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"

Comments

The real test of whether its intimidation or not

[Anonymous Coward]

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

what the heck?

[BoldAC]

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)

Re:what the heck?

[LordNimon]

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.

Re:what the heck?

[drinkypoo]

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

And you don't think the reps know this?

Re:what the heck?

[thelaw]

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

Re:what the heck?

[killjoe]

"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".

Re:what the heck?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been said before, and I really don't care.. But here's the obligatory:

Where are GWB's service records? Medicals? Flight logs? Why can't anyone be found that served in the same unit as him?

When people call him a 'deserter' it isn't because they think he joined the Guard to dodge the draft, they say it because they believe he joined the Guard, skipped a physical because he was snorting coke and went AWOL. Now, I don't have jack-shit to back those accusations, but that's what I've seen thrown around for a *LONG* time now.

In any case, the aforementioned 'missing' records would quiet a lot of screaming howls from the rabid-left.

Re:what the heck?

[mrfunnypants]

Give tax breaks to the rich?

When are you guys going to stop sprouting this nonsense? This is a complete lie and it's not going to work to continue to try and lie. All the media knows this is true, but they sensationalize to get money. Here is the truth from the CBO report itself.

Let's take a look at how the 'transfer' is going.

The Richest Americans
According to the CBO report, the top 20 percent of income earners would have paid 64.0 percent of federal taxes in 2004 without the Bush tax cuts. As it is, with the Bush cuts, they will pay 'only' 63.5 percent. And what happens in 2005? The top earners would have paid 64.0 percent of federal taxes but now, because of this egregious 'transfer,' will pay only 64.3 percent (no sic!), which to our reading looks like an increase in tax burden.

The proportion of federal taxes that will be paid by the top 20 percent of earners is higher under the Bush tax cuts from 2005 through 2010, according to the CBO report that Reuters purportedly cites. From 2011 through 2014, as far into the future as the report projects, the top 20 percent of earners will pay, under the Bush tax cuts, the same proportion of federal taxes that they would have without the Bush tax cuts.

Middle Class Families
Now let's look at the middle 20 percent of earners. In 2004, they would have paid 10.4 percent of federal taxes without the Bush cuts. With the cuts, they will pay 10.5 percent of federal taxes. Note, however, that because of the cuts, the federal tax burden for the middle 20 percent of earners dropped from 16.5 percent to 14.6 percent. In other words, these earners are paying a slight bit more of federal taxes, but a lot less in federal taxes. In other words, their taxes were cut.

The proportion of federal taxes that will be paid by the middle 20 percent of earners is slightly higher (one-tenth of a percent) in 2004 and 2006. The proportion of federal taxes that will be paid by the middle 20 percent of earners is lower in 2005, 2008, 2009, and 2012. It is unchanged in the other years through 2014, as far into the future as the CBO report projects.

To Summarize
From 2005 to 2010, the tax cuts that Reuters reports have "transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families" raise the comparative tax burden for the richest Americans and lower the burden, a bit, for middle-class families.

You want to check the information, here is the link:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequen ce =0

Please stop with this lying it only makes you look stupid.

As for the civil liberties, I would argue both sides do an equally well job on that issue.

Re:what the heck?

[Darby]

In any case, the aforementioned 'missing' records would quiet a lot of screaming howls from the rabid-left.

About a month ago, the pentagon admitted they had the records. There is no recordof Bush being paid during that time, there is no record of him showing up for duty for a year.

There are no more "missing" records.

Re:what the heck?

[Shinmizu]

Hmm, I guess that means the US should have started over in the early 1800's.

Re:what the heck?

[beni1207]

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 might not vote for her because of her ideas, but I'd be tempted to just because she's way hotter than any of the other people I have to look at while following the political news.

Re:what the heck?

[Reziac]

From http://home.comcast.net/~sharonday7/Presidents/AP0 603.htm

***********************
20. Presidents who are related to other presidents. [genealogy]

Presidents known to be related to other presidents (updated for 2001) [BPL 7]:

George W. Bush - 16 at least
Franklin Roosevelt - 16 other presidents
William Howard Taft -14
Calvin Coolidge -14
Gerald Ford -14
Millard Fillmore -11
Richard Nixon -10
Grover Cleveland -9
Herbert Hoover -9
Benjamin Harrison -8
John Quincy Adams -7
Rutherford Hayes -7
Ulysses Grant -6
Franklin Pierce -5
James Garfield -5
Warren Harding -5
John Adams -4
William Henry Harrison -4
Theodore Roosevelt -4
Jimmy Carter -4
George Washington -3
James Madison -2
Martin Van Buren -2
John Tyler -2
Zachary Taylor -2
Abraham Lincoln -2

The close relatives were:

John Adams, father of John Quincy Adams
George Bush, father of George W. Bush
William Henry Harrison, grandfather of Benjamin Harrison
James Madison, second cousin to Zachary Taylor
Theodore Roosevelt 5th cousin to Franklin D. Roosevelt
****************

The fact is that people in power tend to be related to other people in power, regardless of the era. Congressional genealogies are doubtless even more fun...

No privacy for public officials!

[chrispyman]

Seems to me like an obvious abuse of power. I mean, sure, it's an obvious privacy invasion to the delegates there, but they're public officials! Public officals can't and shouldn't expect alot of privacy simply because the people the represent need to be able to contact them.

Now on the other hand, things like this are probably the reason as to why many message boards (Slashdot included) only store logs for a day or two. You can suponea what doesn't exist anymore!

Re:No privacy for public officials!

[syrinje]

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.

Re:No privacy for public officials!

[Dachannien]

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.

Re:No privacy for public officials!

[xsupergr0verx]

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.

Re:No privacy for public officials!

[althalus]

"Republicans in charge of all three branches of government"

You're joking, right?
First, the judicial branch. That should be enough, despite how hard certain politicians try and make it partisan (filibustering any nomination from an opposing party is just dirty), it should be separate.

As for the legislature, the numbers are close, and always switching around. And besides, look at the number that actually vote purely on party (a bad stance anyways). Claiming any party actually owns is a joke.

Executive. So the Republicans are in right now. The democrats were in last time. It switches around a lot, and if you for some reason think there is a massive conspiracy keeping any single party in power, you really need a dose of reality.

Re:No privacy for public officials!

[xsupergr0verx]

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.

Re:No privacy for public officials!

[e9th]

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

Re:No privacy for public officials!

[kfg]

...after all the children must be secured.

I don't need the government to secure children, thank you very much. I've got duct tape.

KFG

Re:No privacy for public officials!

[xsupergr0verx]

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.)

Re:No privacy for public officials!

[CaptainCarrot]

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.

Re:No privacy for public officials!

[CaptainCarrot]

And since I'm already being modded down for the simple act of disagreeing with your forcefully, I should point out that the NC in RNC and DNC, in this context, stand for "National Convention", not "National Committee". In other words, these aren't the people in the "smoke-filled room" that are being exposed here. It's the guys on the convention floor with the funny hats and noisemakers.

The party national committees have members, not delegates, and (if you RTFA) there aren't 1600 of them. You're right that they generally set the agendas for the parties. But that's not what this is about. Pay better attention next time.

Re:No privacy for public officials!

[thelaw]

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

Re:No privacy for public officials!

[drtomaso]

...after all the children must be secured.

I don't need the government to secure children, thank you very much. I've got duct tape.

Funny, I was about to post the same exact comment.

- Michael Jackson

Re:No privacy for public officials!

[xsupergr0verx]

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.

Uhh I don't get it ...

[(54)T-Dub]

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:

Re:Uhh I don't get it ...

[kfg]

2. Why is simply posting it illegal?

Because we live in times when if some guy hits you for wearing a "Bush/War/Starbucks/Episode 2 Sucks!" T-Shirt, instead of him being arrested for assault you will be arrested for inciting a riot.

KFG

Re:Uhh I don't get it ...

