Slashdot Mirror


Secret Service Seeks Indymedia Logs

sunbird writes "The Justice Department has issued a subpoena seeking IP logs from Calyx, the ISP for nyc.indymedia.org, after individuals posted [1 | 2 | 3] the names, addresses, and phone numbers of some of the RNC delegates. The subpoena was issued as part of an ongoing investigation of voter intimidation. As reported earlier in this Slashdot article, the Justice Department tried this before. Calyx, represented by the ACLU, responded, claiming that '[t]he only intimidation taking place here is the Secret Service intimidating people who speak out against the government.' [Full text of the letter available here] Read more: Indymedia.org | NYT"

96 of 825 comments (clear)

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

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

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

    individuals posted [1 | 2 | 3] the names, addresses, and phone numbers of some of the RNC delegates.

    What I don't understand is the purpose of this release. People protesting and hacking in the name of the democratic party is only going to piss off the undecided people.

    Being a shmuck isn't any less evil even if you think you are doing it for the right reasons.

    If I were a moderate and had to choose between the party of McCain and the party of hackers and hippies... I know who I would pick.

    Obligate disclosure:
    Physician who is a democrat... so my morals are screwie already. (grin)

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

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

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    2. Re:what the heck? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:what the heck? by thelaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

      jon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      evil is as evil does
    5. Re:what the heck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:what the heck? by Darby · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  3. No privacy for public officials! by chrispyman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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!

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

      Watch as the government makes it mandatory for discussion boards to maintain logs for a much much longer time. And to edit/censor posts in real time to prevent children from pornographic material...after all the children must be secured.

      --
      See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long
    2. Re:No privacy for public officials! by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How are they public officials? They aren't agents of the government, they don't hold any sort of public office. They represent a political party, which is a separate entity from the government.

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

      Our objectives are to: - Supply anti-RNC groups with data on the delegates to use in whatever way they see fit.

      Uhh... Reading something like that makes me not want to give the benefit of the doubt. What could any 'anti-RNC' groupie do with that new information that is not unethical or harassing? They don't vote Republican, so the delegate really isn't interested in what they have to say, so that's out.

      --

      Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
    4. Re:No privacy for public officials! by althalus · · Score: 4, Informative

      "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.

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

      Is publishing their personal information any different than me drafting up a list of "red pinko communists" with your name on it knowing that it will cause you social stigma and may destroy your career and friendhips?

      Lets not kid ourselves, nobody is going to use this information to send these men fruitbaskets or singing telegrams.

      --

      Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
    6. Re:No privacy for public officials! by e9th · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    7. Re:No privacy for public officials! by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...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

    8. Re:No privacy for public officials! by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you can tell me a way to investigate avenues of illegitimate funding by only using a name, address, phone number, and hotel room without doing anything illegal I'll be impressed. But you can't. There is nothing productive that can come out of this besides a letter to his home (which will unlikely be read, and won't cause his magic conversion to the other party.)

      --

      Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
    9. Re:No privacy for public officials! by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 4, Insightful
      For the greatest part, however, they know months in advance how the charade is going to play out.

      What, like in 2000? Yeah, right.

      Well, right now you're modded "Insightful", so at least one mod shares your knee-jerk tinfoil-hat mindset. That doesn't mean you have any actual insight, however. It's easy to be cynical. When you're cynical you can just lean back in your chair, lick the orange stuff from your Cheetoes off your fingers, and sneer at everything. Doing something to effect real change is much more difficult.

      To the extent that the "major parties" get preferential treatment under US election law, I actually don't disagree with you. However, the fact remains that convention delegates are *not* government officials, are generally *not* public figures, and so retain the same rights of privacy as anyone else. Yourself included, even if you chose to attend a convention as a delegate for some reason.

      So, yes, people with that kind of power over the politicians who will spend 60+% of your hard-earned cash every year should be publicly accessible.

      You'll find that delegates have relatively little power. At least for the first ballot, they have no choice as to how to cast their votes under the current primary system. Their individual identities are therefore as relevant as those of the Electors who actually vote for the President. At least the Electors' duty is Constitutionally mandated! And seriously, is there any doubt about who they're going to nominate? If there wasn't for the Democrats, where there was more than one candidate in the primary field, how can there be for the Republicans?

