FBI Ordered to Turn Over Lennon Files

Good news by PrvtBurrito · 2004-09-30 13:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

There should be a law making all records public after a certain period of time (like copyright expiration). (fp?)

--
Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.

Re:Good news by BlackEyedSceva · 2004-09-30 13:56 · Score: 5, Funny

Most of the time information becomes public anyway. There is no need for a LAW to do this.
Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 13:58 · Score: 0

There should be a law making all records public after a certain period of time (like copyright expiration).

Uh, the way things are going, the sun will expire first.
Re:Good news by The-Bus · 2004-09-30 13:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

"after a certain period of time (like copyright expiration"

From the way copyright law is going, that's going to be about 435 years.

--
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Re:Good news by PrvtBurrito · 2004-09-30 14:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

Not true. Piles of secret information is buried constantly. Of course, there is public info, but there is very little civil war, mexican-american war or wwi info that is available.

--
Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
Re:Good news by DAldredge · 2004-09-30 14:00 · Score: 2, Funny

Yes there is. Our goverment should not keep secrets from the public any longer than necessary. Except for the case of REAL national security matters, and the penalty for classifying something too high should be 1-5 years in prison per page.
Re:Good news by NakedGoat · 2004-09-30 14:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

There are in fact declassification procedures for all U.S. classified documents that state specific declassification timeframes. The declassification time is specified for the specific document or information. 50 years is very common.
The government often has very legitimate reasons for keeping documents under wraps. For instance if Yoko Ono were passing information from North Korea with the knowledge of the local government China may not look favorably upon it and it could cause more than a little tension.

--
Four plus four equals 2,137.
Re:Good news by ConceptJunkie · 2004-09-30 14:52 · Score: 1

It's my understanding that there is some kind of review program and schedule for declassifying documents, however, that schedule is on the order of 30 or 40 years.

I'm not sure exactly how that works or applies here, but you routinely hear about old records from, say, the Nixon administration being made public.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:Good news by Kanasta · 2004-09-30 14:57 · Score: 1

What, like 150yrs after the collapse of gov't?
Re:Good news by Molina+the+Bofh · 2004-09-30 14:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

So you mean the person would sue himself ? Because if someone classified a record too high, this record would be... well, classified. And nobody else would know about it.

--

-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
Re:Good news by DAldredge · 2004-09-30 15:08 · Score: 1

In the world of washington politics that persons enemies would see to it.

See, The Pentagon Papers
Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 15:08 · Score: 3, Funny

So what? 435 years is NOT unreasonable.
What is my incentive to create if my great-great-great-great-great grand children can't sit on their asses living off my royalties? That's the new lazy american dream!
Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 15:10 · Score: 0

And like the records of all the music, software, and kiddie porn you (PervertBurrito) have downloaded.
Re:Good news by Lobsang · 2004-09-30 15:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

The government often has very legitimate reasons for keeping documents under wraps. For instance if Yoko Ono were passing information from North Korea with the knowledge of the local government China may not look favorably upon it and it could cause more than a little tension.

Good 'n old Security by Obscurity, aka "National Security". It leaves us all with that warm feeling that nothing is going to happen. Unfortunately, it rarely works, as malfeasants usually have other means of gaining access to the information.

It does, however, protect infantile and incompetent politicians from equally infantile voters.
Re:Good news by jfengel · 2004-09-30 15:14 · Score: 4, Informative

Clinton's Executive Order 12958 reduced that to 25 years in most cases. (The more recent version is Bush's Executive Order 13292).

But there are many ways to get around that in the latest EO. It won't be released if it will (to quote the EO):

(1) reveal the identity of a confidential human source, or a human intelligence source, or reveal information about the application of an intelligence source or method;

(2) reveal information that would assist in the development or use of weapons of mass destruction;

(3) reveal information that would impair U.S. cryptologic systems or activities;

(4) reveal information that would impair the application of state of the art technology within a U.S. weapon system;

(5) reveal actual U.S. military war plans that remain in effect;

(6) reveal information, including foreign government information, that would seriously and demonstrably impair relations between the United States and a foreign government, or seriously and demonstrably undermine ongoing diplomatic activities of the United States;

(7) reveal information that would clearly and demonstrably impair the current ability of United States Government officials to protect the President, Vice President, and other protectees for whom protection services, in the interest of the national security, are authorized;

(8) reveal information that would seriously and demonstrably impair current national security emergency preparedness plans or reveal current vulnerabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, or projects relating to the national security; or

(9) violate a statute, treaty, or international agreement.

That determination is made by the agency head (e.g. CIA, NSA), not by an outside panel, and there's no appeal. So it's automatically declassified unless they care enough to stop it.
Re:Good news by tm2b · 2004-09-30 15:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

There should be a law making all records public after a certain period of time
I think we need more than that. I think we need a federal version of many states' Open Government laws - see Florida's Government-In-The-Sunshine, for example, which is in the Florida Constitution.

The government should have a priority of making most of its operations transparent.

--
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Re:Good news by anthony_dipierro · 2004-09-30 16:00 · Score: 2, Funny

Good 'n old Security by Obscurity, aka "National Security". It leaves us all with that warm feeling that nothing is going to happen. Unfortunately, it rarely works, as malfeasants usually have other means of gaining access to the information.

I notice you don't have your email address listed. Is there a reason for that?
Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 16:03 · Score: 0

There should be a law making all records public after a certain period of time

And they should call it the freedom of information act.
Re:Good news by Cobralisk · 2004-09-30 16:09 · Score: 1

There should be a law making all records public after a certain period of time (like copyright expiration).
This should be modded "Funny"

When was the last time you heard of a copyright expiring and the work becoming public? Many works whose authors/artists died before I was born are still protected by copyright. This includes works recorded by John Lennon, nonetheless. After all, information wants to be free, but must be guarded at all costs.

--
Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
Re:Good news by CodeBuster · 2004-09-30 16:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not necessarily. For example, would you like to have the original documents from the Manhattan project (weapon designs) made public simply because they are over 60 years old? No, it is better that certain records remain classified, even at the expense of the right of the public to know and especially when the documents in question are important to the national security of the United States.
Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 17:06 · Score: 0

"John Kerry "I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages" Don't blame me, he said it." Out of curiousity, where and when did he say this? I looked through his senate testimony and he didn't say this quote.
Care to explain, cite, or retract?
Naw, probably not.
Re:Good news by DAldredge · 2004-09-30 17:20 · Score: 1

You didn't even bother to look up the quote, yet you imply that I am lying and that I will not respond. At least I am logged in when I post.

Coward.

http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 &q=%22I%20took%20part%20in%20search%20and%20destro y%20missions%2C%20in%20the%20burning%20of%20villag es%22
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?articl e_id=3798

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages.

All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.
Re:Good news by bob+beta · 2004-09-30 17:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

I posted some strong opinions once on a Slashdot account where I had my email address exposed.

That email account is pretty much worthless now. Nothing of the kind has EVER happened due to all the USENET posts I have made with a public email address.

There are some some really nasty and hostile elements involved in the threads on this site. It's a serious mistake to reveal an email address if you have any strongly held opinions.

--
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
Re:Good news by ImaLamer · 2004-09-30 18:08 · Score: 1

There is such a law, I believe the time limit is 72 years...

--
Get your Unix fortune now!
Re:Good news by arodland · 2004-09-30 18:26 · Score: 1

Are you listening to yourself? It's a standard argument, but a law restricting what the government can do is the absolute best kind!
Re:Good news by c0p0n · 2004-09-30 18:39 · Score: 1

A question. When the article says "John Lennon" I assume that it speaks about the Beatle. This is something that is unknown to me. What the heck could possibly have to do a pop star with national security??

--

Your head a splode
Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 18:45 · Score: 0

Piles of secret information is buried constantly.

"are".
Re:Good news by javaman235 · 2004-09-30 19:33 · Score: 1

Wow, thanks for the info. I didn't know John Kerry took such a strong stance against war crimes in Viet Nam. If more people had listened to people like him, America might have been spared the worst military screw up of the last 100 years.