[xplenumx]

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.

Re:Uhh I don't get it ...

[MarkPNeyer]

The possible benefit they're looking for is to have a bunch of people harrassing the republican delegates. Remember when 'Bruce Almighty' came out, and there was that big flap because Bruce's beeper showed 'God's' phone number, and a bunch of idiots called up the number and asked for God? I'm sure that's the intended goal - if a bunch of kooks have start calling your house or driving by and spooking you out, most likely it'll give you second thoughts about participating in the GOP convention again.

That said, I don't think this reflects badly on anbody except the people who posted those addresses - I'm sure if the same thing were done by a republican group, you'd have a bunch of nuts calling to pester the democrat convention goers. It just makes the indymedia people look like a bunch of jerks

If there's anything I'm sick of in this country it's people acting like their party has a monopoly on good virtues, good values, and the truth. Is it that unlikely that the vast majority of us really do love this country, and that we just disagree on how it should be run?

Re:Uhh I don't get it ...

[ivan256]

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.

Re:Uhh I don't get it ...

[Otter]

OK, it's not to harass -- it's to "track delegates" and "keep them under control"!

Look, I realize this moron isn't John Wilkes Booth, just a Starbucks cashier with a Che Guevara t-shirt and wet dreams of bloody Maoist grandeur. But let's at least be honest about what he's nursing fantasies of.

As it happens, the legality of posting names and addresses without any explicit call to violence has been debated for decades, with a major Supreme Court decision arguing for its protection just a year or two ago. But I don't for a second believe that this sort of thing is a core civil liberty, not a possibly protected bit of scumminess on the edge of free speech.

Re:Uhh I don't get it ...

[ivan256]

classified by groups that are stereotypically oppressed (or think they are anyway...)

Just as a preemptive clarification: That comment doesn't mean that any of the people in any of those hypothetical lists are/aren't oppressed, but that not everybody who thinks they're oppressed actually is, and you don't have to actually be oppressed to be intimidated.

Re:Uhh I don't get it ...

[JLyle]

Right... because if it's shown in a John Carrey movie that obviously means it'll be the first thing to happen in real life. That's precisely why John Carrey is a specialist in infantile slapstick comedy.

"Bruce Almighty" is a Jim Carrey movie. You probably wrote John Carrey because you were thinking of the similar-sounding John Kerry, a different specialist in infantile slapstick comedy.

Re:Uhh I don't get it ...

[Dachannien]

Just to help out a bit:

http://www-cse.stanford.edu/classes/cs201/projects /nuremberg-files/

well it was sort of a questionable thing to do...

[corporatewhore]

wasn't it ? isn't this a little over the line...?

For those interested.

[xenostar]

NYC protest radio http://radio.socialtechnology.net/listen.html

Speaking out...

[dmayle]

Don't forget, don't post here, or you'll be hassled too...

...Doh!

I heard...

[craenor]

Steve Jackson Games did it.

In corporate america

[russint]

Secret service logs YOU

Re:In corporate america

[Scoria]

Hey, you aren't too far off. ;-)

Contact Info?

[gavinroy]

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?

Re:Contact Info?

[syrinje]

Different rules apply to ordinary citizens and the powerful. Even if they all belong to the same political party. Ever wondered why the NRA doesnt kick up a stink when its members can't carry their guns (yeah the ones you have to pry their cold dead fingers off of) to the Republican convention where they will nomnate a hunting shooting prez candidate? Cuz the NRA knows which side of its bread is buttered.

Similarly, the common man's information is visible to the TLA agencies and not the other way around - you nee dto be monitored for your own protection - remember the baby monitors? This is the adult version.

Of course it was stupid of the posters to publish what was not really public domain information, but that is a separate bowl of pickled herring altogether.

Re:Contact Info?

[gavinroy]

So you're saying they're hiding from the secret service? If so, that's just silly because one court order could open up the records of the registrar as to who purchased the domain. The implication of my post was that they hide who they are from the general public while publishing personal contact information for individual citizens under the context of free speech and that our society is under Uncle Sam's boot when it comes to privacy. That what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. If they published other peoples home contact information, why won't the publish their own?

Because they know what they did was wrong, that they are criminals, and they violated peoples privacy. Because they know those people will be pissed. Because they know that they are intellectually dishonest.

Indymedia doesn't keep IP logs.

[temojen]

For exactly this reason.

You can listen to streams of the RNC protest news Here (Portland IMC) and Here (A-Noise)

As I write, hundreds of people from the war resistors league march are being arrested, without a dispersal order or any charges.

Re:Indymedia doesn't keep IP logs.

[mcelrath]

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

Re:Indymedia doesn't keep IP logs.

[mcelrath]

Did I just read that correctly? In the United States of America you must have a permit to protest?

yes.

Worse, at the conventions they are quarantining people with differing opinions in a "Free Speech Zone" that is away from the convention, away from cameras and the eyes of delegates.

Make no mastake, America is not the bastion of freedom and democracy that we claim to be. And by claiming to be such, George W. Bush is a rather large hypocrite.

-- Bob

Logs

[savagedome]

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.

Well, you have to admit it's not really "fair"

[BTWR]

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.

if it were flipped around

[ChipMonk]

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!

absolutely wrong

[SethJohnson]

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.

Re:absolutely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

These people aren't representing anyone other than people who CHOOSE to be in Republican Party. There's no requirement for anyone to be represented by them. If I start writing posts on Slashdot representing the views of my friends, should I have my information published?

Re:absolutely wrong

[rd_syringe]

You can opt-out of being listed in the phone book. These people weren't given a choice.

Re:absolutely wrong

[SethJohnson]

The phone book for your town is not likely printed in your town. The people publishing your phone book probably live in a different town where their number may or may not be listed.

I was responding to the assertion that in order to publish information about a public campaign official the publisher must make the same information available.

Actually this is a free speech issue. Does free speech cover the right to anonymity? That's still being hashed out in the courts through many test cases. Groups like EPIC and the ACLU have supported the concept of anonymous free speech. From EPIC's site:

Appeals Court Upholds Anonymous Online Speech. In the first appellate decision to address the issue, a New Jersey appeals court has established stringent procedural and evidentiary standards that must be met before the identity of an anonymous online poster can be disclosed through litigation. Those protections have long been urged by EPIC and other public interest groups. The court recognized the constitutional right to communicate anonymously and refused to order the identification of a "John Doe" speaker who had posted comments on a Yahoo! message board.

Arguments against Indymedia printing this information without revealing the author are arguments against anonymous free speech.

Re:absolutely wrong

[Performer Guy]

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.

How data is used?

[usefool]

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.

Re:How data is used?

[Detritus]

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?

Re:How data is used?

[ChipMonk]

Perhaps not welcomed by the city residents. But the website was intended to reach people all over the country, if not all the world, inviting them to go to NYC and create trouble for the delegates.

And since a quick glance at IndyMedia's website shows nothing about the beating of the cop yesterday, I can only assume they are giving the perps tacit approval. Of course, if the situation were turned around, and a Christian Coalition member were the would-be cop-killer, IndyMedia would immediately demand that the GOP, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Catholic Church disavow these horrible tactics.

Re:How data is used?

[maximilln]

Why is this insightful? This is flamebait.

The KKK is a convicted aggressive violent organization.

Anti-RNC coalitions most often stage political action. This rarely involves any sort of physical violence but most often in private attorneys investigating campaign contributions and mapping networks of individuals who are working together to defraud taxpayers.

As usual, though, since your only concept of political protest is violent then it's obvious that everyone's idea of political protest is violent.

Free Speech Was A Terrorist Victim

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Free Speech Was A Terrorist Victim

[deacon]

Bzzzttt!!!

Wrong.

Thanks for playing.

The people getting attacked in the protests are those who dare to disagree with the party line of the "Peace" and "Anti-War" crowd.

I am talking about the Protest Warrior people that were attacked by "Patriots" in NYC.

