their anonymous identity when they've posted the personal details including residence of others encouraging thousands of potential protestors to show up and ahem... 'protest'.
If you go posting information online in a way that clearly invites intimidation of others and worse, excuse me if I don't feel very sympathetic about bleating of intimidation when someone attempts to uncover your anonymity.
It almost takes anonymous posting to a new low, but let's face it, it is pretty tough to reach new depths there.
Let's go through this a line at a time.
.30-.30 Winchester, the round typically chambered in grandpa's old lever-action rifle and used to take more deer than pretty much any other round in the world. So yes, we do fear him and his kind coming to more power than they already have.
Unfortunately, in America, the pro-gun voting block is incredibly strong. A national politician has a difficult time getting elected if the opponent can say he's anti-guns.
Yes, those of us who are in favor of our 2nd Amendment rights (you know, part of that darned Bill of Rights)organize and tend to vote for people who are like-minded. That's democracy for you.
That's why major democrats promote themselves as hunters (Kerry, Ann Richards, etc.)-- to defuse potential FUD that they're going to take away people's weapons.
Yes, politicians like Kerry like to pose with their multi-thousands-of-dollars over & under imported shotguns while trap-shooting at the range. If you didn't know, trap-shooting, while a fun sport, tends to be overrun with what could be termed the aristocratic snobs of the so-called "gun culture." "See, I'll let you keep your $10,000 dollar trap gun. It's just those eeeeeeevil 'assault weapons' I don't like."
And yes, Kerry and Ted Kennedy both voted for a bill (that fortunately failed) which would have outlawed "any centerfire rifle ammunition capable of penetrating a bulletproof vest." What they didn't want to tell you is that is EVERY center-fire rifle cartridge. Including that dastardly
Hunters are not opposed to the Endangered Species Act. Hunters and fishermen appreciate government regulations that provide them with more animals to catch or kill. Check out Ducks Unlimited, for example. The biggest opponents of the ESA are developers and polluters. Both of these groups are very friendly to the GOP when it comes to fundraising.
Not all "gun people" are the same on every subject. Personally I am a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian. I have friends I go shooting with who fall all over the political map. Oh, and yes, I'm a big proponent of the ESA.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
- They wanted to let this 'investigation' get out -- create a sense of chill.
- They didn't want to taint the Patriot act that bad.. My understanding is that the information in question is public... to bring 'posting' public information as part of a politicial action campaign under a (supposedly) anti-terrorist law would rip open the fact that the act is far more of a threat to our rights and freedoms than they have people believing at first blush.
As far as I can tell, they could have done this, but they just decided not to.Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Bullshit. The Secret Service are requesting the IP addresses of all users of the site. It's called a fishing expedition. Lots of people use nyc.indymedia.org, didn't post the information (not that there's anything legally wrong with the information) and don't want the Secret Service sniffing around their IPs like a mutt after a bitch in heat.
If you take the trouble to read the articles you'll see the FBI tried this shit with indymedia previously after an oh-so-convenient-anonymous-post put up bogus information that the FBI claimed was a "security leak".
Pull the other one.
You realize that in the 1950 and 60 the south was 100% Democrat. It was democrats doing all that evil shit to Blacks don't you. You also realize George Wallace was a democrat don't you. You also must realize that Republicans voted for the 1964 voting right act and they were the the ones who helped pass it and that most democrats voted against it. Since you know so much about the 1960 and 50s' you know all this is true dont you?. I do because I was alive and saw it. It's not some crap in a history book, TV or Wiki wanking that conviently leaves the political affiliations of the actors out. I saw the firehoses used on non violent protesters demanding their natural civil rights, I saw the police dogs used on non violent protestors. Democrats were doing that. It's shaped my whole life.
Look up the break down by party of the south in the 1950's and 1960's
Racial opression is wrong no matter who is doing it. The Democrats don't have clean hands.
You also might want to look up and see which President has had the most black cabinet members in your googling too.
It sounds like you are a libertarian, not a conservative. Vote appropriately.