--
-The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
Re:Good news by eyeye · 2004-09-30 19:43 · Score: 1

He was pro peace and anti war. No doubt he was heavily monitored. Apparently his assasination was arranged by the US govt. Easy to believe since they think its ok to kill people they dont agree with.

--
Bush and Blair ate my sig!
Re:Good news by cove209 · 2004-09-30 20:12 · Score: 0, Redundant

TinyURL is a good thing: http://tinyurl.com/
Re:Good news by xenobyte · 2004-09-30 20:16 · Score: 1

But there are many ways to get around that in the latest EO. It won't be released if it will (to quote the EO):

(1) reveal the identity of a confidential human source, or a human intelligence source, or reveal information about the application of an intelligence source or method;

Rumours in the hallway... That's a method - banned.

(5) reveal actual U.S. military war plans that remain in effect;

"If they shoot at us, shoot back" - will ban just about every war record ever.

(9) violate a statute, treaty, or international agreement.

"Bush and Blair have agreed to..." - that's an international agreement so ban everything related to that.

It's a wonder that anything ever gets released.

--
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Re:Good news by mpmansell · 2004-09-30 21:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, considering that observed communication is enough to attract attention, security via obscurity is often the primary protection for intelligence assets.

If you were to be sending emails to known 'enemies of the state', do you really think that encryption would stop all kinds of crap landing on you from a very high place? Guilt by association would be enough to condemn you to a miserable future and in some places, maybe, a prematurely terminal future. In fact, the act of hiding the info via encryption is more likely to confirm suspicions against you.

Any successful operative will know this and use skilled field craft to make themselves unobtrusive and uninteresting. If they've done job well, if caught out, the first comment made by many will be along the lines of "I never suspected a thing". Of course, if really well done with luck to match, there will be no comments since they wouldn't be caught:)

The fact that spies are caught, despite precautions shows SbO is flawed. However, the success of many indicatess that unless under the spotlight, SbO can be very successful.

I would never consider SbO as my only security measure in any data system. I would still select the most secure practical crypto allied to a secure methodology in order to reduce security risks (they can never be eliminated). However, Security by Obscurity allows info to go unnoticed and reduces exposing it to scrutiny. This is often a good idea, if not always practical.
Re:Good news by 0x0d0a · 2004-09-30 21:08 · Score: 1

They could be specifically publically enumerated ("These are atomic weapon designs and we feel that we can't release them because they contain information that would let anyone bypass the research step to building a nuclear weapon"), and be very few in number, though.

--
May we never see th
Re:Good news by 0x0d0a · 2004-09-30 21:17 · Score: 1

You know, DALdredge, you represent a real quandry for me. You regularly say very intelligent things and have good insights. But you also regularly run out and troll and post particularly nasty and insulting posts, and I have a really hard time figuring out whether you should be on my Friends or Foes List. I generally feel uncomfortable with your positioning no matter where you are. And you're a fairly prolific poster, so the problem doesn't just go away.

--
May we never see th
Re:Good news by maxpublic · 2004-09-30 21:59 · Score: 1

They were already published in Science Magazine back in the '60's. The designs are fairly simple, it's the supporting industry that's difficult to produce.

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:Good news by j_stirk · 2004-09-30 23:00 · Score: 1

And that will make a difference how? Warehouses of records were destroyed by all nations not long after WWII. We aren't even talking mainly classified documents here - we're talking rather mundane operational things like service records, etc.

Seriously, if you had the choice of :

1) Sort the warehouse full of documents and records spanning several years, transport them to a new location and store them. Or;

2) Burn the warehouse down, get someone else to rebuild warehouse.

Gee... Which one is less work... Seriously, no one cared when they did it in WWII, apart from the millitary historians 40 years later. This is, of course, not even considering if there were to be malicious destruction of documents by those involved/responsible/etc.

Simply put - if they don't want it made public, no amount of legislation will ever allow that information to become public.

--
[root@GRIFFIN root]# rpm -e coffee-1.22.3-1a.i386.rpm
error: removing these packages would break dependencies:
Re:Good news by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2004-10-01 00:55 · Score: 1

For instance if Yoko Ono were passing information from North Korea with the knowledge of the local government China may not look favorably upon it and it could cause more than a little tension.

Um, why would a Japanese woman be passing information to a country that routinely kidnaps her countrymen?

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:Good news by Thomas+Shaddack · 2004-10-01 01:20 · Score: 1

The principles are simple. The design itself is quite tricky. But it's nothing a couple determined knowledgeable nuclear engineers can't design and simulate on a computer. If the machine can run Doom 3, it can run a blast simulation.
See the nth Country Experiment. In 1967 it took only 3 man-years. Today much more info is in public, and there are much more powerful computers available in civilian sector.
Getting the materials in sufficient quantity and purity is seriously difficult, though.
Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 01:23 · Score: 0

hypothetical
Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 01:33 · Score: 0

absurd
Re:Good news by freqres · 2004-10-01 01:54 · Score: 1

John Kerry's such a swell guy that one of the most useful electronic devices was named after him. The J-K Flip Flop

--
Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 02:23 · Score: 0

Just so you know.. It's a lesson taught to every military troop who handles classified to ALWAYS overclassify in the event that you arent sure what the classification should be. So, you'd have quite a few gomers in jail because they werent 100% sure it was confidential or secret, and labeled it TS/SI just incase.
Re:Good news by slashjames · 2004-10-01 02:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

The Manhattan Project is not a very good example. Given the information currently available on the internet, it's relatively easy to design a 1st generation nuclear bomb (such as Fat Man or Little Boy). Even the information on how to refine Uranium and Plutonium isn't hard to find. The difficulty for anyone wanting to make a nuke is in getting ahold of the Uranium or Plutonium in the first place. After that, in under a year they'll have a bomb ready for use.
Re:Good news by Simulant · 2004-10-01 03:08 · Score: 1

"(6) reveal information, including foreign government information, that would seriously and demonstrably impair relations between the United States and a foreign government, or seriously and demonstrably undermine ongoing diplomatic activities of the United State"

May as well toss this one out... it's been mooted.
Re:Good news by DAldredge · 2004-10-01 03:28 · Score: 1

He didn't take a strong stance against war crimes, he commited war crimes.

Unless he is lying.
Re:Good news by diamante · 2004-10-01 03:44 · Score: 1

Yes they do, they often have a good reason to keep things a secret. lets say they some documents do become public, so what, by 5 yrs from now we will all forget about that. So whats really the point, just because people whant to be nosy. And plus people will start inventing things that are not even true and exagerate about it. Thats propably the reason they whant to keep it a secret. They will make thing worse and the case even more bigger than it already is. So i'm just saying let the secret be, and not make a big deal about it, and we really don't need to know unless we are all in danger.
Re:Good news by anthony_dipierro · 2004-10-01 04:09 · Score: 0, Offtopic

It's a serious mistake to reveal an email address if you have any strongly held opinions.

Perhaps I needed to be more explicit. This is "security through obscurity", which the above poster claims "rarely works, as malfeasants usually have other means of gaining access to the information." I was attempting to point out the hypocrisy of the poster.
Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 04:56 · Score: 0

He didn't take a strong stance against war crimes
Kerry did take a strong stance against war crimes. Not to point out the forest while you're so taken by trees.
, he commited war crimes.
As did Henry Kissinger. So what's your point, troll?
Re:Good news by mink · 2004-10-01 06:15 · Score: 1

Let me tell you some people who cared, the Atomic Vets. The ones the government and militery was/is/has not been helpful with in dealing with the ensuing health issues over the years.
I'm sure there are manu other groups who could have needed those kinds of records no matter how mundane they seem.

--
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Re:Good news by j_stirk · 2004-10-01 07:16 · Score: 1

Yes, I know. There was, as far as I was aware, also issues with some countries refusing to pay millitary pensions because they conveniently didn't have records of their service.

Jury is still out on whether this was intentional in all cases, but yes, I agree entirely - that information DID have a use, and yes, it most certainly should have been preserved. Point is it didn't, and contrary to what anyone says, thats not likely to change in the future. Because after all, if we stored all our documents digitally they _CAN'T_ be lost... Right?