Link goes to video of the attack.

The brave reader can also google for the urine filled balloons that "Peace Loving" protesters threw at police.

Yuck.

Re:Free Speech Was A Terrorist Victim

[killjoe]

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.

cryptome has the delegate info.

[Anonymous Coward]

john young, doing what he does best:

http://cryptome.org

this line is just filler

as is this one.

All the facts.

[TheLoneCabbage]

This guy hacked the ProtestWarrior website and stole the info. It wasn't just delagets it was people registered at PW. Private emails, phone numbers, names addresses. Furthermore posted that information to the world on IndyMedia with the full aproval of it's editing staff. Then suggested that people call and harrass everyone on the list.

I don't give a @#$% what your political offiliation is that is wrong. It is violation of PW servers with intent to do harm. It is violation of their covenant of privacey with their members. It is harasment of people because of their beliefs.

It's one thing to protest, it's another to make personal attacks.

We have secret ballot in America for a reason!

I'll see you all at the polls Nov 2nd!

Re:All the facts.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:All the facts.

[TheLoneCabbage]

RTFP!

They didn't just steel delgates info they stole personal information about citizens who support Bush.

And guess what? Your NOT fair game! I do NOT have the right to harass you. I do NOT have the right to publish your personal info and suggest to others to harass you. I do NOT have the right to endorse, encourage, or enable those who wish to harass you. Otherwise I would go to jail!

So if "They're just as fair game as [you]", then they are NOT fair game.

PS. Don't sweat the bill of rights. It's difficult to amend the constitution for a reason.

Re:All the facts.

[TheLoneCabbage]

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!

EEK!

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years back, a *friend* got me a membership in the RNC for my birthday.

Does this mean that if I download this list I can sue myself for harrassment?

Re:EEK!

[jrossi02]

I bet you were somewhat worried when Christmas came around...

Re:EEK!

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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.

Idiot

[GreenCrackBaby]

If you had bothered to read the ACLU page linked, you would have seen that the information that was posted is publicly available.

Re:Idiot

[StalinsNotDead]

the information that was posted is publicly available

I don't think the Secret Service is interested in the fact that information was made easily available, but rather, the intent of the people for which the information ws made easily available.

If it's public knowledge that the sole intent was to harrass and intimidate those who's information was posted, then the secret service (or whomever) should try to track those rabblerousers down.

Re:Idiot

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I wouldn't put it past the Republicans to release their own information anonymously and then blame the Democrats for "hacking".

Re:Idiot

[KingPunk]

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.
:)

Re:Idiot

[kikta]

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.

"Shut down the RNC!"

[flinxmeister]

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.

Re:"Shut down the RNC!"

[crush]

Indymedia might have a good agenda in there somewhere, but it will be overshadowed by their efforts to silence those who disagree with them.

"Indymedia" isn't trying to silence anyone. They're trying to make everyone heard unless that person explicitly violates their publisihing guidelines by publishing blatantly false, racist, sexist or homophobic material. The posts referred to don't fall under any of the above categories so they're not censoring them.

Seems like an admirable stance to me.

Don't confuse the content on Open Publishing sites with the opinions of those that run it.

They're not necessarily public officials.

[VT_hawkeye]

Not solely by virtue of being delegates, anyway. The only definitive statement you can make is that these people were selected by (generally) the members of a political party to participate in ITS process for choosing a presidential election nominee, and that can be as private a process as the party wants it to be. The public gets its say in the general election (yes, I know there are exceptions, notably Louisiana and Virginia).

Some of them probably are public officials (it's reasonably likely that if your Senator or Congressman is a Republican, s/he is there; some delegates also may be local office holders), but many others are like this girl, private, politically interested, citizens who do not hold elected office.

The posting of their personal info is an invasion of privacy, but that's not why the DoJ is involved. They're involved because of the threats to the safety of these individuals just a few clicks away on the site in question.

Indymedia

[cozziewozzie]

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. :-(

Re:Indymedia

[poot_rootbeer]

Indymedia is one of the few remaining grassroots information outlets left on the internet, free from corporate money, sleaziness and lies.

They have their own money, sleaziness and lies -- they don't need corporate support.

Several weeks ago there were reports on Indymedia that police forces in my city were harassing homeless people for assembling peaceably. Yes, language such as "harassment" was used, language which has specific and negative meaning legally and in the pit of one's stomach.

Only problem is, the police were right and the homeless were wrong. They were trying to establish a shantytown on an empty lot, perhaps assuming it was abandoned, but when the owner of the lot was informed what was going on he confirmed that they had no right to be there. They were trespassing.

Consider how you'd feel if a panhandler set up shop on your front porch. Would you ask the police to remove them? Would you want that panhandler recounting the incident on Indymedia and calling you a fascist?

Re:Indymedia

[sploxx]

Speaking as a rather left-wing european, I must say that indymedia isn't an "information outlet". They only spread their opinion. Really. From what I have read, I'm disappointed and also ashamed because their view of the world is rather primitive.

"News" about leftist "anti-fascism" riots, anti nuclear and anti biotech.

No, thanks.

Two things:

[Goldmund]

1) What is the Justice Department doing about the harrassment of Black Voting Leagues in Florida? If the answer (which I suspect it is) is "nothing" than this a clear case of government being used in a partisan and heavy-handed manner. It's also racist and classist. 2) I don't know about your state, but the Georgia GOP's website already lists already lists their delegates as well as the alternates for all to see. Just plug the name into Switchboard and you can get their addresses. Conclusion? This is a disingenuous, partisan, racist, classist abuse of the Justice Department. Someone else want to argue that point?

Re:Two things:

[Dachannien]

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.

Re:Two things:

[Goldmund]

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.

Abuse of registered voters' information by the State of Florida vs. abuse of registered delegates' information of the RNC by a bunch of independent, unaffiliated individuals.

You see what gets investigated?

I don't have to use labels like 'racist' and 'classist' to make the DoJ seem more 'evil' than they already are. If you're paying attention, the press releases they put out take care of that. I just use the labels because they fit. An abuse of personal information involving minorities is ignored while an 'abuse' of the personal information of RNC delegates is investigated post-haste.

And then somebody mods you interesting? I'd lean more toward funny, myself.

I'm glad you think that intimidation of minority voters is 'funny.'

Isn't there a mod around here for people who bitch about mods?

Re:Well, you have to admit it's not really "fair"

[maximilln]

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.

Goverment control

[el_jake]

Back in the old days Americans was free and liberated; nowadays it seems we Europeans are a little freer as in beer.
The government is controlled by the people for the people in the spirit of democracy.
USA is on the way to become more like a totalitarian state where the people are controlled by there government - the fusion of all intelligence department services would indeed speed this up.

I however do trust that the legal systems will protect the individual citizens from being gagged all the time.

So you think it's not about intimidation?

[fahrvergnugen]

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.

While I haven't had a chance....

[tweek]

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.

Whatever happened

[xombo]

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.

In diverse rest-of-the-world

[arose]

NSA logs YOU.

What does it mean...

[Goldmund]

when they publish it themselves?

Re:What does it mean...

[mlyle]

I don't see any home addresses, phone numbers, etc. in that list. Where is it?

It's interesting...

[_Potter_PLNU_]

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.

Say your mother is a Republican...

[Invisible Now]

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!

"One of the few remaining grassroots info outlets"

[VT_hawkeye]

"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.

Re:Well, you have to admit it's not really "fair"

[althalus]

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.

Help, Help ... we're being supressed.

[Nept]

"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.

Just got my ACLU membership renewal in the mail

[jgoemat]

Just got my ACLU membership renewal in the mail and I won't be re-upping. I'm all for freedom of speech and the press. However, I'm also for the right to privacy. I can't understand why the ACLU will fight for a guy that doesn't want to give his identification just to travel on a plane (which I agree with) yet protect these people whose sole intent is to harass people involved in our democratic process. If you don't think this is intended as harassment, read the web page:

At the 2004 Republican National Convention, the self-appointed managers of the world will be discussing their party platform of racism, imperialism and the violent suppression of human liberty. They will proudly renominate the unelected president of an illegitimate government.