      Incidentally, tax freedom day this year was April 11, representing rather less than 60% of your income.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    10. Re:No privacy for public officials! by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    11. Re:No privacy for public officials! by thelaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's hard to argue that the SC is republican, mostly because they take so many sides of seemingly identical issues. but it's actually not either one - depending on the specific jurisprudential issues at stake in each case, the justices may decide seemingly contradictory things.

      so you can put them on record as supporting gay marriage, abortion, secret courts, against gay marriage, anti-abortion, pro-federalism, anti-federalism, etc. it all depends on what case the litigators bring to the Court. if i argue a particular set of issues to the Court, they may decide that my argument is crappy and rule in favor of my opponent, solely because i built a weak case. if i argue a different set of issues that differ only slightly from the previous case, the Court may rule for me.

      so what looks like inconsistency is actually the much-vaunted "nuance" that kerry would bring to the white house. whether you think nuance is a good thing for the executive branch, too, is one of ideology.

      jon

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

    Having said that I don't understand this on two fronts ..

    1. What possible benefit could the list could be to somebody? I mean it's not like these are potential swing votes. To me it would only give the Republicans political fodder for demonizing us democrats.

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

    *warning* shameless plug to get myself (and yourself) a free ipod follows:
    --

    "I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
    1. Re:Uhh I don't get it ... by xplenumx · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

      Do as I say, not as I do.

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

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

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

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

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

    3. Re:Uhh I don't get it ... by Otter · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

    4. Re:Uhh I don't get it ... by JLyle · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.
  5. For those interested. by xenostar · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  6. Speaking out... by dmayle · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    ...Doh!

  7. I heard... by craenor · · Score: 4, Funny

    Steve Jackson Games did it.

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

    Secret service logs YOU

    --
    ^^
  9. Contact Info? by gavinroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Contact Info? by syrinje · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

      --
      See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long
  10. Indymedia doesn't keep IP logs. by temojen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

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

      We need a series of lawsuits against police departments for this practice, on first ammendment grounds, and wrongful arrest. There need to be serious repercussions for police departments that decide to remove people for political reasons.

      Of course, proving a political motivation is very difficult. In practice there is almost always something they can charge you with. (like not having a protest permit, disorderly conduct, etc) This is a problem of too many laws, and selective enforcement. The police are effectively able to suppress political views using the legal system. The selective enforcement issue must be solved at a higher level by reducing and clarifying contradictory laws.

      All you protestors, carry a videocamera. Make sure to videotape anyone who is arrested or looks like they're going to be, and offer up the footage as evidence.

      This is how democracy dies folks...

      -- Bob

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
  11. Logs by savagedome · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about not logging every single thing to begin with. My proxy logs go to /dev/null.

    Also, isn't this kinda similar to big brother asking the libraries about the list of books checked out by somebody? The simplest solution was the libraries stopping to keep track of who checked the book out after it was returned.

  12. Well, you have to admit it's not really "fair" by BTWR · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  13. if it were flipped around by ChipMonk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

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


    The people posting this information are not representing constituencies. They don't have accountability. That's like saying the people who publish the phone book must also print their own home phone numbers in the phone books.
    1. Re:absolutely wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

    2. Re:absolutely wrong by rd_syringe · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    3. Re:absolutely wrong by SethJohnson · · Score: 3, Insightful


      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.
    4. Re:absolutely wrong by Performer+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

    You can't even peacefully wear a "No Bush" T-Shirt to a political rally now adays without being arrested for trespassing.

    Your rights to free speech, and your expectations of privacy are gone now.

    Politicians as part of our so called "open" government should have no expectations of privacy. Just who is supposedly representing us.

    1. Re:Free Speech Was A Terrorist Victim by deacon · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.

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

      Yes.

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

      That's real balls.

      --
      evil is as evil does
  16. cryptome has the delegate info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    john young, doing what he does best:

    http://cryptome.org

    this line is just filler

    as is this one.