--
[root@GRIFFIN root]# rpm -e coffee-1.22.3-1a.i386.rpm
error: removing these packages would break dependencies:
Re:Good news by Vlad_the_Inhaler · 2004-10-01 07:16 · Score: 1

A couple of a/c's don't seem to believe you - maybe you should have given the names of those abducted along with some links.

What the hell.

It won't be Japan in this case anyway - it will be good old Britain. John Lennon was just a little bit anti-establishment and both Labour and the Tories tend to react allergically to that. The Ted Heath or Harold Wilson governments will have been in a sharing mode when it came to slander back then.

--
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Re:Good news by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2004-10-01 08:01 · Score: 1

A couple of a/c's don't seem to believe you - maybe you should have given the names of those abducted along with some links.

Here's a link - finding out about Kim's penchant for kidnapping Japanese citizens (present count around a dozen) and taking them to N Korea takes about 30 seconds (hail google). He even kidnapped a South Korean director and forced him to make a movie.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:Good news by hesiod · 2004-10-01 08:51 · Score: 1

> "are".

"Asshole."

In addition, Mr. Pedant, the period goes inside the quotes. Any good troll would know that -- especially when trying to look smart by pointing out a silly little mistake.
Re:Good news by Lobsang · 2004-10-01 09:32 · Score: 1

I notice you don't have your email address listed. Is there a reason for that?

Believe it or not, my primary reason is to prevent spam...

One thing is to hide an email that, theoretically will never be revealed and is known to absolutely anyone but me (and a trusted party, in this case, slashdot). This is not obscurity, but rather, impossibility. It is theoretically impossible for you, or anyone else (in principle) to find out the address.

In the case mentioned, at least one other party knows about the details of the deeds the documents are trying to hide, and it may be pointless to try to hide this information.

So, for instance, you may be trying to hide the fact that the US had a deal with someone who's an enemy of a current ally, but in this case, *that* person knows that and can certainly use it against you.
Re:Good news by sparkz · 2004-10-01 13:26 · Score: 1

There should be a law making all records public after a certain period of time (like copyright expiration). (fp?)
I wasn't sure which browser tab I'd opened - I thought it must be the "Sony CD" article!

--
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
Re:Good news by madmac666 · 2004-10-01 21:23 · Score: 1

And from the way the patent law is going, you'll probably need a 'leading software developer' browser to read them.
Re:Good news by anthony_dipierro · 2004-10-01 23:52 · Score: 0, Troll

One thing is to hide an email that, theoretically will never be revealed and is known to absolutely anyone but me (and a trusted party, in this case, slashdot).

And anyone else who monitored an unencrypted connection, and the email provider itself, and anyone who manages to hack into slashdot or yoyur slashdot account, and anyone who looked over your shoulder when you created the account, and anyone with access to a computer you used to log in...

This is not obscurity, but rather, impossibility. It is theoretically impossible for you, or anyone else (in principle) to find out the address.

Right... Cause finding out top secret military information is easy, and figuring out an email address, now that's impossible!

In the case mentioned, at least one other party knows about the details of the deeds the documents are trying to hide, and it may be pointless to try to hide this information.

It may be, but it may not be, and the government is saying it isn't.

So, for instance, you may be trying to hide the fact that the US had a deal with someone who's an enemy of a current ally, but in this case, *that* person knows that and can certainly use it against you.

Of course it may not be in the best interests of that country to use the information. In fact, maybe it can't be used against us, maybe it can only be used against them.

Is security through obscurity completely worthless in certain situations? Sure. Should it ever be used as the sole method to protect something important? Of course not. But is it useful, in certain situations, to hide information from the public? Without a doubt. This isn't even really what is meant by the term "security through obscurity".
Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 04:58 · Score: 0

Not necessarily. For example, would you like to have the original documents from the Manhattan project (weapon designs) made public simply because they are over 60 years old?

Why not? What would be your objection? Are you against it because you are afraid of a nuclear attack?

Nuclear security through obscurity works just as well as the software kind. Otherwise the USA would still control all the nukes in the world.

No, it is better that certain records remain classified, even at the expense of the right of the public to know and especially when the documents in question are important to the national security of the United States.

So you asked yourself a question and then answered it, but without any sort of reasoning to back it up.

Why is it better that certain records remain classified? What do you think the realistic outcome would have been had the Manhattan project documents been fully declassified, say, 40 years ago? How would the world be different? Which countries would have access to nuclear weapons today that don't currently?

Yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 13:56 · Score: 5, Funny

Looks like another big step in the Freedom of Information Act

Imagine!

Re:Yeah by Loco3KGT · 2004-09-30 14:48 · Score: 1

I don't see how this is a step for the Freedom of Information Act. It does us no good to tell everyone who our secret sources are. In fact, it really just screws us. And if I had to choose between more information in the future or knowing dick about John Lennon, well, sorry bud I never liked your music anyway.

--
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 15:06 · Score: 0

Yes, I too believe that the best way to preserve our rights is to never invoke them. That way, they can never be challenged!
Re:Yeah by Waffle+Iron · 2004-09-30 15:15 · Score: 1

It does us no good to tell everyone who our secret sources are.
Yes, it's vitally important to protect the kinds of sources that can provide us the real dirt on John Lennon.
If we play our cards right and avoid compromise, we might be able to utilize those same sources to get to the ultimate truth behind the J. Geils Band!
Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 23:13 · Score: 0

WOMAN!
Re:Yeah by Loco3KGT · 2004-10-01 01:34 · Score: 1

womp wah

--
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 06:18 · Score: 0

FREEBIRD!!!!!!!

This is to avoid the lame-o-tron.

I, for one, am intrigued by the information by Chairboy · 2004-09-30 13:56 · Score: 5, Funny

I look forward to reading the released documents. I believe a 'Sargeant Pepper' may be the foreign national in question, and I think it's high time he produce answers.

Re:I, for one, am intrigued by the information by ConceptJunkie · 2004-09-30 14:55 · Score: 4, Funny

ObSimpsons reference:

Well we all know that the Beatles were subliminally recruiting for the U.S. military.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:I, for one, am intrigued by the information by mink · 2004-10-01 06:31 · Score: 1

What about this so called "Mr. Kite"?
Clearly a secret cover for some activity.

--
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.

And no prizes for guessing who by ewe2 · 2004-09-30 13:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

because my bet is on the British government who were so obliging. I imagine Special Branch were leaping at the chance.

--
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer

Re:And no prizes for guessing who by antifoidulus · 2004-09-30 15:39 · Score: 1

Pffft...the British, what have they ever done. It's Tonga's secret service all the way!

--
Monstar L
Re:And no prizes for guessing who by Oddly_Drac · 2004-09-30 22:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

"I imagine Special Branch were leaping at the chance."

MI5 are the agency in question, and yes, during that time the UK was very accomodating because of a little thing called the 'Cold War' and the 'European Theatre' that had most of the member states of NATO within a short tank drive of the Warsaw pact.

--
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.

One of many revelations in the FBI files.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 13:56 · Score: 5, Funny

the walrus was Paul.

Re:One of many revelations in the FBI files.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 13:58 · Score: 0

Goo goo g'joob.
Re:One of many revelations in the FBI files.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:01 · Score: 0

Oompa oompa everybody oompa.
Re:One of many revelations in the FBI files.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:02 · Score: 0

The larch
Re:One of many revelations in the FBI files.... by jerkychew · 2004-09-30 14:31 · Score: 1

But he's dead!

Beatles? by BenSpinSpace · 2004-09-30 13:57 · Score: 4, Funny

Hey Judge Don't let me down Take a security threat And make it better Remember, for all the harm that you do Screw the FBI, and be a trendsetter

Re:Beatles? by grolschie · 2004-09-30 14:06 · Score: 1

Bah bah bah ba-ba-ba-bah, ba-ba-ba-bah, Hey Judge!
Re:Beatles? by robbyjo · 2004-09-30 15:09 · Score: 4, Funny

It's more like "Let It Be"

When I find myself in times of trouble
The FBI comes to me
Speaking terrorism, let it be...