And here are their objectives:

Our objectives are to:
- Supply anti-RNC groups with data on the delegates to use in whatever way they see fit.
- Supply a body of information that can be easily added to.
- Encourage the republishing and redistribution of this data.
- Facilitate making local connections. Many of these delegates are involved in politics and business on a town or county level.

And the comment at the end says it all:

Shut down the RNC!

Hello, these aren't the self-appointed managers of the world any more than the DNC delegates were. What exactly leads you to believe the republican party has a "platform of racisism"? The fact that they don't want white (and black) Americans to pay for the sins of some of their great-great-great grandfathers with reparations? The fact that they believe that getting a job should be based on merit and not the color of one's skin?

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.

Re:Just got my ACLU membership renewal in the mail

[demachina]

"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

micro-HOWTO: anonymous logging

[Yeb]

Admins, here's a few tweaks you can make to your configs to protect the privacy of your users.

Apache
======
In httpd.conf:

LogFormat "noip - - %t \"%r\" %>s %b \"%{Referer}i\" \"%{User-Agent}i\" %T %V" noip
CustomLog /var/log/httpd/access_log noip

This will keep the format of the logs the same as the default, but instead of
having an IP in the logs it will read "noip". The logs can still be processed by
programs such as webalizer.

Squid
=====
In squid.conf add:

client_netmask 0.0.0.0

pure-ftpd
=========
When compiling, run ./configure using --without-iplogging

Indymedia did not do this

[br00tus]

I see several posts here saying Indymedia did this, Indymedia posted the names. Indymedia did NOT post the names. Indymedia is like Slashdot, ANYONE can post. Blaming Indymedia for something a poster said would be like saying CmdrTaco was supporting what some anonymous Slashdot poster said, or blaming the Usenet cabal for a posting by some anonymous Usenet poster. I just wanted to make this clear as several people have said here that Indymedia took this position. I don't think they understand what Indymedia is. Yesterday I read through a dozen posts by people who hate the protestors on the nyc.indymedia.org site. nyc.indymedia.org is in many ways just like Slashdot in terms of anonymous posters and so forth. They can't be blamed for every bozo that comes along.

Intimidation

[Archangel Michael]

'[t]he only intimidation taking place here is the Secret Service intimidating people who speak out against the government.'

As a truly impartial observer (Libertarian) the Republicans are not that intimidating. What is intimidating is the leftwingers who are on the verge of losing it. Never have I seen so much ANGER in my life.

It is to the point that people are afraid of them. I am not afraid of the Secret Service, I am afraid of the leftwing wackos and anarchists who see nothing wrong with screaming, yelling, shouting obscenities, and generally being a nuisance. That is okay i guess, since it is LEFTWINGERS doing it.

I think it is funny that the Left wingers cannot handle it when given a taste of their own medicine. http//www.protestwarrior.com

And where where the complaints from these people when FBI files of REPUBLICANS showed up on Hillaries Table? Where, where, where? Must be the old (D) good (R) bad binary logic.

There is enough Hypocricy on BOTH sides, though only the hypocricy of the right ever gets reported.

your posts on slashdot aren't a political platform

[SethJohnson]

As someone who might have chosen to be in the Republican Party, don't you think it might be helpful to be able to contact your delegate before they ratify the party platform or nominate their candidates? In Texas, the GOP ratified its state party platform containing the following planks:

• p.17: "The Party supports the termination of bilingual education programs..."
• p.15: "We call for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education and the prohibition of the transfer of any of its functions to any other federal agency."
• p.10: Celebrating Traditional Marriage calls for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and opposes the legalization of "sodomy" ie homosexuality.
• p. 2 #18: "We oppose the Endangered Species Act."
• p.8, Christian Nation: "The Republican Party of Texas affirms the United States of America is a Christian Nation ..."

Upon finding out that you might agree or disagree with some of these elements, you probably would like to contact your national delegate to urge that person to listen to your input before the national party platform is finalized. The Indymedia list seems to be a valuable reference for doing so.

if republicans did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if a bunch of republicans got a bunch of addresses and phone numbers and names of African-American voters posted them on the internet then recommended that people go and taunt and protest and make angry phone calls all to stop these people from voting i think i would be very angry as well as most of the county..

but this is all "legal" in terms of freedom and political speach....i am on the wall on this. I am a member of the aclu but I am not so sure they should be supporting this attack on the gop deligates.

stendec@gmail.com

Yes

[maynard]

Would you be welcomed at a Kerry event if you were wearing a "Kerry is a dweeb" t-shirt?

Yes:

Bush Events:

President Bush's team exerts close control over admission to his campaign events. Dissenters and would-be hecklers are turned away, campaign officials say. On several occasions in recent weeks, Democrats who have gotten in have been ejected because they wore pro-Kerry T-shirts.

Kerry Events

By contrast, most of Kerry's events are open to the public[...]

Kerry's more open approach carries political risks. Sometimes protesters show up and try to disrupt his appearances. To get across their point that Kerry is a flip-flopper, they often clap flip-flop sandals over their heads, and chant, "Four more years!"

Such dissent is never a problem for Bush.

I think you'd have no touble getting into a public Kerry event wearing that T-Shirt. --M

Re:Yes

[workindev]

Unless, of course, you try to hold up a Anti-abortion sign. If you do that, a Kerry staffer will rip the sign from your arms and tear it to pieces.

Re:Yes

[Aadain2001]

Damn, I wish I had a mod point left so I could mod you +1 insightful or +1 informative.

This is one of the BIGGEST differences between Bush and Kerry. Bush is secretive, paranoid, and doesn't want to see/hear anything that he doesn't like/agree with. Kerry is more open and willing to suffer the chance of hecklers if it means more regular people can have contact with him.

I remember when they both came to my state (Oregon) a few weeks ago. Bush was in some school in Beaverton, which they didn't anounce until like the day before. Only people who where invited could meet with the President. Kerry had a big rally out on the waterfront (downtown Portland, very pretty and lots of room). Everyone could come and meet him. Personally, I want a President that will accessible to the people and not so paranoid about something bad happening that he has no real contact with the people he is supposed to represent.

the main point is...

[zogger]

...the crybabies in the stupid party love to have all sorts of lists THEMSELVES, but when THEY wind up on a list, they cry foul. This is THE most repressive, restrictive, scary administration I can remember going back to eisenhower, JFK clearer for me. Makes noxon and his crew of scumbags look like amateur stick up artists. Makes the last crew of crooked texans around LBJ look like choir boys, and those were some crooked mofos. You got people right now in that party and their media spokesweasels like michael savage and on their online activist forums openly calling for concentration camps and federal charges for "protesters" and calling for outright genocide against all islamic people. You got ashcroft actually pushing for the camps, and I can tell you, at least a few of them already exist, and we got more coming. Ye GADS the patriot act 1 and 2 are signed into law reality and we actually have a thing called DAS HOMELAND security. what more of a clue do you need? And if they don't get their way, they are gonna pull another bigtime phony terror attack like the one they pulled on 9-11, but this time it will be hardcore, not fooling around. These are dangerous, insane, megalomaniacal feudalists, this is the big push, all the way, hardball, going for the gold for them. They and their policies are the height of hypocrisy. At lower levels then federal, it's a different ballgame, they still got a lot of decent people, but even there, way more party loyalty than NATION loyalty, and believe me, if you ain't with them, you are a terrorist, they even said it out loud. At the top leadership levels and in the federal party level, nope, mostly fascists, and they are actively pursuing an ever increasing fascistics government. This is NO JOKE. These people are right this second getting away with mega scam 9-11, they are killing people all over the planet, co opting our own guys, disappearing people, running freeking death squads, and they got a bunch more wars planned, just waiting for an opportune time to start them. The one in iran will start once they provoke the iraninans enough to attack them "first". They are waiting until after the election to restart up the draft, and they ARE going to do it. They are blatantly, clearly, and with zero scientific evidence to the contrary using WMD in the form of DU rounds and spreading it all over the middle east, and got factories on triple time building more. They are deploying the planets most sophisticated "anti riot" alleged "less than lethal" weapons, designed for controlling masses of civilians. They have been running house to house training in gun confiscation. They have more or less taken over vast numbers of local police stations with dual badged cops. You got the head goofball who's family has clear and distinct business ties to bin laden and tangentially with saddam with monkey brains cabinet goofs, and the controlled media refuses to address this. We had a fresh zogby poll released yesterday that shows the majority of new yorkers think 9-11 was a scam,and that the whitewash commission was a joke and it needs to be reinvestigated by someone other than the fed perps who pulled it off, and you ain't seeing that poll on any of the mass media outlets, it's only on some websites and on the shortwave shows.