  17. All the facts. by TheLoneCabbage · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!

  18. EEK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

    1. Re:EEK! by jrossi02 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  19. Idiot by GreenCrackBaby · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    --

    "The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
  20. They're not necessarily public officials. by VT_hawkeye · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  21. Indymedia by cozziewozzie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whatever your stance on publishing these kinds of lists, Indymedia is one of the few remaining grassroots information outlets left on the internet, free from corporate money, sleaziness and lies. It would be a shame to have them shut down, and would really represent the end of the Internet as we knew it.

    Sure, there are Indymedia branches in many countries (mostly European) but if we get our own version of the Patriot act the way we're getting software patents and DMCA and other crappy corporate America anti-freedom laws, I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with only CNN and other big-money propaganda machines. :-(

    1. Re:Indymedia by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:Indymedia by sploxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  22. Two things: by Goldmund · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

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

      Well, let's see: first of all, you bring up a case that you actually know nothing about (the Florida case that you mentioned) and used the unsupported supposition that DoJ is doing nothing about it as evidence for your case.

      Next, you link to the Georgia GOP website, which lists names but does not list addresses or phone numbers, which may not be publicly accessible if, for example, a person's phone number is unlisted.

      Then you attach vitriolic labels like "racist" and "classist", which really have nothing to do with the reality of this case, in an attempt to make DoJ seem more "evil" than it really is.

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

    2. Re:Two things: by Goldmund · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

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

    An open question to anyone who thinks that posting the personally identifying information of GOP delegates on a (mostly) radical left-wing website isn't about intimidation, I ask you this:

    What do you think it's about when the personally identifying information of physicians who terminate pregnancies is listed on anti-abortion websites?

    Note that I'm not arguing against free speech here. Publish whatever directory you want, but it goes both ways.

    --
    Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
  24. While I haven't had a chance.... by tweek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    to get through ALL the linked documents, in the most semantic sense of the phrase, posting this info about delegates can be considered intimidation. I'm not voting for Bush myself but in this has to swing both ways.

    If a rule applies to Republicans, it has to apply to Democrats.

    --
    "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
  25. Whatever happened by xombo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

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

    NSA logs YOU.

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  27. What does it mean... by Goldmund · · Score: 3, Informative
  28. It's interesting... by _Potter_PLNU_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's funny that people cry "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" when they are being investigated for involving themselves in this crap.

    I will never understand why people think that because they are "speaking out against the establishment" they should be able to do whatever they want to speak out, and be beyond reproach.

    --
    "Hard work never killed anyone." -- Some Dead Guy
  29. Say your mother is a Republican... by Invisible+Now · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You've seen the convention delegates. A lot of them are just little old ladies in straw hats with red, white, and blue LEDs blinking in their corny jewelry. Remind me of my mom...

    Even if you feel they are seriously misguided, if you want to influence them you do it with kindness and respect. Whether they are really being put at some risk by having their names, hotel rooms and phone numbers posted really depends on the random action (Or hopefully lack of action) by some crazy wingnut. Would you want your mother getting a threatening call at 3am? The secret Service has a legitimate concern for their wellfare.

    As a protest action it was stupid and arguablly endangering. About as self-indulgent and counter-productive as breaking windows and setting fires at the WTO.

    Certainly, it seems to me to be pointlessly cruel. The fact that the perpetrators hide behind anonymity rather than stand up and explain themselves betrays a coward's conscience.

    As Gandhi, King and Mandella proved - effective change is possible... RTFM!

    --

    "Knowing everything doesn't help..."

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

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

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  31. Re:Well, you have to admit it's not really "fair" by althalus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Read some of the coverage. Some things are more simple, like have people blocking hotel entrances, or event locations. Other things get more personal, like groups waiting at places like restraunts or theaters and trying to fight with attendees. Some have gotten worse. One police detective was put in the hospital.

    I don't care what party you are with. That's just wrong. Protesting is an important right, but protesting doesnt' mean you can do things like that. Yes, stand and voice your concerns, but getting into fights, or attempting to get in the face of any and every attendee is just a annoying.

  32. Help, Help ... we're being supressed. by Nept · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." - Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

    Not trying to be funny, but there is some violence inherent in this system.