--

--
Error 500: Internal sig error
Re:Beatles? by rtv · 2004-09-30 17:04 · Score: 1

Both of the parents are McCartney songs. Let's hear it in his own words:
Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for. And no religion too.
Re:Beatles? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 08:54 · Score: 0

Wow! That's as funny as an Adam Sandler song!

crap by just_von · 2004-09-30 13:57 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Now we'll never know where he got all those good drugs from.

Re:crap by just_von · 2004-09-30 14:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

restate that: Now we'll know where he got all those good drugs from!!

Finally... by Lu+Xun · 2004-09-30 13:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

...we'll learn what that last song on the White Album means.

--
That's not a soda... it's a caffeine delivery device!

Re:Finally... by suckmysav · 2004-09-30 14:01 · Score: 1

" ...we'll learn what that last song on the White Album means."

What has Paul McCartney signing goodnight to his kids got to do with the John Lennon files?

--
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
Re:Finally... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:13 · Score: 0

Perhaps you mean the next to last song on the white album.
Re:Finally... by essence · 2004-09-30 14:17 · Score: 0

What has Paul McCartney signing goodnight to his kids got to do with the John Lennon files?

...ahh, that was Ringo singing.
Re:Finally... by kerincosford · 2004-09-30 14:46 · Score: 2, Informative

I think you'll find that's Ringo, singing to John's children.
Re:Finally... by Pig+Hogger · 2004-09-30 15:23 · Score: 1

...we'll learn what that last song on the White Album means.
As silly as it seems, I never heard the full song until I downloaded it on Napster, since the crappy disk-changing phonograph we had when I was a kid would bring back the pick-up arm when it went out that far towards the center of the record...
Re:Finally... by Reducer2001 · 2004-09-30 15:46 · Score: 1

They have this thing right? It's a plastic and metal disc that can store music, video and other information (including the White Album). Been around since way before Napster. :)

--
When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
Re:Finally... by bob+beta · 2004-09-30 17:36 · Score: 1

For years I was unable to listen to the White Album. "Martha My Dear" had developed a bad skip in it, and since the White Album is something that has to be listened to straight through (with delays to flip the LP disks) I just couldn't listen to it anymore.

Thank goodness the Public Library had a CD copy that I recently checked out and duped.

--
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"

I can see it now. by Artie_Effim · 2004-09-30 13:57 · Score: 4, Funny

Yoko, instead of being a super-royal-bitch who is single handedly responsiable for breaking up the greatest band of that era, was in fact a defected spy master, living in annomity amounget the illuminati.

Re:I can see it now. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:00 · Score: 0

Just like the chick on "This is Spinaltap"!
Re:I can see it now. by rco3 · 2004-09-30 14:16 · Score: 2, Informative

1) Greatest band ever. Sadly, White Zombie didn't make the final cut.
2) responsible.
3) anonymity.
3) amongst
Sorry to be such a pedant. One or two errors, I could overlook. Four became too egregious to ignore. After that, I kinda stopped counting...

On the bright side, you spelled the plural of Illuminatus correctly. However, you forgot to capitalize it. Technically, you shouldn't have hyphenated super-royal-bitch the second time; super-royal bitch would have been correct. You should have hyphenated single-handedly, though. Oh, and unless there's a lot more about Yoko we don't know, she is more likely a defected spy mistress.

No offense, I hope. :-)

--

Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
Re:I can see it now. by Pfhorrest · 2004-09-30 14:29 · Score: 2, Funny

1) Greatest band ever. Sadly, White Zombie didn't make the final cut.
2) responsible.
3) anonymity.
3) amongst
Sorry to be such a pedant. One or two errors, I could overlook. Four became too egregious to ignore. After that, I kinda stopped counting...

Were you trying to be funny there, or it it just the irony?

--
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Re:I can see it now. by empaler · 2004-09-30 14:32 · Score: 1

I mostly gave up years ago and just started skipping those posts... ;p /another language nazi
Re:I can see it now. by fatmonkeyboy · 2004-09-30 14:42 · Score: 1

Maybe he used to get mad at his school, the teachers that taught him weren't cool?
Re:I can see it now. by Proudrooster · 2004-09-30 14:50 · Score: 1

As a fellow semantic/syntax/English language Nazi, I would like to point out that the word "amongst" has been deprecated and is considered archaic. In the modern times it is more appropriate to use, "among" instead.
Re:I can see it now. by tmasssey · 2004-09-30 15:06 · Score: 1

Were you trying to be funny there, or it it just the irony? It *it* ironic, isn't is?
:)

--
Linux IT Consulting and Domino Development in Michigan
Re:I can see it now. by rco3 · 2004-09-30 16:05 · Score: 1

I guess it IS a bit ironic. It's only one, though... that, I can overlook.

[shrug] Mea culpa.

--

Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
Re:I can see it now. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 21:16 · Score: 0

Hum, that should rather be the following list.
1) Greatest band ever. Sadly, White Zombie didn't make the final cut.
2) Responsible.
3) Anonymity.
4) Amongst.

Mind the dot, please.
Re:I can see it now. by rco3 · 2004-10-01 07:01 · Score: 1

Well, I suppose that depends, eh? If I were to capitalize the words in my list, the poor blighter who misspelt them the first time might think he was supposed to have capitalized them when HE used them. My intention was to indicate EXACTLY how those words should have been used, in an easy-to-understand, explicit way.

I think the context is important here.

--

Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!

Obligatory by grolschie · 2004-09-30 13:58 · Score: 0, Redundant

Information wants to be free! ;-)

Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:04 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Your sig reminds me: I turned Willing To Meta Moderate off since I have not had mod points in over a year. I'm a subscriber and I have no idea why I lost the ability to be a moderator, but a quick look at my comment history will show that I have a single solitary troll to my name (it was a bad day).

I figure if they can't forgive some imagined transgression, I'm not wasting my time with the meta half of it.
Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:04 · Score: 0

Calories. Freedom. Work.
Re:Obligatory by ESqVIP · 2004-09-30 14:09 · Score: 1

So Let it Be!

Say What? by AsnFkr · 2004-09-30 13:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

Am I the only one that was unaware there was any sort of scandal or cover up or anything fishy about his death? I thought it was a pretty straightforward murder. This is indeed curious information.

--

adventure-today.com

Re:Say What? by tute666 · 2004-09-30 14:13 · Score: 1

Yup, i assumed it was just a crazy fangirl (redundancy?)
Re:Say What? by tukkayoot · 2004-09-30 14:16 · Score: 1

I've never heard about any hidden files or anything either. But it figures, conspiracy theorists are always suspicious of "lone nut" assassins, aren't they?
Of course the article doesn't say the files had anything directly to do with the assassination, so it could just be a straightforward murder, and the files probably relate to something else?
Re:Say What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:19 · Score: 1, Funny

And all along I thought Mark David Chapman was a guy. I guess it explains a lot if he was really just an ugly chick with a guys name.
Re:Say What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:22 · Score: 0

I think there was something about a grassy knoll and more shooters. Damn those grassy knolls!
Re:Say What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

This had nothing to do with his death. The FBI followed John Lennon because he had his own opinion of the war in Vietnam. So President Nixon had the FBI treat him like a national security risk.

Sounds just like the current Administration.
Re:Say What? by sumdumass · 2004-09-30 14:24 · Score: 1

I was under the impression that the FBI kept files on the b eatles because they were foreingers and thier music was not only popular but going against the grain.

In other words, they did it to do it. Reletivly recently the FBI has released some of the files they kept but i guess they were not complete. I never got into them more then listening to thier music a couple of times.
Re:Say What? by ggvaidya · 2004-09-30 14:37 · Score: 4, Informative

It's not about his death (which was pretty straightforward, yeah). In the early 1970s, the FBI were investigating Lennon and other rock-n-rollers with political interests. You can get more information here and here.
Re:Say What? by iamdrscience · 2004-09-30 14:38 · Score: 4, Informative

The files in question are the files the FBI kept on Lennon while he was alive. He was watched by the FBI because of his antiwar stance and he was not a U.S. citizen. There is no controversy about his death.
Re: Say What? by Black+Parrot · 2004-09-30 14:38 · Score: 3, Funny

> I never got into them more then listening to thier music a couple of times.