This is a big dangerous reichstagg fire type scam, those folks thinking this is some normal "open and honest" election coming with diebold machines or that these are normal times are just not paying attention, this is freeking germany circa mid 30's, heading for the home stretch.

The rest of the story...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a bit more than just publishing the names of the delegates. The web page said:

"All are encouraged to help out this campaign in any way they can. Deface websites, flood email servers, cause financial disruption, change electronic billboards. Turn the system over and put the people on top. Hacktivists of the world, unite!

What will be happening?

August 22nd - Day of online direct action a week before the convention begins. All are encouraged to attack as many right-wing, corporate, government or military sites as possible. Web defacements, email attacks, financial disruption, anything and everything. These attacks will be used to stir discussion of the RNC, encourage people to participate in the protests in NYC itself, and to build for the mainstream electronic sit-in on the 29th.

August 29 - September 2nd - Mainstream electronic sit-in while the RNC is in session. The actions will commence on noon of each day. The protests will utilize a wide diversity of tactics including email, web, fax and phone disruption. The logistical details of this campaign are included in this document below.

Who are we flooding?

The email addresses, fax numbers, and phone numbers listed below are various contacts of the Republican National Committee and the official George W. Bush re-election staff."

Then they provided the urls to websites to get dos tools, and lists of websites, fax and phone numbers, and the names and emails of Republican delegates and the hotels where they will be staying.

Re:your posts on slashdot aren't a political platf

[jhunsake]

Of all that you posted, this is the only one I disagree with:

p. 2 #18: "We oppose the Endangered Species Act."

That's enough to kill my vote for Bush. It's also enough to kill my vote for Kerry. (For those of you who haven't been paying attention, BOTH Bush and Kerry are pro-hunters/sportsmen.)

It's a sad day when one's only choice is to vote "no confidence", and even that has to be a write-in.

Re:Delegates and Abortion Doctors

[zygut]

What the protesters are doing is materially no different than what the Nuremberg Files (more info at religioustolerance.org [religioustolerance.org]) did to abortion doctors, judges, politicians, spouses, etc. Was it legal? Sure. Public information. But it still wasn't right, it was meant to enable harrassment, and it's the same thing the protesters are doing.

Two critical differences between this and the Nuremberg Files:

1. The doctors information that was being posted in the Nuremberg case are private citizens, the RNC delegates are public citizens with their information registered and available with the state (and hey, pictures and diaries on their website!).

2. The Nuremberg information was put up with explicit incitement to murder, bomb and kill the doctors and their place of work, that is not how these things were published - they were published with the instructions that this is where people are going to be if you want to protest them.

The ACLU won the case against the abortion crackpots in the Nuremburg case, they are working on this case as well, I think they know exactly what they are doing and how this is different.

Re:Indymedia did not do this - but did allow it

[br00tus]

There are dozens of Indymedias - in South America, in Asia, in Europe, in the US. Each site can use whatever software it wants, with many using one of three popular software kits they developed. Each has its own policies as well. I can't recall nyc.indymedia.org deleting any messages. They do hide messages sometimes, but in that respect it is like Slashdot, you can view the -1 trolls if you wish. Of course, some other Indymedia locals have more draconian rules with deletions, banning and so forth. Each local is autonomous.

As far as illegal info on Slashdot, please. Like there weren't 1,000,000 links on Slashdot to how to get Windows source code when that was illegally released. And that is similar to Indymedia - the information was not released from Indymedia from what I understand, it was on various places on the net so someone posted it to Indymedia. It might not have even been the person who originally had gotten their hands on the data.

I'm just trying to separate the facts from the opinions. I don't want people who know nothing of Indymedia thinking the people who run it are the ones who decided to post this info of their own volition. They did not have a meeting and say lets post this info, it was just put up there. You can have an opinion on what they should do at that point, but they are coming in at step 2, they were not the protagonist at step 1.

Speak out against the government?

[gordgekko]

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.

Hunters are pro Endagered Species Act

[SethJohnson]

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. 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.

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.

Re:Hunters are pro Endagered Species Act

[Firethorn]

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.

Re:Hunters are pro Endagered Species Act

[bryanp]

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.

Re:Hunters are pro Endagered Species Act

[SethJohnson]

And what's so unfortunate about the pro-gun voting block? I happen to be one of them.

I apologize for the slant of that comment. I did not mean to speak derisively of people that are pro-guns. I am pro-guns. I think it's unfortunate that it's a strong voting block because, as I was mentioning, I think the gun issue is used to manipulate voters. I think the Democratic threat to guns is exagerrated by the Republicans. I have friends who are liberal wackos and very rarely do they talk about how they want to see guns banned. That seems to be at the absolute bottom of the 'liberal agenda' from what I can tell. But for many Republicans, defense of the second ammendment seems to be at the top of their agenda. It would be great if the two groups could get together and recognize they aren't as divided as they thought on this issue. From there, they could unite to campaign on more important issues like protecting our forests and wetlands which are enjoyed by both groups in different ways.

Re:Hunters are pro Endagered Species Act

[ajna]

It sounds like you are a libertarian, not a conservative. Vote appropriately.

Libertarian Party: http://www.lp.org/

Re:Hunters are pro Endagered Species Act

[bryanp]

Can I get some linkage on that? Or is it BS? (Specifically the .30-.30 WInchester part)

Sorry, I meant to post a link to that and got in a hurry. First, the exact quote from Kennedy for those who don't feel like reading the Congressional Record which I will link to at the bottom:

"Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

"It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America. Armor-piercing ammunition for rifles and assault weapons is virtually unregulated in the United States. A Federal license is not required to sell such ammunition unless firearms are sold as well. Anyone over the age of 18 may purchase this ammunition without a background check. There is no Federal minimum age of possession. Purchases may be made over the counter, by mail order, by fax, by Internet, and there is no Federal requirement that dealers retain sales records."

--- Senator Edward Kennedy, New York (February 26, 2004, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Congressional Record, (Pp. S1634-5)

This bill would have essentially given the Attorney General the power to ban any ammunition that was capable of penetrating police soft body armor. (For those unfamiliar with the 30-30 caliber it is a popular deer rifle cartridge.) (Presidential candidate, John Kerry, was one of the votes in favor of this bill.)

Link to the Government Printing Office's site listing the relevant section of the Congressional Record:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cg i?position=all&page=S1633&dbname=2004_reco rd

PS - I had problems getting that to show up properly in Mozilla. IE worked fine.

Re:Hunters are pro Endagered Species Act

[Gorobei]

"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."

A nice rant, but it's a .30-30, not a .30-.30. Any real sportsman would know this. Oh, and it's highly unlikely that standard .30-30 would penetrate a modern bullet-proof vest.