    --
    "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
  33. micro-HOWTO: anonymous logging by Yeb · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  34. Indymedia did not do this by br00tus · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  35. your posts on slashdot aren't a political platform by SethJohnson · · Score: 5, Informative


    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.
  36. Yes by maynard · · Score: 3, Informative
    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
  37. The rest of the story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

  38. Re:your posts on slashdot aren't a political platf by jhunsake · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  39. Re:Indymedia did not do this - but did allow it by br00tus · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  40. Speak out against the government? by gordgekko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Last time I checked, the Republican Party was not a branch of government and delegates to the Republican National Convention were not necessarily members of the government.

    Given Indymedia's Michael Moore-esque visits to lunacy, the list was placed up there to do one thing and one thing only, intimidate those Republican delegates. These are private citizens participating in the political process, unlike the hundreds of millions of other people who sit on the asses complaining and they don't deserve to be targeted by potentially violent people (don't even give me that peaceful protest hooey).

    This is sickening and deserves no defence unless you think targetting people for their political beliefs, whether left or right, is a great idea. Oh wait, I'm sure there will be people who think it is a great idea.

    --
    You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
  41. Hypocrisy-Check Time by DesScorp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "...but he has lately demonstrated that his loyalty to his party exceeds his loyalty to his country."

    What the hell is this? Did you ever consider that maybe he thinks his party is the best one for the country? I mean, he's a REPUBLICAN Senator for a reason.

    I get the impression McCain is about as impressed with John Kerry as he is with a pile of old dogshit in the road. And while he doesn't like Bush, you don't have to LIKE someone to think they're the better candidate for office. As for the accusations about Kerry in Vietnam, if he would talk about a reason to elect him OTHER than the 4 months he spent there, then maybe other people would dwell less on it as well.

    "I had more respect for him. No longer."

    Your respect was probably going to last only as long as McCain ripped on his own party. Somehow, I don't think he's weeping for the loss of your endorsement.

    By the way, here's a standards check: do you also respect Zell Miller or Ed Koch or Ron Silver, liberals all, for going against their party because their convictions tell them to?

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

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Hypocrisy-Check Time by Darby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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

    2. Re:Hypocrisy-Check Time by laird · · Score: 4, Informative

      "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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    As you may re

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

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

    And yes, Hunters are pro Enviroment. The better the enviroment, the better the hunting. You can also argue that (true) hunters are more aware of the enviroment than many of the 'green' party. It takes skill, knowledge, preperation, and effort to successfully stalk wild game, make a clean kill, and prepare the meat.

    There's a number of things I disagree with both parties about. I tend to be pro-self reliance, pro-liberty, moderatly green.

    I'm for green when it's not economicly crippling, and for providing regulations that encourage companies to still upgrade & improve emissions/pollution, rather than hiding under grandfather clauses.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  44. Gotta love this by Performer+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's a certain irony that the people hiding behind anonymous posts which were trying to intimidate convention delagates by publishing their personal details and locations are now claiming indimidation about their mere identities being exposed.

    It's just stunningly hypocritical for anyone to claim intimidation by the mere uncovering of their anonymous identity when they've posted the personal details including residence of others encouraging thousands of potential protestors to show up and ahem... 'protest'.

    If you go posting information online in a way that clearly invites intimidation of others and worse, excuse me if I don't feel very sympathetic about bleating of intimidation when someone attempts to uncover your anonymity.

    It almost takes anonymous posting to a new low, but let's face it, it is pretty tough to reach new depths there.

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

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

    Unfortunately, in America, the pro-gun voting block is incredibly strong. A national politician has a difficult time getting elected if the opponent can say he's anti-guns.

    Yes, those of us who are in favor of our 2nd Amendment rights (you know, part of that darned Bill of Rights)organize and tend to vote for people who are like-minded. That's democracy for you.

    That's why major democrats promote themselves as hunters (Kerry, Ann Richards, etc.)-- to defuse potential FUD that they're going to take away people's weapons.