Libertarian Party: http://www.lp.org/
The political divisiveness in this country continues to get worse and worse.. and for what?
What happened to just being an American? When did it become fashionable to insult and hate anyone that wasn't on the same side of a manufactured binary proposition as you? I mean, I can't imagine that I'm really that different from somebody voting for the other guy - I go to my job, the other guy goes to his. We both need to sleep at night, we both need to eat to survive, we both like being able to speak our minds, we both like living in america enough that we haven't moved.
So what exactly is the deal with people being so hateful?
Given how close the last election was, how can any one on EITHER "side" beleive that the "other side" is 100% pure evil with no worthwhile qualities ? Beleiving such would put you in disagreement with about 50% of americans.
Do you hate 50% of the population ? Do you think 50% of the population is dumb ? Do you think 50% of the population is dumber than you? Do you feel that the 50% that voted the way you didn't were misguided and got badly duped?
I suspect the 04 election will be as close as the 00 election, meaning if you're being an asshole towards someone or some group based on their political beleifs, you may as well go down your street and be an asshole to every other house you visit.
Disagreeing is healthy.
Being violent and hateful towards your fellow americans isn't.
The mean spirited slogans, shirts, posters, rhetoric etc IMO are really tearing down this country. The negativity only increases the divisiveness. You'd think with all of the anger and what not being displayed, i'd be able to figure out what people were actually upset about, but more often then not, i can't. Maybe that makes me a dumbass, but my vote counts as much as yours, so stop being a shithead.
The attitudes displayed by the submitters of this data are not positive, and not healthy. People are just people and they think what they do for a reason. Harassing them or threatening them won't change their worldview, but it will continue to widen the fissure between two halves of the same nation.
I've seen a lot of slashdotters defending the people behind this and that's what's really upsetting. We're all intelligent enough to be wary of free speech, intimidation, and government tampering with individual rights.
We, by and large, also know what it's like to be on the receiving end of intimidation, harassment, and being singled out by hateful mobs. (or did you not go to highschool ?)
If you beleive that the ends justify the means, then anything is rationalizable. Please make sure that you're not setting a double standard about what is ok and what isn't depending on the political viewpoints of the targets.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Okay. I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that it wasn't impossible that this specific person in question was telling the truth, and I was saying that it was impossible. But it turns out that wasn't what you were saying.
My bad.
I write in my journal
i don't think that the availability of the information is the issue that the dept. of justice is after.. moreso the motive of posting it.
:)
ie. he said "lets shut down the RNC" doesnt exactly promote goodness of heart, if you get it.
When did "i don't see it that way" become "Absolutely Wrong"?
Regardless of your political affiliation, or your position in the US government, it seems that you should have the right to not be harassed, threatened, or intimidated by anybody.
If you can say with a straight face that the point of this document is NOT for people to intimidate, harass, or threaten members of a political organization, I am listening.
What happened to just being civil. Isn't it possible to say "You know, i don't like some of the policies of this administration" without threatening people, physically assaulting them, harassing them at work/home, and generally being a shithead?"
Were there ever any good ole days of "well, i'm voting for the other guy"?
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
What the hell happened to the Secret Service in the last three and a half years?
Firstly, they have been instructing police departments around the country to construct "First Amendment Zones" whereever Bush or other Bushites are speaking. A First Amendment Zone is an out-of-the-way place miles from the President, surrounded by walls and wire, guarded by goons and dogs, and festooned with cameras to record your every visual detail. Show up to protest, and you are unceremoniously shown to the FAZ, where you are identified, processed and allowed to chant at a telephone pole. Presidential supporters are of course bussed in if necessary - happened here in Chicago.
Secondly, the Secret Service is being dispatched, along with the FBI, to investigate even potential protestors in their homes. The "we know who you are" routine.
Thirdly, the SS won't let the press talk to Michael Moore, who is corresponding for USA Today this week.