Re:Hunters are pro Endagered Species Act

[bluGill]

Two problems: first of all, there are too many deer in the world. In many places if hunters do not kill enough they will litterally eat all their winter food before the winter is over and starve to death! Ask a biologist who knows, it happens. (The whole herd starves, because all the deer eat until they run out, deer aren't smart enough to sacrafice a few so the rest survive)

Second, I like to eat. I like to eat deer in fact, it is generally healthier than beef. (essentially fat free) What difference does it make if I eat deer or a cow? Both are food.

Re:Hunters are pro Endagered Species Act

[mi]

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.

Re:Hunters are pro Endagered Species Act

[ilcylic]

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

Re:Hunters are pro Endagered Species Act

[mOdQuArK!]

The military is less than, I think 3 million strong. And lets not forget that there's a significant portion of the military that isn't combat troops (Air Force and Navy).

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).

Short of nuking the country, the US military wouldn't have a chance.

Yes, nuking large groups of disobedient civilians would be an option for such a military force.

And that doesn't take into account that the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are made up of normal people, someone's brother, sister, mom, dad, and, yes, even grandma or grandpa.

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.

Re:Hunters are pro Endagered Species Act

[ImaLamer]

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)

Hypocrisy-Check Time

[DesScorp]

"...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.

Re:Hypocrisy-Check Time

[Darby]

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.

If there wasn't a vicious attack on his record by people who have all been revealed as liars, he wouldn't have to.
Given that his opponent was a deserter, it shows McCain's lack of integrity in supporting Bush.

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.

Where do you get this crazy horseshit. You seem to think party loyalty is some kind of absolute as well.
Other than in the last election, I have never voted for a Republican *or* for a Democrat. The parties are the major problem as evidenced by McCain.

I respected him because he did serve his country with honor. I respected him because I think he really was trying to clean up with his finance reform act.

I respected him because he seemed to work with people to achieve valid goals regardless of their party.

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?

I respect any elected official who is working for the best of the people of this country. I respect them when they stand up for freedom (not Bush's Orwellian vision of it). I respect them when they stand on the side of We the People and against corporate interests. I have no problem with corporations in general, but when it comes to a choice between my rights and a corporations, I have no respect for anybody who sells me and my country out regardless of which party they are a member of or which one they vote with on a given issue.

I support the second amendment so I must be a Republican.
But I support the separation of church and state since this country was founded in part by Christians who were fleeing oppression by other fucking christians. Then of course they started burning innocent people alive. So it is quite obviously essential that religion can have no voice in the government of a free society.
So I absolutely can't be a Republican since they are the party who wants religious rule.

I know that government has no business of any sort legislating what happens inside my or anybody else's body, so the Republicans are far worse since they desperately want to shove their noses right up everybody's ass.
Both parties are fucked on drug policy.

I believe that some amount of government is necessary to stop some of these crazy fuckers and to prevent corporations from absolutely raping us, so Libertarianism is out too.

So I respect anybody who makes it into office who actually wants to work for freedom, which in this day and age seems to mean they have to work against both of the major parties.

My money says you're calling them sellouts. I'd be willing to bet "respect" and "conviction" is a one way street for you

Again with the accusations when you don't know a damn thing about me.
You are dead wrong.
Again.

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.

Not for one second. He knows he would make a far better president. Given this administration's record, nobody with a scrap of patriotism could support them. They have fought tooth and nail against everything this country claims to stand for.

And the current administration has nothing in common with the Republican platform.
They pay lip service to "small government", while they are increasing it to an incredible degree mortgaging our children's income while driving future income for any but the wealthiest down.

Creating police state agencies led by some of the worst criminals in our nation's history (Poindexter, Rumsfeld et al)

Tearing down our terrorism inv

Re:Hypocrisy-Check Time

[laird]

"I get the impression McCain is about as impressed with John Kerry as he is with a pile of old dogshit in the road."

Your impression would be wrong. McCain and Kerry have been good friends, and have worked together, for years. Note that McCain didn't say _anything_ negative about Kerry in his speec at the RNC convention (unlike all of the other flaming Kerry-bashing).

"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."

Actually, Kerry was in the Navy for four years. He was on combat duty (which he volunteered for) for four months, which is, I guess I have to point out, much MORE than the average; most soldiers never see active combat duty at all.

And he's explained in quite a bit of detail what he would do if elected. There's plenty of detail on http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/. Admittedly the press would rather play "gotcha" than communicate anything of substance, but voters can educate themselves fairly easily. Heck, you're posting on Slashdot, so I _know_ that you could go read Kerry's position papers.

Re:Indymedia did not do this - but did allow it

[cirby]

The sysadmin from the NYC Indymedia site is the one who's under investigation for hacking the Protest Warrior site and disseminating their full mailing list.

In this case, NYC Indy is neck-deep in it, and it's getting deeper.

Gotta love this

[Performer Guy]

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.

Re:wtf is RNC?

[focitrixilous P]

RNC = Republican National Convention. They will offically choose George W. Bush as canidate for president, give speechs on national television, and try to encourage people to vote for their canidates. It's all cermonial, for the most part. Both Democrats and Republicans knew the major nomations well beforehand. Lots of people on the internet feel lots of hatred towards the republican party in general, (It's a miracle no one has tried to kill Bush) so they've posted all the people who get to attend the convention.

No, it is what the heck, to what the heck?

[mrfunnypants]

Discredit the sacrifices of our soldiers?

Uhmm the whole point of the swift vets is to point out that Kerry did this when he came back. He backstabbed his fellow soldiers by saying they committed war crimes, when Kerry had no such evidence. How is this not discrediting the sacrifices of the soldiers during the Vietnam era? On top of that Kerry now uses his service of 4 months as a reason to vote for him, yet since he came back he said he was against his service and the war. If anyone has issues it is your misunderstanding of the facts.

Secondly its convenient to try and say BUSH is connected to this group but where is the evidence. One lawyer is not a smoking gun. On top of that what about Kerry's involvement with moveon.org and all the other 527 groups which his election committee was actively involved with for setting up concerts etc.

The hypocrisy runs thick. It's hard for most people to admit both of these candidates have less than a stellar record to vote for them. The sad part is most people are voting for Kerry only because they hate Bush, so I ask you this one question. What does Kerry stand for? I bet you will be unable to find out because of his unbelievable ability to change his stance on an issue based upon what is appeared to be hot at the time. Frankly I do not want a president who will change his mind because of pressure.

One more thing, I remember so many people saying how great the new campaign finance reform would be and how we needed it to clean up our elections. Why aren't their cries of injustice for the 527 groups? Why hasn't the media made a big deal about this? The intent of the reform law was not so groups, implied to be working with both parties, can spend unlimited money to get the candidates message across. You should also note the rather obvious imbalance between one political party verses another. Wonder if that has anything to do with it.
http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtes.asp?level =C&cycle=2004

This of course doesn't even address the power that has been given to the media due to these laws.

Re:No, it is what the heck, to what the heck?

[Darby]

Uhmm the whole point of the swift vets is to point out that Kerry did this when he came back.

Bullshit.
The whole point is to spread lies and sow dissent.
Only one of those lying bastards even served with Kerry, and he got a medal for his actions *under fire* in the same engagement that he now claims didn't involve any fire.

He backstabbed his fellow soldiers by saying they committed war crimes, when Kerry had no such evidence

If you don't know that the Vietnam war was plagued by atrocities by all sides, then you don't know a damn thing about it and have no place pretending that you do.

On top of that Kerry now uses his service of 4 months as a reason to vote for him, yet since he came back he said he was against his service and the war. If anyone has issues it is your misunderstanding of the facts.

He went.
He saw what a clusterfuck it was and he came home and spoke out against the big fucking lie that we all now know that that war was.
So this demonstrates that he can learn and even change his mind when the evidence overwhelmingly demands it. And the right wing media calls this flip flopping.

I much prefer that to well, we're invading no matter what. Even if we have to make up evidence.
Consistency isn't a good thing when you were wrong to start out with.