I presume that disclaimer was for the FBI's benefit...

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Say What? by Babbster · 2004-09-30 14:59 · Score: 0, Troll

I'm sorry. Has there been an FBI investigation of The Dixie Chicks that I'm not aware of? Has Alec Baldwin's garbage been tossed by the feds?
In other words, shut the hell up.
Re:Say What? by krymsin01 · 2004-09-30 15:00 · Score: 1

You'll find out in a 50 years, mabey.

--
stuff
Re:Say What? by linzeal · 2004-09-30 15:03 · Score: 1

I was investigated as part of a pro-life group during the Clinton years. We had obvious people coming in with bran new clothes and shoes acting funny at our meetings. I wish the old website was still up for Anarchists for Life we had some cool forum postings about it.

--
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Re:Say What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 15:04 · Score: 0

Welcome to slashdot. You must be new.
Re:Say What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 15:10 · Score: 0

COINTELPRO.
Re:Say What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 15:14 · Score: 0

Yeah dude. We all know aliens really kidnapped him in a UFO.
Re:Say What? by drinkypoo · 2004-09-30 15:14 · Score: 1

You were part of a group whose name involved the word "Anarchists" and you think you were investigated simply because you were pro-lifers? That doesn't sound like a very rational conclusion.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Say What? by Snowgen · 2004-09-30 15:16 · Score: 1

You mean it had nothing to do with his financial support of the Irish Republican Army?
Re:Say What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 15:41 · Score: 0

In other words, shut the hell up.

Typical

If you have an opinion that differs from the Bush administration you're labeled a terrorist! Boycotts, bans, even arrest seems to be the punishment for speaking your opinion in the wrong place these days.

How would you know if the FBI had a file on the Dixie Chicks? You wouldn't!
Re:Say What? by linzeal · 2004-09-30 15:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

I was investigated along with many other pro-life groups. It had little to do with the fact that I was and still am an anarchist. They do not investigate anarchist groups like the IWW. The operation is called VAAPCON and I am one of many people that have been investigated by it. Even PLAGAL (pro-life alliance of gays and lesbians) was investigated.

--
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Re:Say What? by Babbster · 2004-09-30 15:53 · Score: 1

I was ready to respond intelligently but it occurs to me: I never called anyone a terrorist (nor has the FBI officially labeled anyone a terrorist for disagreeing with the current administration), nobody has been arrested ONLY for speaking their mind, and boycotts are the decisions of people, not governments.
In other words, you're another dumbass who probably thinks that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow stomping on your right to say what you think. It's that attitude that turned me off from the anti-Iraq War movement almost immediately - there don't seem to be any moderates speaking out, just a bunch of shrill, whining leftists.
Re:Say What? by Babbster · 2004-09-30 15:56 · Score: 1

And the fact that people who bombed abortion clinics, put up "hit lists" of doctors who perform abortions, and even shot doctors who performed abortions came out of those kinds of groups has nothing to do with the investigations, right?
Nothing I fear more than a radical who believes God is on his or her side - I say, go FBI.
Re:Say What? by Artifakt · 2004-09-30 15:56 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually, there IS some controversy, including a weird conspiracy theory, about Lennon's death, but for once, the standard weird conspiracy theory doesn't involve the FBI, or the U.S. Government in general.
This one runs approximately as follows.

1 Charles Manson based his Helter-Skelter massacree scheme on the Beatles song from the White album

2. Sharon Tate gets killed by the Manson family as part of that scheme.

3. Sharon Tate was married to director Roman Polanski.

4. Polanski directed the film 'Rosemary's Baby'.

5. Rosemary's Baby was filmed (in part) in the Dakota Building (The rest was shot in the studio).

6. Lennon lived in the Dakota Building, and was shot just outside it.

7. Supposedly, the first report of Lennon's being shot came from the then current occupants of the appartment where Rosmary's Baby was filmed. (This last claim is the only one in the chain that looks iffy).

It all adds up to a chain of strange coincidences, that don't even point to a particular bunch of conspiritors, or suggest a motive. People have looked to see if the little weasel who killed John Lennon could be tied to the Mansonites, to organized Satanism, or to anything else, and found basically nothing, but that doesn't keep people from trying to put it together into a controversy. It's a fair bet that the FBI files will have nothing that sheds any light on this, and that people will keep looking anyway.

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:Say What? by rlwhite · 2004-09-30 16:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

I wonder why? Maybe partially because Bush's grandfather was also Nixon's political mentor? People tend to forget that the Bush political and defense industry connections date back to WWI.
Re:Say What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 16:25 · Score: 0

>>You mean it had nothing to do with his financial support of the Irish Republican Army?

RTFA:

"Professor John Wiener has been campaigning for 17 years to gain access to Lennon's FBI files.

He told BBC News Online he was sceptical about claims that Lennon had donated money to the IRA and the WRP."
Re: Say What? by Trolling4Dollars · 2004-09-30 16:45 · Score: 1

No. But, I will state for the record that I did not inhale.

--
Un-news
Re:Say What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 16:51 · Score: 0

Oh if that were only true...what a sweet, sweet world it would be. As it is now, having to put up with lunatics screaming that their freedom of speech has been taken away is quite bothersome.
Re:Say What? by killjoe · 2004-09-30 16:58 · Score: 1

How would you know?

Are they publishing their investigation someplace now?

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Say What? by linzeal · 2004-09-30 17:29 · Score: 0

They investigated groups that are consistent life ethic as well. The groups you are talking about are a fringe minority that were never part of the majority of groups involved. It is the same thing Bush/Ashcroft is doing with investigating every single Islamic group just because a few crazies crashed planes into the twin towers. It is the same thing Nixon did with many anti-war activists.
Stereotyping entire causes or peoples as potentially dangerous or against this or that way of life is the first step in dehumanizing them. They do the same thing to the unborn and you can thank them for having safer streets today because of it. 40 million people mostly of poor urban origin would of caused the US to crumble faster than it already is.

--
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Re:Say What? by mqduck · 2004-09-30 17:36 · Score: 1

Like all these other people said, it's probably just about the spying done on him while he was alive, but I distinctly remember hearing somewhere that one of John Lennon's sons, Shaun, is convinced some branch of the government was responsible for his death.

--
Property is theft.
Re:Say What? by MemoryDragon · 2004-09-30 17:59 · Score: 1

Ask some people who were harrassed during flights, because suddenly they landed in the terrorist database without any reason.

(No I am not talking about Cat Stevens here) Even normal Senators already had the luck.

Those who dont want to hear wont here.
Re:Say What? by MemoryDragon · 2004-09-30 18:02 · Score: 1

I think the only thing which will come out is, that the Nixon government was overly paranoid. A fact already known.
Re:Say What? by JonToycrafter · 2004-09-30 19:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

OK, I'm being trolled, but...

People get arrested ONLY for speaking their mind more often than you think. Police will make up a crime - I've seen it done many times, and had it happen to me once - you can read about it here if you feel like it.

Of course, you're breaking a law at almost any time. It's more common to arrest someone for breaking a law that many other people are breaking, the only difference being that the arrested person spoke their mind against the current Administration.

I step off the sidewalk to walk around people every time I walk down Canal Street in Manhattan, as do the cops. However, people who have more of a history of speaking their mind get arrested for the same act - I read an article here about this just today.