Secret
Service shuts down Michael Moore interviews. Why is the
Secret Service Engaged in Direct Political Work for Bush? Isn't That
Illegal? 8/31
Here's a sample of what happens when a political party gets its own federal guard:
Seabrook: Yes, I am in the middle of a...you might be able to hear the Secret Service yelling into my mic at the same time. There, there are a bunch of Secret Service that have surrounded Michael Moore's section. There are three or four reporters with him right now, but they are trying to kick all of the reporters and press photographers who are around him out of his area. The convention staff is also here. They're standing here telling us that we have to move from this are...they're obviously disturbed by the fact that Michael Moore is here and want as little public here as possible.
Stachio: Can we hear? Can we hear what's going on? Can you stick a mic in there? I don't know if we can hear.
Seabrook: Yeah...ah...eh...they've sort of moved me away from that area.
Stachio: I don't understand. Who is it? Is it Secret Service?
Seabrook: It's Secret Service which is interesting because the Secret Service of all agencies is the one that remains...is the least involved in the sort of political...political kinds of things, but of course they always cover the candidates and they have to be involved in the convention like this. They claim that what they're doing is for safety reasons, although there is a almost nobody around Michael Moore right now. So a we'll see if I can a...
Secret Service Agent: [crosstalk] thank you very much
Seabrook: Yeah, I'm being herded back in four different ways right now.
***
People, Bush has created his own private extra-constitutional intelligence and police force! The SS must be loaded to the gunwhales with hard-right wing fanatics.
Doesn't this terrify you all?
The Secret Service was created to protect the President. Does "protection" mean reelecting him at all costs?
Why do we even need a Secret Service, anyway? Why are they guarding the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington DC? Can't police guard the President? Is the President so holy and inviolate that we have to shut down entire cities when he arrives? He's a civilian employee, for God's sake, not an emperor! They are welding manhole covers shut in foreign countries to protect him. WHAT? THE? HELL?
Why do I think that this level of political protection will not be deemed necessary by the SS when Kerry assumes the office? Kerry, clean house. Grow a pair, find out the names of the officials who have cultured this monster. and make them be gone.
Sorry pal. But unless you are a Republican from the state that delegated them, they don't (and shouldn't) care about you. DNC delegates listen to Democrats, RNC delegates listen to Republicans.
A Republican on Indymedia.com would be a rare creature indeed. These people were chosen by their state GOP to represent exactly what their platform decided on. They wouldn't have sent them otherwise. A candidate has to pick and choose his platform with a compromise of what he wants and what people will vote for. The delegate (who, again, unless you are a member of the party of his state) already has their platform chosen, and there is no wiggling room. Get the picture?
The point is that any opinion anyone offers to these delegates is too little, too late.
Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
Neither Kerry nor Bush is as evil and some would make either one to be. It's super hard now to get any kind of real debate going on anything.
The hatred is too much for me, I've gone turtle and am heading for high ground until November before the sheer negativity infects me as it has others.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm sure, hunters would like to see the endangered species to thrive. Whether they like the Endangered Species Act is a totally different matter.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I think you are overoptimistic about the ability of the U.S. Military to deal with guerilla insurgents.
I give you as examples; Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.
-il cylic
Defend Freedom
We need a series of lawsuits against police departments for this practice, on first ammendment grounds, and wrongful arrest. There need to be serious repercussions for police departments that decide to remove people for political reasons.
Of course, proving a political motivation is very difficult. In practice there is almost always something they can charge you with. (like not having a protest permit, disorderly conduct, etc) This is a problem of too many laws, and selective enforcement. The police are effectively able to suppress political views using the legal system. The selective enforcement issue must be solved at a higher level by reducing and clarifying contradictory laws.
All you protestors, carry a videocamera. Make sure to videotape anyone who is arrested or looks like they're going to be, and offer up the footage as evidence.
This is how democracy dies folks...
-- Bob
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
Yeah, it would be like someone identifying an undercover CIA agent on national television. I *KNOW* there would be consequences for an action like that!
</sarcasm>
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for either party here. I dislike them both equally, but you're just wrong. Have you even looked at the website in question? This isn't a bunch of pro-life freaks with gun sights superimposed over pictures of doctors. It's an image map of the US linked to lists of delegates. Now step away from the TV, away from your 30-seconds-hate, clear your partisan head a bit, and look again. Does it really look like a tool of the devil? Do you really think it was Osama that posted that page? Come on now.
