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"

38 of 825 comments (clear)

  1. The real test of whether its intimidation or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is whether the people posting the information are willing to post the same information about themselves.

  2. what the heck? by BoldAC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)

    1. Re:what the heck? by LordNimon · · Score: 5, Insightful
      the party of McCain

      I wish the Republican part were the "party of McCain". It feels more like the party of Jerry Falwell to me. I'd vote for McCain in a heartbeat, but never for anyone in the Bush family.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    2. Re:what the heck? by thelaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      what if someone in the bush family, say, barbara (the younger), came out of the closet, denounced 41 and 43, and announced candidacy for the green party nomination? would you vote for her then because of her ideas, or would you still hate her because of her family?

      i'm sorry if you think it's a foolish example, but i judge people by the content of their ideas and their character, not their lineage. that's what the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's was all about.

      jon

      --
      -- http://www.cerastes.org
    3. Re:what the heck? by killjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "People protesting and hacking in the name of the democratic party is only going to piss off the undecided people."

      Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. The freepers don't piss of the undecided, republicans calling democrats traitors does not piss off the undecided, the republicans calling democrats un american does not piss off the undecided and republicans saying that Kerry shot himself on purpose so he could get a purple heart don't piss off the undecided.

      Attacking your enemy with everything you have actually pleases the undecided. They want somebody with convictions who is willing to fight for their convictions.

      BTW get off that "party of McCain" shit. GW called McCain a failure and the republican party actually put our literature saying the McCain was not a war hero because he got captured and didn't accomplish his mission. They ran ads in NY saying McCain opposed breast cancer research!.

      They love McCain when McCain is bashing democrats but they don't hesitate to call him an unpatriotic coward when he dares to run against Bush.

      Republican party is no more the party of mccain then they are "compassionate".

      --
      evil is as evil does
  3. Uhh I don't get it ... by (54)T-Dub · · Score: 4, Insightful
    First of all let me say that as a Democrat I'm ashamed that the people using this information for intimidation purposes share my desire to change Presidents. This amounts to nothing more than bully tactics that I might expect from other Political Parties, but not from mine. Freedom of expression and political affiliation is what we are built on and hsould never be threatened.

    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 ...
    The subpoena seeks subscriber information, and contacts and billing records for the Indy Media site. It says the information is needed to investigate possible violations of the federal criminal code barring efforts to intimidate, threaten or coerce voters.
    Seems to me this goes along the lines of writing a phone book. Sure it's a select phone book with more detailed information (email, hotel, etc) but it's still public information (except possibly the hotel). To me it's the people who abuse the information that would intimidate, threaten or coerce voters.

    *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
    1. Re:Uhh I don't get it ... by xplenumx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We the people are not out to haraas but simply trying to track delegates who are aligned with the war party. We need to keep them under control as they are dangerous individuals who are known to back the anti-democratic minority. The procedure is similar to implementation of criminal registration procedures. :)

      Holy shit. Let's change the wording a bit shall we:

      We the Government/Republicians/etc are not out to haraas but simply trying to track delegates who are aligned with the Democratic/Green/etc party. We need to keep them under control as they are dangerous individuals who are known to back the anti-democratic minority. The procedure is similar to implementation of criminal registration procedures. :)

      Do as I say, not as I do.

    2. Re:Uhh I don't get it ... by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is simply posting it illegal? From the article ...

      So, I guess the argumet is supposed to be that simply posting the list isn't an act of intimidation. If you want to know why this isn't the case, as a mental exercise think about lists of names and addresses of people classified by groups that are stereotypically oppressed (or think they are anyway...). Here's a few to try:

      Jews
      Communists
      Homosexuals
      Blacks
      Members of the ACLU
      Registered Slashdot users
      etc...

      You'd be hard pressed to find such a list that didn't intimidate some people by merely including them on the list. You can't have a double standard though. Either you let the neo-nazi's keep a list of addresses of jews in their local town on their website while disclaiming responsibility for how their members use the information, or you ban the entire practice. I'm not claiming one way is more correct than the other, but you have to pick.

  4. In corporate america by russint · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Secret service logs YOU

    --
    ^^
  5. Logs by savagedome · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:No privacy for public officials! by syrinje · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  7. Re:No privacy for public officials! by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. absolutely wrong by SethJohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful


    The people posting this information are not representing constituencies. They don't have accountability. That's like saying the people who publish the phone book must also print their own home phone numbers in the phone books.
    1. Re:absolutely wrong by Performer+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ahh... there you go thinking these people don't have accountability. Everyone has accountability for their actions.

      I find these anonymous posters complaining about intimidation beneath contempt. You think they weren't trying to intimidate those delegates? Not everyone at the conference is an elected representative.

      Veiled threats and publication of personal information designed soley to heap misfortune on the victim has nothing to do with 'speech'. Those details were published with the explicit hope that a mob would show up and intimidate the individuals targeted. Maybe with the added bonus of a stolen identity or two.

      Geeze, why must everyone pretend this is about speech and spout analogies when everyone on *both* sides knows exactly what was going on here. It had nothing to do with persuading delegates and we all know darned well that this only stiffens resolve on both sides.

  9. Free Speech Was A Terrorist Victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Free Speech Was A Terrorist Victim by killjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes.