So I don't find your criticism credible. I wouldn't bother posting, except you seem like someone logical who's drawn a conclusion based on incomplete information, and I wouldn't want others to do the same.
Re:Say What? by dbIII · 2004-09-30 20:49 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Sounds just like the current Administration.
Do you mean the petty Cat Stevens plane diversion thing? I think that was just one loser with a taste for power that knows he is no longer accountable - just like those unaccountables getting up to all kinds of nastyness with prisoners in Iraqi jails.
It's the sort of time where people will steal and kill, then wrap themselves in the flag later and not face the wrath of authority - since authority has shown it no longer cares. Whatever the next administration or two is will have to deal with it as well.
Re:Say What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 22:00 · Score: 0

"Pro-lifers" and "rational" in the same breath? Wonderful, the first (and probably last) time I'll ever see such a thing occur. ;)
Re:Say What? by glesga_kiss · 2004-09-30 22:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's that attitude that turned me off from the anti-Iraq War movement almost immediately
WTF? It's not a movement!! If you disagree, you disagree. You don't need to jump on a bandwagon!! You don't have to like people that share your opinion!!
Jeez, I feel like Brian shouting "you are all indivudual!" here...
Re:Say What? by glesga_kiss · 2004-09-30 22:53 · Score: 1

In the early 1970s, the FBI were investigating Lennon and other rock-n-rollers with political interests.
Ah, the land of the free.
The US delusion is almost comical, especially now as you approach totalitairism. Step in line, patriots!!
Re:Say What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 00:31 · Score: 0

It's a fair bet that the FBI files will have nothing that sheds any light on this,

Yeah, that would explain keeping it locked away for so long.

Whenever governments or other people in power try to keep something secret, it's because they have something to hide.
Re:Say What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 00:32 · Score: 0

Ted the town drunk, normal?
Re:Say What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 01:33 · Score: 0

Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't "unaccountable" mean that you won't be hauled before a court-martial?
Re:Say What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 01:37 · Score: 0

I'm *waiting* to hear how the FBI investigating John Lennon is synonymous with totalitarianism. Oh my $DIETY! They kept *records* on somebody! How *dare* they investigate people who voice strong dissenting opinions of the government!

I think the only delusion here is yours, in thinking that people who voice any strong opinions in public shouldn't be questioned.
Re:Say What? by orim · 2004-10-01 03:23 · Score: 1

You know, the game is to do it in 5 steps of less. Beyond that, it's just a coincidence.

--
"If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
Re:Say What? by glesga_kiss · 2004-10-01 03:36 · Score: 1

I think the only delusion here is yours, in thinking that people who voice any strong opinions in public shouldn't be questioned.
Absolutely not, a free society demands questioning. However, it shouldn't be a cloak and dagger witchhunt. With Lennon, the powers that be fought to keep him out of the US, such as giving him a lot of visa trouble, simply because he spoke out against them. How does that fit into your freedom utopia? These files exist because they were seeking something contraversial to use against him! Which is what politics seemes to have decended into nowadays. Rather than discuss the issue at hand, attention seems to move towards "getting the dirt".
Don't get me wrong, I love what the USA stands for. Unfortunately, it doesn't stand for that anymore.
Re:Say What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 06:52 · Score: 0

I remember someone said "You are either with us or against us". That to me says anyone who isn't with the party line is against it and only terrorists as we all know would be against Bush.
Re:Say What? by madmac666 · 2004-10-01 21:34 · Score: 1

Yes, and taking into account Roman Polanski's recent interests in occult, misticism and former in 13 year old girls, the implication is simple - it must be a yet another masonic-iluminati-conspiracy of the ages plot.
Re:Say What? by Artifakt · 2004-10-02 13:35 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure they have something to hide, whether it's that they acted overly paranoid about Lennon's politics or just that Hoover lusted after Yoko's wardrobe, but I doubt it has anything to do with the actual murder.

--
Who is John Cabal?

Won't Be Long by geomon · 2004-09-30 14:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

And you will have to fight for the information that US security and intelligence agencies have accumulated on you.

The problem with the USA Patriot Act is that it has an unintended consequence: While working under the guise of gathering information on terrorists (a good thing) a great deal more information is gathered on innocent individuals (a bad thing).

Now before people start waving their arms around with "You've got nothing to worry about unless you've got something to hide", keep in mind that information can always be used for purposes other than stopping terrorism. Information can be used for political reasons as well.

That is the problem with the USA Patriot Act. You will never know what information has been gathered on you, and you will never know if some *legal* activity, such as belonging to a political organization, will become a problem for you or your family in the future.

Lennon may not have been right, he may have created political problems for the Nixon Administration, but he did everything in the open and legally.

Look where it got him.

--
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"

Re:Won't Be Long by tm2b · 2004-09-30 14:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem with the USA Patriot Act is that it has an unintended consequence: While working under the guise of gathering information on terrorists (a good thing) a great deal more information is gathered on innocent individuals (a bad thing).
Jim Pinkerton, a FOX News (bear with me, he's one of the ones who does more than repeat the RNC talking points) commentator, makes an excellent point against the Patriot Act that conservatives would be wise to attend.

When they read the Patriot Act, they imagine it being used against people that this administration deems as enemies. They are comfortable with this: they see it as to be used against terrorists, illegal immigrants and other potential dangers.

Pinkerton makes the point that they must now picture the same powers in the hand of an administration that they would not be some comfortable with: for example, in the hands of a liberal President, let's say for the sake of argument a President Hillary Clinton.

Most neocons should think long and hard about that kind of mix, and why the United States has the strong tradition of limiting the power of the executive and subjecting everything to the possibility of judicial review. They're not there to protect the terrorists, they're there to protect us against an administration with whom we do not agree.

--
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Re: Won't Be Long by Black+Parrot · 2004-09-30 14:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

> and why the United States has the strong tradition of limiting the power of the executive and subjecting everything to the possibility of judicial review.

And unfortunately, we also have a strong tradition of spying on people who don't do what the powers that be want them to do. A few years back news came out that that the FBI had a 70 page file on a former president of the University of California, simply because he wouldn't fire a couple of professors that certain people thought were too liberal.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re: Won't Be Long by tm2b · 2004-09-30 14:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

And unfortunately, we also have a strong tradition of spying on people who don't do what the powers that be want them to do. A few years back news came out that that the FBI had a 70 page file on a former president of the University of California, simply because he wouldn't fire a couple of professors that certain people thought were too liberal.
Indeed. And you can find much stronger examples, in the student, civil rights, and religious groups that J. Edgar Hoover's FBI spied on, and further back to the efforts that Senators Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon made to support spying upon suspected communists and the later President Richard Nixon's "enemies list" that helped direct Hoover's excesses.

There's nothing that bothers me more about neocons than their contempt for checks and balances on the executive and legislative branches. I miss the days in the 80s when neocons were commonly referred to as "cryptofascists." I'd like to see that term return.

--
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Re:Won't Be Long by xs650 · 2004-09-30 15:12 · Score: 5, Funny

"The problem with the USA Patriot Act is that it has an unintended consequence: While working under the guise of gathering information on terrorists (a good thing) a great deal more information is gathered on innocent individuals (a bad thing)."

If you believe that was a fully unintended consequence, I own a long suspension bridge north of San Francisco to sell you.
Re:Won't Be Long by geomon · 2004-09-30 15:15 · Score: 1

I was being gracious.

--
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Re:Won't Be Long by nightfire-unique · 2004-09-30 15:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

Now before people start waving their arms around with "You've got nothing to worry about unless you've got something to hide", keep in mind that information can always be used for purposes other than stopping terrorism. Information can be used for political reasons as well.
Forget political reasons. What if you do have something to hide?
No, I'm serious. You're a criminal. I'm a criminal. We're all criminals. You've downloaded copyrighted movies/mp3s, he's smoked some drugs, she sat at the front of the bus, and I've driven 19mph over the speed limit.
There are so many laws in America, it's simply a matter of whether someone gets caught.
I for one am not interested in giving the "powers that be" any more control/surveillance capacity than they already have.

--
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Re:Won't Be Long by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 16:08 · Score: 0

And you will have to fight for the information that US security and intelligence agencies have accumulated on you.