Secondly its convenient to try and say BUSH is connected to this group but where is the evidence. One lawyer is not a smoking gun.

Dude, if you don't know his people are neck deep in this you are dumber than a bag of rocks.

Keep in mind, this is the administration that wants to remove all ability for you to find out what the hell they are doing (raping of the FOIA).
They proposed an organization to feed false information to various media services. You probably believe they really didn't set it up when thay had to publically back down.
That is just fucking naive.
They have lied up and down about just about everything since they have been in power.

What does Kerry stand for? I bet you will be unable to find out because of his unbelievable ability to change his stance on an issue based upon what is appeared to be hot at the time. Frankly I do not want a president who will change his mind because of pressure.

Again with this lying horseshit.

When has he changed his mind over pressure? He has changed his mind based on evidence. Bush refuses to change his mind in the face of evidence.

Now you might say that that just sounds like I hate Bush, but that isn't the point. The point is the contrast between these 2 men.

John Kerry stands for freedom. George Bush has done everything in his power to destroy freedom.

John Kerry has demonstrated his courage, Bush has shown only cowardice.

John Kerry stands for a government dedicated to raising all ships with the tide, Bush has actively worked to hold down the regular citizen to raise the richest even higher.

I have yet to hear a Republican come up with anything Bush stands for that is consistent with America, but they *hate* any Democrat.
Why?
They don't even know. All I've ever heard is the same old lies they always spread.

Re:No, it is what the heck, to what the heck?

[True Grit]

Uhmm the whole point of the swift vets is to point out that Kerry did this when he came back. He backstabbed his fellow soldiers by saying they committed war crimes

I call bullshit.

Kerry wasn't making those specific accusations himself, he was reporting what was said by other vets at a VVAW meeting in Detroit earlier that year.

Go here and read his entire testimony (about halfway down the page), not just the excerpts that George Junior's attack dogs want you to hear. For example, the part about crimes being committed on a daily basis? Well, here is how Kerry's testimony starts:

Kerry Senate Testimony (1971): "I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command".

He was just relaying stories he had heard from others. The only backstabbing going on here, is the Vets who still haven't gotten over the fact that a lot of their own came back to the States from Vietnam, and became opponents of the war, Vets who were not afraid to talk about the uglier things that happened (many of the specific examples Kerry refers to did in fact happen, and we know plenty of other atrocities happened too - see the link above). This has less to do with current politics and more to do with an old wound. What is really happening here is that 30 years after we left, America is still fighting the War in Vietnam.

Re:No, it is what the heck, to what the heck?

[defile]

The hypocrisy runs thick. It's hard for most people to admit both of these candidates have less than a stellar record to vote for them. The sad part is most people are voting for Kerry only because they hate Bush, so I ask you this one question. What does Kerry stand for? I bet you will be unable to find out because of his unbelievable ability to change his stance on an issue based upon what is appeared to be hot at the time. Frankly I do not want a president who will change his mind because of pressure.

I asked this question once too, and the internet told me in about 5 minutes.

Kerry's stance on the issues:

• Gay Marriage: Supports separate but equal civil unions; gay rights groups give him good ratings despite the fact that he isn't for all out gay marriage.

• Iraq War: "Internationalizing" the war effort (this probably means sharing the oil in exchange for some help and possible "legitimacy").

• Taxes: Middle-class tax cuts. A repeal of the tax cuts for the rich.

• Health care: Wants to socialize health care for >90% of the population.

• Labor: wants to index the minimum wage against inflation.

• Medicine: government backing of stem cell research!

• Abortion: is personally against abortion, but says he could never impose his personal preference on others (pro-choice)

• Education: boring policies on education I don't care about. Also, wants to start some kind of mandatory community service requirement in order to graduate high school.

And so on. Kerry and Edwards apparantly published a book about their positions: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/our_plan_for_america. pdf

Try watching less TV -- you might learn something besides other people's opinions this way.

Personally, I'm against many of Kerry's policies, but overall support them over Bush's.

Re:The real test of whether its intimidation or no

[crush]

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.

Read the posts, read the articles

[crush]

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.

The people doing this are almost certainly not supporters of the "Democrats". If you read their own post then you'll see the following statement:

(But do not misinterpret us, we do not view the Democratic Party as an opposition party, but rather as another side of the same coin.)

There is good reason behind this sentiment. Kerry is on his own admission pro-War, pro-tax cuts, anti-gay marriage. He's a fellow Skull&Bones member like George W. Bush. Basically he's a right-wing candidate wearing the friendly clown-face as opposed to G.W.B. who wears the sad clown face.

I can't possibly sum up the disgusting history of the Democratic Party (and hence the hypocrisy, blindness and ignorance of anyone that posits them as an alternative to the Republicans), but if you're actually interested (instead of wanting a yes-it-is-no-it-isn't exchange) then I recommend reading _Dime's Worth of Difference_ by Jeffrey St.Clair and Alexander Cockburn. Here are a couple of tastes of it.

By the way, what's the name of that "hackers and hippies" party? I want to vote for them!

Correction for the story

[joeblakethesnake]

Just an FYI, the Secret Service is under the Department of the Treasury, not the Department of Justice. I didn't read every reply so this might have been posted before.

Which is worse? The Left or the Right?

[RexRhino]

Of course we all know about G.W.Bush and the patriot act and all kinds of other bad stuff. No need to beat a dead horse on that, as most Slashdotters hate Bush already. We all agree that Bush is a bad, bad man.

But why the mindless cheerleading for those on the left?

It was the left who pushed the government to crack down on protests as a way to silence anti-choice protestors, and those same laws are now being used to crack down on protests of Bush.

It is the left that supported terrible censorship in the way of political correctness.

Leftists always scream bloody murder when the FBI wants to be able to access private information on demand in order to catch terrorists, but will support without question the right of the IRS to access private information on demand in order to tax people.

The left complains that the media is being controlled by a handfull of powerful corporations... their solution: put the media under the control of a handfull of powerful politicians.

The left always tell us about the need for the government to strongly regulate the economy. But when the government does enforce regulation like the DMCA, they suddenly change their tune.

The left protests when the U.S. government bombs children in other countries (and rightfuly so), but when the U.S. bombs children in Waco Texas U.S.A, they wholehearted support it.

The lefists complain about Republicans cheating the elections... and then use every dirty trick in the book to exclude candidates of other parties (Libertarians, Green Party).

I hate G. W. Bush and everything he stands for... but, come on, these people protesting are just as bad as G.W. Bush. Are people really so cought up in their political jingoism that they can't see how they are just as facist in action, and probably even more so in idiology, as G.W.Bush?

These are things you should know:

[Futurepower(R)]

Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government

It's illogical to vote Republican in 2004.

Bush's education improvements were fraud. (my sig)

Privacy isn't for anybody

[jeephistorian]

I had a situation that pounded home how this isn't a case for the Secret Service. I had a person calling me at work and home harrassing me. It sucked big time and drive my wife crazy. So we called the police and they told us that unless a phiysical threat was made, there was NOTHING they could do. The person calling had the right to call me as much as they wanted so long as there was no physical threat.

Seems that if your name and number is in the public record (phone book), then that is an invitation to call. We got an unlisted number after moving. So no, these guys are still available to be called until their numbers are actually listed as restricted. That's how the police explained it to me.

------------

I just keep getting sadder and sadder.

[bmajik]

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.

Re:I just keep getting sadder and sadder.

[wraith0x29a]

Call me a cynic but I suspect that all this division, anger and spite is just what (certain) politicians want.

As an outsider it appears to me that US elections are fought and won largely on moral, emotive issues such as abortion, gay marriage, the presidential candidates war record and so on rather than practical issues like healthcare, public services and the economy.

It is far easier to demonise an opposition party and it's supporters in the voters eyes on moral rather than practical grounds. This is especially true of those large sections of the electoret that do not understand the complexities of economic theory, the quagmire of foreign policy or the lofty ideals of social justice but who know a baby-murdering heathen queer or an fascist corporate war-monger when they see one.