Besides, your "common sense" approach would be just the kind of attitude to get something like this pulled offline. It's not black or white; it's grey. If the Bill of Rights only applies in the white, it isn't worth anything.
Furthermore, if you don't like anonymous posters, I suggest you move. Why do you think it is the First Amendment? Anonymous publishing has been used as a political tool in this land since before the dawn of this nation. The Bill of Rights is simply there to point out that ACs are OK. It's one of the founding principles of this nation.
What's your home address and phone number?
I'm sure that info is publicly availible, too. Doesn't mean you want it highlighted to a bunch of people who may have reason not to like you.
The small damage hunters may do to the environment does not begin to compare to the damage caused by habitat destruction. One large upscale ski resort is far more destructive to wildlife. Hunters in fact have a vested interest in preserving habitat
"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"
If you had an absolutely ruthless leader & a completely loyal military with modern weaponry (perhaps an automated military?) who didn't give a damn about human life, that's all you'd need. Just keep killing people until whoever is left over gives in. There's no way non-military forces could resist.
The only reason the U.S. military is having problems in Iraq is because they're trying to preserve the lives of civilians. If they didn't give a damn about that, they could've easily turned Iraq into a wasteland by now (even more of a wasteland than it already is, I mean).
Yes, nuking large groups of disobedient civilians would be an option for such a military force.
No, I took that into account - that's why I said that a nation's military must have closer ties to the population than to the leader. Every tin-pot dictator solidifies their power by gathering a band of "elite" thugs around them and basically bribes them with gifts & power so that their loyalty is to the leader rather than their nation. Even though the overall numbers of these thugs are small relative to the overall population, they can still effectively control the population through fear & intimidation tactics. Bear in mind that quite a few Arabs have firearms, but Hussein was still able to easily pacify a fairly large population by bribing a reasonably large group (the Baath party & his own tribe members) and by scaring the %()$*@! out of the rest.
The U.S. military currently has quite a few ties between population & members (witness widespread outpouring of support for the troups) so I don't think this is a real issue in the U.S., but if a sizeable chunk of the military & law-enforcement (and their families) should start developing an us-versus-them attitude about the general population (or maybe robotic armies under the control of a small # of people?), that's when democracy-in-major-danger alarm bells should start ringing.
Right! I forgot only Republicans (Latin for "rich old white men", which is greek for "source of all evil") are dirty.
Grow up!
"I know its against an intellectual mindset to do this, but now is the time to fight, and fight dirty."
What can I say? You actually think that one party is full of smart nice people and the other is full of dumb mean people. To call that Nieve is like calling water wet.
A) In America both parties are "Right" by world standards. America is a verry rightwing country, what we call left wing is far right of where the rest of the world's right wing starts.
B) World wide, politicians suck. There are some good ones, a few that joined the system to make it better, and stayed clean the whole way. But left or right doesn't matter since democratic elections encourage the winning of "dirty" politicians. (What praytell does debating and back room dealing have to do with being a "good" leader? Effective maybe...) Democracy isn't the best system, it's just the best we've got so far.
C) "Intellectual mindset": There are lots of smart people who are Republicans, Communists, Socialists, Libretarians, Tall, Short, Fat, Skinny, and strange. In fact their are no shortage in any group (even he KKK). Intelect is a horse, "emotions" are the rider. We decide based on our emotions, and we rationalize our decisions with our intelect. Though I'm sure it's personaly gratifying to believe that one might only come to share *Your* (the generic "you") by being of high and grand intelect! (THE KING HAS NO CLOTHS!THE KING HAS NO CLOTHS!)
"If personal attacks is what it takes to get Bush out of office, I'm all for them. Republicans use dirty tricks all the time..."
So the ends justify the means? By this logic, it doesn't matter why we went into Iraq, or how many people died. All that matters is that Saddam is gone (little Arab version of Pol-Pot/Hittler that he was) and now there is a *chance* to build a free Iraq.