Is this part of the PATRIOT Act? I always thought it was my right to request to see my FBI file.
Re:Won't Be Long by Matt_Joyce · 2004-09-30 16:29 · Score: 1

"unintended" pffft. keep up at the back.
Re:Won't Be Long by dbIII · 2004-09-30 20:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

Forget political reasons. What if you do have something to hide?
A good example was the former president of Pakistan being forced out of Office after being filmed by intelligence agents having sex in her own bedroom with her own husband - and not doing anything forbidden by her religeon. The moral failure was seen in allowing herself to be filmed, which she didn't know was happening. Even when you do nothing wrong you can be screwed over by uncontrolled intelligence agencies - so they need some form of check and balance. Secrecy is often used as an excuse to avoid regulation, and often to hide the mistakes of individuals. It can be argued that national security is at stake every time an inept loser is exposed in the intelligence community, but that sort of argument should just be laughed at along with the dissappearing Niger Uranium and the Chinese getting the sum total of the US nuclear research in a spectacular stuff up.
Re:Won't Be Long by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 03:03 · Score: 0

Ayn Rand discussed the many thousands of laws in the US, which cover every conceivable aspect of our lives. Her idea was that the government wanted everybody to be an outlaw so that none could claim to be innocent. If you can destroy the moral and ethical fibre of a man, you can break him. You can own him.

All men are criminals, and deserve to be treated as such.... Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.... And by letting the government tell us we are all sinners, we cannot morally question their corruption without being seen as hypocrites.
Re:Won't Be Long by jbridge21 · 2004-10-01 03:46 · Score: 1

and don't forget the IRS... if you don't get your paperwork exactly right, you've just committed a bureaucratic crime, and damned if you can even get them to tell you exactly what the problem is.
Re:Won't Be Long by Jagasian · 2004-10-01 03:49 · Score: 1

Which Pakistani president was this?
Re:Won't Be Long by dbIII · 2004-10-01 10:07 · Score: 1

Which Pakistani president was this?
I was incorrect - it was the Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in 1996.
The current military rule followed a few years afterwards.

Confidential: by Sophrosyne · 2004-09-30 14:01 · Score: 4, Funny

Yoko Ono is really an alien... do not look her directly in the eyes.

Re:Confidential: by DAldredge · 2004-09-30 14:12 · Score: 5, Funny

Screw that! Do NOT under any circumstance listen to the Audio Weapon she calls 'singings'.

Death, or worse a love of techno, may result.
Re:Confidential: by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:20 · Score: 0

Fourteen years. Files. That bit about, Yoko. Life-size statuary. Seen in malls. Train stations. Along the boardwalk. Creepers. Yoko. Before. Sentient. Now. Stone. Gulp. Yoko.
Re:Confidential: by drinkypoo · 2004-09-30 15:18 · Score: 1

She's worse than Barbara Streisand! God forbid she should ever manage to get her hands on the triangle of Zinthar.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Confidential: by bob+beta · 2004-09-30 17:40 · Score: 1

Actually, I prefer the Yoko 'Plastic Ono Band' album to the John one. (there are two, most people have never heard Yoko's)

--
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"

Exemptions by acceber · 2004-09-30 14:02 · Score: 5, Informative

The FOI Act applies explicitly to government agencies, such as the FBI. The FBI challenged the act because they felt that the information was a threat to national security. There are nine exemptions to the FOI Act in which an agency can refuse to disclose information.

Here are the exemptionsexemptions.

Re:Exemptions by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 16:56 · Score: 0

I assume the challenge was based on #7 Law Enforcement Investigations.

> could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source

Nice to see the government trumpeting something other than good ol' "National Security"
Re:Exemptions by Oddly_Drac · 2004-09-30 22:54 · Score: 3, Funny

"There are nine exemptions to the FOI Act in which an agency can refuse to disclose information."

Are any 'embarrassment'?

--
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.

You're right, by empaler · 2004-09-30 14:02 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm reading up on the FBI files on the JFK assassination atm... oh, wait.

Re:You're right, by Thomas+Miconi · 2004-09-30 22:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm reading up on the FBI files on the JFK assassination atm

The JFK assassination is one case where the public was exposed to lots of information, which is not a problem - the problem is that, in remarkable accordance with Sturgeon's law, 90% of this information was absolute crap.

A majority of americans today believe that there has been some kind of conspiracy around Kennedy's murder. Oliver Stone's film is probably the number 1 culprit for this. The ever helpful BBC made a documentary which simply blasted the conspiracy theory (in particular, the "magic bullet" thing was shown to be quintessential BS). See this page for a summary of the main points.

Thomas Miconi
Re:You're right, by Xiver · 2004-10-01 00:15 · Score: 1

Here ya go...

--
10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
20: GOTO 10
Re:You're right, by Scrameustache · 2004-10-01 01:46 · Score: 1

A majority of americans today believe that there has been some kind of conspiracy around Kennedy's murder. Oliver Stone's film is probably the number 1 culprit for this. The ever helpful BBC made a documentary which simply blasted the conspiracy theory

The simple fact that they sealed the documents for 70 years, the life expectancy, means that when the docs are released, anybody who once remembered where they were when JFK was shot will be dead, and therefore there will be no one able to know if the docs are pure BS.

I don't know WHAT they are trying to cover up, but there sure is a damn conspiracy to hide something.

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:You're right, by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 02:16 · Score: 0

A majority of americans today believe that there has been some kind of conspiracy around Kennedy's murder. Oliver Stone's film is probably the number 1 culprit for this.

Americans believed in a conspiracy long before Oliver Stone picked up a camera. Not only is your statement just plain wrong, it shows a complete lack of historical knowledge outside of the 1990s.

The sites you link to are more cultural rants then any attempt at historical research.

You seem to have acquired a very strong opinion on this issue without much information. Do you see this as some sort of parable or symbolic morality play that is larger than the facts of the situation?

Good news? Bad news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Wow, I can't believe people are so selfish that they'd risk the U.S.'s relations with another country just so they, and _possibly_ others, can see what happened. If the FBI wants documents classified, the FBI has a good reason. I don't want another 9/11 in the U.S. or a foreign country just because people want to see some documents.

Re:Good news? Bad news by wHartHog(69) · 2004-09-30 14:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

You've got to be kidding. The whole reason we have these problems is because of secrecy. We must hold our government accountable for its actions. The only way to ensure that is to know what, when, where, why, and how it takes action. There is no "them" and "us". The government is an extention of "the people", and should act on our behalf. We must ensure that it does. Freedom requires dilegence. And action
Re:Good news? Bad news by momerath2003 · 2004-09-30 14:17 · Score: 1

I believe YHBT.

--
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
Re:Good news? Bad news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:21 · Score: 0

What slashdotters don't get is that the government isn't out to get us. Yes, it may be fun to think up conspiracy theories so that our drab lives feel better, but the truth of the matter is that what's classified is classified _for a reason_. Many of the people working for the government are some of the most moral people in the country. We need a balance of freedom and security to survive and strive as a country. Unbalancing one for the other because of interest or paranoia is not a good idea. These issues are real, and should be treated as real.
Re:Good news? Bad news by TibbonZero · 2004-09-30 14:21 · Score: 1

So speakth the AC...

--
Tibbon
tibbon.com
Re:Good news? Bad news by wHartHog(69) · 2004-09-30 14:21 · Score: 1

Quite possible. Trolls better watch out though - I have bigger teeth.
Re:Good news? Bad news by einhverfr · 2004-09-30 14:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wow, I can't believe people are so selfish that they'd risk the U.S.'s relations with another country just so they, and _possibly_ others, can see what happened. If the FBI wants documents classified, the FBI has a good reason. I don't want another 9/11 in the U.S. or a foreign country just because people want to see some documents.

Right, and by that logic, let's just suspend Habeus because it might make us safer too....

No, judicial and legal principles, and the framework of liberty is more important than any single action that the government does purportedly in the interest of the people. Otherwise we lose *all* our liberty.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Re:Good news? Bad news by empaler · 2004-09-30 14:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Freedom requires dilegence. And action

Some dead guy once said something similar, to some extent:

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.
Re:Good news? Bad news by wHartHog(69) · 2004-09-30 14:36 · Score: 1

People are: a) basically good b) basically bad c) basically neutral There is no way to be certain without taking a measurement is there? Everything else is conjecture and opinion. And how do you make take the measurement? Observation. Read this page for a few quotes from people who had experience:
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/The_price_of_fr eedom_is_eternal_vigilance/12143.html
Re:Good news? Bad news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:50 · Score: 0

> If the S.S. wants documents classified, the S.S. has a good reason.