      Kerry was in Ohio and he took questions from the audience. Some of them were downright hostile. They asked him about his war record, his supposed flip flopping, his record on the senate. Nothing was cencored, nothing was off the table. He answered every question till the people ran out of questions.

      That's real balls.

      --
      evil is as evil does
  10. Re:No privacy for public officials! by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  11. Indymedia by cozziewozzie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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. :-(

  12. So you think it's not about intimidation? by fahrvergnugen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  13. Re:No privacy for public officials! by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  14. Re:No privacy for public officials! by e9th · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about those who are merely registered Republican voters? Are they too de facto government officials? Where do we draw the line? Poll watchers?

  15. In diverse rest-of-the-world by arose · · Score: 5, Insightful

    NSA logs YOU.

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  16. Say your mother is a Republican... by Invisible+Now · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You've seen the convention delegates. A lot of them are just little old ladies in straw hats with red, white, and blue LEDs blinking in their corny jewelry. Remind me of my mom...

    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..."

  17. Re:How data is used? by Detritus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I hand out copies of a list of the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of "uppity niggers" at a Ku Klux Klan rally, do you think that my actions are purely informational?

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  18. Re:No privacy for public officials! by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  19. Re:Two things: by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  20. Re:Well, you have to admit it's not really "fair" by althalus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  21. Re:No privacy for public officials! by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 4, Insightful
    For the greatest part, however, they know months in advance how the charade is going to play out.

    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.
  22. Re:No privacy for public officials! by thelaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  23. Re:Just got my ACLU membership renewal in the mail by demachina · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Hello, these aren't the self-appointed managers of the world any more than the DNC delegates were."

    Well actually yes they are. They currently have complete control of the U.S. government with the exception of the courts which take longer to stack. They are running the worlds sole remaining superpower, no longer checked by the U.S.S.R, they are running the world's largest military by far, and a big chunk of the world's economy. They have declared a policy of preemptive warfare which means any nation that crosses the U.S. is a now a potential military target, remember "You are either with us or your agaist us". The U.S. has troops in something around a hundred countries now. How much more of an empire do you need.

    The Feds and the city of New York both, run by Republican's are arresting people for nothing more than peaceful protest, you can now be stopped on the street or in a subway station and searched without cause. The Republican's, with Democrat collusion, through the Patriot Act have given themselves the right to see what you read at the library, and arrest a Librarian for not keeping this intrusion secret, or to engage in sneak and peak invasions of your home where they will break and enter to get in to your home, rumage through your things and don't have to show you the warrant or tell you they were there.

    They've created a no fly list that is preventing people from traveling because they have names resembling a terroris name or alias, and has in fact been used to keep anti war and anti bush activist from flying. They've made numerous attempts to use computers and mergin of private and government databases to trace every recorded aspect of every persons life. The President just signed an executive order starting the merge of the CIA, the NSA, the DIA. The prospects are high the NSA's massive spying power will be applied against American's, so we can now empathize with the rest of the world, and we will no doubt see a spying agency large and more powerful than any the world has ever seen, with all of the checks against abuse abandoned in the name of "safety".

    I'm sorry but it is pretty hard to shed a tear over this litte intrusion in to the privacy of the Republican party's top echelon considering the extent to which their leaders are demolishing everyone else's rights and privacy.

    "What exactly leads you to believe the republican party has a "platform of racisism"?"

    Its not a platform since that entails that it be stated, obvious and public and that is politically impossible in these politically correct times.

    But it is an obvious fact under a thin facade. You really don't have to look any further than crowd shots of the the people in the RNC. It is a sea of white faces. There are a few Asians, a few Hispanics, and a very few token blacks but it is obvious to anyone not wearing blinders that it is a party of white people for white people, especially affluent white protestants. My dad is a die hard Republican, more than a little rascist, and he would never dream of supporting the Democrats because to him they are the party of blacks, gays, trial lawyers and labor unions.

    The rascist undercurrent in the Republican party was amplified in the mid sixties when LBJ rammed through the Civil Rights Act. When he did it he told Bill Moyers he feared he was giving the South to the Republicans for a long time to come and he was dead right. When LBJ gave blacks their rights back and put an end to segregation most of the segregationist Democrats jumped ship and landed in the waiting arms of the Republican party and its a key reason they have a lock on the South today. The Democrats in the South were the rascist party before the Civil Rights Act. Now its the Republicans though its obviously somewhat muted compared to the '50s and '60s.

    You just need to look some of the Republican parties leading Southern luminaries. Halley Barbour, Trent Lott and Bob Barr have all been linked to segragationists and white supremecists.

    As you may re

    --
    @de_machina
  24. Re:Hunters are pro Endagered Species Act by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  25. Gotta love this by Performer+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  26. Re:Hunters are pro Endagered Species Act by bryanp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's go through this a line at a time.

    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 .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.


    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
  27. Re:The real test of whether its intimidation or no by crush · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  28. Self Righteous a bit ? by bmajik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  29. Re:Indymedia doesn't keep IP logs. by mcelrath · · Score: 4, Insightful
    As I write, hundreds of people from the war resistors league march are being arrested, without a dispersal order or any charges.
    It has become common practice for police to arrest any group they basically don't like for political reasons. They never have a real charge and are released 24 hours later. As a consequence, they are off the street, unable to distribute their political message. This is a first ammendment violation.

    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.
  30. one word.... by SethJohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful



    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.

  31. Uh, uh, I know that one! by PontifexPrimus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.