It makes it so much easier for the voter to just say "Well, they are just a bunch of [insert ridiculously generalised stereotype here], aren't they." than to fault the opposition on points of policy.

Basically this strategy replaces thinking with feeling in the process of deciding who to vote for.
It is much easier to win peoples hearts than their minds.

By way of example, an article in this weeks New Statesman suggests that millions of Bush voters are, in fact, the very people who suffer the most due to his policies (ie. the poor and powerless) but who are nevertheless won-over by his public position on the emotive moral issues.

Self Righteous a bit ?

[bmajik]

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"?

What the hell happened to the Secret Service?

[Catbeller]

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.

Re:What the hell happened to the Secret Service?

[Dr Kool, PhD]

You want to talk about "First Amendment zones"? You obviously have a short memory. Do you not remember the caged protesters in Boston at the Democratic convention?? Or did you already forget the people freely walking on the street during the protest at the Republican convention on Sunday???

It seems your attacks are better targeted at Democrats.

Re:What the hell happened to the Secret Service?

[/dev/trash]

The Free Speech Zones were created by Clinton. So hey.

Re:your posts on slashdot aren't a political platf

[kpansky]

According to humans or natural trends? Let's try both. In Ohio youll find in some burgeoning populations of deer (which end up in large numbers dismembered on the side of the highway) in the spring but by winter you see massive starvation. So. Discounting those that die by car accidents and hunting, there are still enough to cause starvation on a large scale. Sounds like there are too many fucking deer now that they have no natural predators besides us.

I'm with you

[SuperKendall]

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.

Polarization

[KimJ721]

The polarization is making it difficult to talk about any remotely political topics in a balanced way to find solutions or even common ground. Take, for example, education (soul-sucking registration required).

Re:your posts on slashdot aren't a political platf

[rah1420]

Sounds like there are too many fucking deer

ITYM "there are too many deer fucking."

HTH.

Novak

[MacDork]

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.

Presidents face more danger than candidates?

[maynard]

Bush is known world wide and Kerry not near as much. Which is the bigger target? A Senator or the President? THAT'S why everyone needs to be scrutinized who come with in sight of the guy not because he wants to be secretive.

Your primary argument is that Bush must stifle dissent when he speaks in public (really private events, but I digress), in order to protect him against potential violence. Further, Candidate Kerry doesn't need this level of "protection" because he isn't the president and is thus not a likely target. You forget Robert F. Kennedy, killed by an assassin's bullet to the head after having given his California primary victory speech in Los Angeles prior to the 1968 Democratic convention. He likely would have beat Hubert Humphrey, the eventual Democratic nominee.

All candidates face serious danger from lunatics and political extremists on the campaign trail. That Kerry chooses to keep his events open to the public in the face of open dissent and polarized discourse would seem to show real COURAGE. Or possibly recklessness. But I seriously doubt stifling political dissent -- free speech -- would protect either President Bush or Candidate Kerry from a real assassin. The Secret Service should have more serious concerns than running around directing local police to arrest dissenters with unfavorable T-Shirts and signs so the President won't feel embarrassed in public. IMO their primary and only concern should be to protect the President, his family, and other critical executive officials from physical danger. Whatever security checks they need do to meet that goal is fine by me.

--Maynard

Hunters aren't the enemy

[dogfart]

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

Re:The real test of whether its intimidation or no

[arminw]

According to the ACLU reply, the ISP doesn't keep the data that the government is looking for. Do ISP's have a legal obligation to keep records as to who does what and when on their systems? If not, it seems that ISP's could save themselves a lot of trouble by deliberately NOT logging such data.

Right to privacy

[kabloom]

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.

How do I express my opinion if I can't write?

[Business King]

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!

one word....

[SethJohnson]

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.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

[SethJohnson]

Just to be fair here, it doesn't look like Sen. Kennedy is the only senator who wasn't too keen on this bill. It failed to pass with 8 yeas and 90 nays. Point fingers at Kerry and Kennedy all you want, but please don't stop pointing them at the other 88 senators who voted this bill down.

Additionally, the bill you are referencing, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, is described by Thomas as

"A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others. "

I'm not sure what bill you are referring to when you say This bill would have essentially given the Attorney General the power to ban any ammunition that was capable of penetrating police soft body armor. It doesn't seem to be this one that you've attributed the Kennedy quote to and that a near unanimous number of senators opposed.

Uh, uh, I know that one!

[PontifexPrimus]

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?

Re:For most it's not no-fly though.

[demachina]

If you look at the EPIC site you can see some of the letters from the people being harrassed, including senior citizens who have never had so much as a traffic ticket.

How many, its impossible to tell, its secret. The no fly list has actually existed since 1990, formed under George W.'s dad. It was a tiny list of terrorists managed by the FBI until 9/11. It then was turned over to the TSA, its length exploded and the people run it are either incompetent or malevolent to blacklist "names" with no other identifying data so everyone with that name is harrassed.

Who is being put on the list, by how and by whom is secret. How to get off the list is largely undefined. You typically get bounced between the TSA, the airlines, the FBI and Homeland Security until you give up.

Your ability to stick your head in the sand and pretend everything is OK is exactly how people lose their civil liberties and wake up one day living in a totalitarian state.

EPIC acquired memo's on how the no-fly(don't fly and call law enforcement) and selectee(harass but let fly) lists work. It was so heavily censored that it was meaningless. You can look at them in the link the previous email.

Below are two more stories suggesting activists are being put on the list to punish them. Can you prove it.....the beauty of it is no.....the government can just claim it was a mistake or their name matched an alias of a terrorist.

People are being blacklisted because their name matches a terrorists "assumed" name. I wonder what would happen if a terrorist used George W. Bush, Tom Ridge or John Ashcroft as an alias, though of course they don't have to fly in the nightmare that is civil aviation since 9/11.

The Government's Air Passenger Blacklist

By Dave Lindorff

Barbara Olshansky was in a Newark International Airport departure gate last March when an airline agent at the counter checking her boarding pass called airport security. Olshansky was subjected to a close search and then, though she was in view of other travelers, was ordered to pull her pants down. The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks may have created a new era in airport security, but even so, she was embarrassed and annoyed.

Perhaps one such incident might've been forgotten, but Olshansky, the assistant legal director for the left-leaning Center for Constitutional Rights, was pulled out of line for special attention the next time she flew.

And the next time. And the next time.

On one flight this past September from Newark to Washington, six members of the center's staff, including Olshansky, were stopped and subjected to intense scrutiny, even though they had purchased their tickets independently and had not checked in as a group. On that occasion, Olshansky got angry and demanded to know why she had been singled out.

"The computer spit you out," she recalls the agent saying. "I don't know why, and I don't have time to talk to you about it."

Olshansky and her colleagues are, apparently, not alone. For months, rumors and anecdotes have circulated among left-wing and other activist groups about people who have been barred from flying or delayed at security gates because they are "on a list."

But now, a spokesman for the new Transportation Security Administration has acknowledged for the first time that the government has a list of about 1,000 people who are deemed "threats to aviation" and not allowed on airplanes under any circumstances. And the official suggested that Olshansky and other political activists may be on a separate list that subjects them to strict scrutiny but allows them to fly.

"We have a list of about 1,000 people," said David Steigman, the TSA spokesman. The agency was created a year ago by Congress to handle transportation safety during the war on terror. "This list is composed of names that are provided to us by various government organizations like the FBI, CIA and INS. ... We don't ask how they decide who to list. Each agency decides on

Anti-abortion websites target for murder

[xeno-cat]

and people have actually followed through on murdering abortion clinic physicians. Not to mention real harrasment and bombings.

Also note that an elected official is a public official. A clinical physician is a private citizen.

The intent of Indymedia is to get people involved in the political process.

In short, the two do not equate.

Kind Regards