Wow, at least we agree on something!
I would rather be ashes than dust!
If any of you want a right to privacy, ever, then you'd better respect their right to privacy, whether you agree with their views or not, and whether you think that you are using this knowledge for some greater good.
Moral relativism is evil, and it is wrong to assume that the ends justify the means. Ever.
These people are not your representatives. The political parties are not the government.
They will decide what the views of the party are, and then you will decide whether to vote for that party. If you don't like it that way, then move to another country.
Howdy All, Looking at what the Republicans are trying to do, keeping their delegates secret, sickens me. I thought they were supposed to represent the people they are delegating. How are the people that they are representing supposed to contact them and let them know what views we want expressed? Well we can't without contact information. What it sounds like is that the terrorists won. By not giving out this information, we have changed our system to compensate for what the terrorists want us to feel... Fear. Guess what, we obviously are fearful. I personally think this is cowardly and that leaders need to step up and become leaders. As a concerned citizen, that sees the system starting to break, we got to start being more responsible, and make a democracy work, and start talking, not hiding. I know that it is hard to risk your families, and your lives at these conventions (and I am personally not sure really how high of a terrorist threat that exists), but someone has too, and you choose to be the leaders, and represent. As the people that are still in school and that you are inspiring (or not), we got to be able to write and let you know our views. We are not electing a dictator that chooses policy for 4 years, the person we elect is supposed to be a president that hears the people and reacts. A president can change his mind. A candidate can change his mind. They are supposed too as they get public opinion, more information about controversal subjects, and become more informed to make a better intelligent decision. But to make an intelligent decision, we got to know who to talk too. Else the system breaks down. Imagine you were a CEO, and had to tell 10 people a message, just to get a message the client representative. I have done this game before (not through ten people, but three), and communication breaks down. The client wants to be able to pick up the phone and talk to the people in charge, or at least the secretary. Guess what delegates, we are the client, and we want to call and contact, and pass our opinions. It is how our system works. I don't want to have my email lost, and I have no clue when I send one, what really happens to it. I imagine most of the public does not know what really happens to it. Maybe someone should do a commercial about how their voice counts? It could make for a nice way to get their votes. Well I hope this lets out some of the frustration I am feeling, and I hope the lists stop becoming "secret". Thanks and Gig'em!
And that word is: FEAR.
The government and media in America has its citizens whipped up into a frothful and delirious state of constant fear. Fear of terrorists. Fear of different ethnicities. Fear of liberals.
A gun is an equalizer for those who feel powerless. A gun makes them feel as though they have power in an environment where they are frightened.
The NRA manipulates their fears for political and financial gain by promoting the notion that there is a campaign afoot to take their guns away. The NRA is the great protector of Americans' only safety blanket.
There are many lessons for Americans to learn from Afghanistan and Iraq. Among these is this: Allowing each household to own a fully automatic AK-47 does not seem to have created an orderly or peaceful society.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
When did "i don't see it that way" become "Absolutely Wrong"?
When "You're either with us or with the terrorists" became your new foundation for diplomacy?
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
I see the issue as a "non-issue" like abortion. People who vote on those two issues alone are throwing their vote away.
If you vote only with "Pro/Con-gun" in mind you are likely going to make the situation where guns will be needed for a revolution. Look at our current situation. Some would argue, Bush maybe gun friendly, but he isn't voter friendly.
When it comes to abortion it is the minority that want Roe v. Wade overturned. Still how could another law stand the test of the Supreme Court? A new Supreme Court would be the only answer. I don't care about the whole issue but it seems that people are only making the legislature waste time when they could be going forward to make real people better (as opposed to hypothetical lives which may or may not end before birth, or whatever...)
Vote on other issues which actually have a chance and we all can be happy. Politics, it has been said, is the struggle not to do two different things, but how to get to the same point. Both parties want freedom, I don't doubt that.
It's the wacko's who bring the whole system down.
(I of course am a liberal "wacko", but taking my web-admin hat off I say this)
Get your Unix fortune now!