    Yes, politicians like Kerry like to pose with their multi-thousands-of-dollars over & under imported shotguns while trap-shooting at the range. If you didn't know, trap-shooting, while a fun sport, tends to be overrun with what could be termed the aristocratic snobs of the so-called "gun culture." "See, I'll let you keep your $10,000 dollar trap gun. It's just those eeeeeeevil 'assault weapons' I don't like."

    And yes, Kerry and Ted Kennedy both voted for a bill (that fortunately failed) which would have outlawed "any centerfire rifle ammunition capable of penetrating a bulletproof vest." What they didn't want to tell you is that is EVERY center-fire rifle cartridge. Including that dastardly .30-.30 Winchester, the round typically chambered in grandpa's old lever-action rifle and used to take more deer than pretty much any other round in the world. So yes, we do fear him and his kind coming to more power than they already have.


    Hunters are not opposed to the Endangered Species Act. Hunters and fishermen appreciate government regulations that provide them with more animals to catch or kill. Check out Ducks Unlimited, for example. The biggest opponents of the ESA are developers and polluters. Both of these groups are very friendly to the GOP when it comes to fundraising.


    Not all "gun people" are the same on every subject. Personally I am a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian. I have friends I go shooting with who fall all over the political map. Oh, and yes, I'm a big proponent of the ESA.

    --
    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
  46. Re:Hunters are pro Endagered Species Act by SethJohnson · · Score: 4, Interesting



    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.

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

    Bullshit. The Secret Service are requesting the IP addresses of all users of the site. It's called a fishing expedition. Lots of people use nyc.indymedia.org, didn't post the information (not that there's anything legally wrong with the information) and don't want the Secret Service sniffing around their IPs like a mutt after a bitch in heat.

    If you take the trouble to read the articles you'll see the FBI tried this shit with indymedia previously after an oh-so-convenient-anonymous-post put up bogus information that the FBI claimed was a "security leak".

    Pull the other one.

  48. Re:Hunters are pro Endagered Species Act by ajna · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

  49. Re:No, it is what the heck, to what the heck? by Darby · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

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

    When did "i don't see it that way" become "Absolutely Wrong"?

    Regardless of your political affiliation, or your position in the US government, it seems that you should have the right to not be harassed, threatened, or intimidated by anybody.

    If you can say with a straight face that the point of this document is NOT for people to intimidate, harass, or threaten members of a political organization, I am listening.

    What happened to just being civil. Isn't it possible to say "You know, i don't like some of the policies of this administration" without threatening people, physically assaulting them, harassing them at work/home, and generally being a shithead?"

    Were there ever any good ole days of "well, i'm voting for the other guy"?

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  51. What the hell happened to the Secret Service? by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:What the hell happened to the Secret Service? by Dr+Kool,+PhD · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  52. Re:No, it is what the heck, to what the heck? by True+Grit · · Score: 3, Informative
    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.
  53. Re:Hunters are pro Endagered Species Act by bluGill · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  54. Re:No, it is what the heck, to what the heck? by defile · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  55. I'm with you by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Neither Kerry nor Bush is as evil and some would make either one to be. It's super hard now to get any kind of real debate going on anything.

    The hatred is too much for me, I've gone turtle and am heading for high ground until November before the sheer negativity infects me as it has others.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  56. Right to privacy by kabloom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  57. How do I express my opinion if I can't write? by Business+King · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

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



    And that word is: FEAR.

    The government and media in America has its citizens whipped up into a frothful and delirious state of constant fear. Fear of terrorists. Fear of different ethnicities. Fear of liberals.

    A gun is an equalizer for those who feel powerless. A gun makes them feel as though they have power in an environment where they are frightened.

    The NRA manipulates their fears for political and financial gain by promoting the notion that there is a campaign afoot to take their guns away. The NRA is the great protector of Americans' only safety blanket.

    There are many lessons for Americans to learn from Afghanistan and Iraq. Among these is this: Allowing each household to own a fully automatic AK-47 does not seem to have created an orderly or peaceful society.

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

    When did "i don't see it that way" become "Absolutely Wrong"?

    When "You're either with us or with the terrorists" became your new foundation for diplomacy?

    --
    -- Language is a virus from outer space.