Damn straight -- it might be the master plans for the gas chambers -- can't have the fucking inmates (er, citizens) getting their hands on those.
Re:Good news? Bad news by jrexilius · 2004-09-30 15:04 · Score: 1

damn good point. one could argue that the best compromise between oversight and operational effectiveness (secrecy is part of that) is the existing checks and balances systems and things like the Information Act.

Obviously there has to be a blance and wherever there is a balnace to be struck there is conflict. I think we could use a few more pulls on the privacy and freedom side and this recent ruling is good to see.
Re:Good news? Bad news by T-Ranger · 2004-09-30 15:11 · Score: 1

Except that they are both on the topic of freedom, they have very little in common.
Re:Good news? Bad news by drinkypoo · 2004-09-30 15:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

What slashdotters don't get is that the government isn't out to get us.

It's not that the government is out to get "us" per se, especially if by us you mean everyone in the U.S. The government is out to get anyone who interferes with its nefarious fucking schemes to grow into this cthulhuesque horror which consumes the whole nation. The federal government is the ultimate bureaucracy because you're not even allowed to sue it without permission! The government is not a single entity either but it is united in certain pursuits.

What are those pursuits? For one, the poverty industry. Different parts of the government are more or less involved in different parts of the stratification of society for the purpose of employing more people in the government - which costs us all money. First there's the welfare system, which penalizes success by taking away help from the people who need it most - if you can't make the jump from poor to not poor in one step, the government will cut back your aid so that you stay poor. Next there's the War on Drugs - it employs thousands in law enforcement, corrections, and the judicial system, but ultimately it's harming the populace. It's modern-day prohibition, but the masses are happy enough with their alcohol and cigarettes that they won't (for the most part) do anything about it, so the system continues in its lovely little circles, helped along by our own Cocaine Import Agency.

If you're one of the people who does anything the goverment doesn't like you to do, then it's not unreasonable to be paranoid.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Good news? Bad news by Oliver+Defacszio · 2004-09-30 15:24 · Score: 1

As romantic as I'm sure you find that little quip to be, it's brutally wrong in a situation where one has a small number (or no) allies.
Take, for example, the old linux chestnut of "more eyes find and fix problems faster" than closed solutions. How about if there were no "eyes" willing to fix the problems and countless willing to exploit this miraculous openness?
In such a case, zero freedom would mean increased security. Sure, the Bad Guys will still try, but they won't have a wide open map to the prize. The U.S. isn't exactly everyone's pal in this world, so one is reasonable to cringe at the idea of being wide open to inspection.
Of course, not being an American, I don't care that much.

--

-
Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
Re:Good news? Bad news by FuzzyBad-Mofo · 2004-09-30 15:49 · Score: 1

Damn, that's scary if you posted that *not* in jest. Try reading _1984_ sometime.
Re:Good news? Bad news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 16:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

I didn't write it in jest, but, annoyed as I was at people wanting to see it for personal interest and not freedom, I wrote it too strongly. I believe we need as many freedoms as we can get, but there's a point where citizens should not know what's going on. That's why so much information is classified. It's good that a judge made some documents disclosed if they should not be classified, but I hate it when people, disregarding the other side completely, immediately jump up and shout that they should be given everything they want just because they want it. It's the usual slashdot tone: popular ideas among slashdotters get modded up, and most other posts get modded down.
Re:Good news? Bad news by TrancePhreak · 2004-09-30 17:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is another problem that arises when there is no secrecy. That problem is that everybody else knows your every move and everything you are doing. It's the same problem with people in gangs and stuff who give information for better treatment. As soon as the people who you gave info about find out you have to go into hiding. I don't know about you, but it's pretty hard to hide a whole country. Or imagine someone from another country gives us information, we would be unable to guarantee their safety. This makes it less likely that we would get that information in the first place. As usual, the problem with Slashdot and politics is that people try to simplify the problems without keeping all the important issues in mind.

--

-]Phreak Out[-
Re:Good news? Bad news by rudolfel · 2004-09-30 18:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Many of the people working for the government are some of the most moral people in the country ... and many of the people working for the goverment are the less moral people in the country. And what's worse is that they are in command

--
-- Segmentation fault. Core dumped
Re:Good news? Bad news by javaman235 · 2004-09-30 19:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Everybody knowing everybodies every move is way less dangerous than a small elite knowing everybody elses moves while the majority of the populous remains in the dark.

--
-The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
Re:Good news? Bad news by jovetoo · 2004-09-30 20:06 · Score: 1

I agree.
I would also like to add that those pursuits are (now more than ever) mostly in the interest of the insanely rich. Especially things like cutting back welfare budgets and abolishing tax on stock revenues. I do understand that people who invested in politicians want a return on their money, but there are limits.
And although paranoia should be used with moderation, a healthy dose of critical observation cannot hurt. The latter might give you trouble keepng that paranoia in check though. YMMV,
Re:Good news? Bad news by legirons · 2004-09-30 20:32 · Score: 1

"Wow, I can't believe people are so selfish that they'd risk the U.S.'s relations with another country"

Or more specifically, the US government's relationship with that other country's government, both of which are too embarrassed to admit to their respective countries what they did.
Re:Good news? Bad news by 0x0d0a · 2004-09-30 21:10 · Score: 1

Wow, I can't believe people are so selfish that they'd risk the U.S.'s relations with another country just so they, and _possibly_ others, can see what happened. If the FBI wants documents classified, the FBI has a good reason. I don't want another 9/11 in the U.S. or a foreign country just because people want to see some documents.

Why do you trust the people at the FBI more than you trust yourself and the other civilians that the people at the FBI are employed as servants of?

--
May we never see th
Re:Good news? Bad news by torpor · 2004-09-30 22:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why do you trust the people at the FBI more than you trust yourself and the other civilians that the people at the FBI are employed as servants of?

Because he doesn't trust himself? Because he doesn't trust any other civilian members of society?

Because he has been brain-washed into thinking that "Them" are high and mighty, and because "He" is just a me-me-me consumerican bot, worshipful of none but Self?

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Re:Good news? Bad news by Vellmont · 2004-09-30 22:31 · Score: 1

What a lot of baloney. In case you've forgotten we're talking about John Lennon being monitored by the Nixon Administration (i.e. dirty tricks, watergate, extreme paranoia). We're NOT talking about terrorism here. The "good reason" is probbably nothing more than protecting themselves from embarassment.

We're also talking about something that happened more than 32 years ago to person that is now dead. If the government can hide this from public view, they can hide anything they want.

--
AccountKiller
Re:Good news? Bad news by Oddly_Drac · 2004-09-30 22:47 · Score: 1

"I can't believe people are so selfish that they'd risk the U.S.'s relations with another country just so they, and _possibly_ others, can see what happened."

It's my country (the UK), and the US' relations with us are already in the crapper. As to the information, it generally relates to Lennon's antiwar activities during a time in the history of the 'free world' that such people were considered dangerous subversives and worthy of following around. Believe me, _we_ know that it happened, so there's unlikely to be anything worrying in the reports.

The same thing happened in the UK with nursing shop stewards during the strikes in the late seventies.

--
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
Re:Good news? Bad news by dpilot · 2004-10-01 00:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's why there is often a delay before the information gets released. Most information is timely - after a few years, it just doesn't matter in any practical terms.

But it IS important that the information be released in order to become part of our history, and part of our historical learning.

Obviously things like the Witness Protection Act have a necessarily longer secrecy horizon. I wouldn't advocate that lives be endangered. But I don't want our stupid mistakes to be swept under the rug, so we can't learn not to do that, again.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Re:Good news? Bad news by Atzanteol · 2004-10-01 01:13 · Score: 1

Most information is timely - after a few years, it just doesn't matter in any practical terms.

Perhaps if it's a one time thing, but what if nation B has been feeding nation A information for years? And if nation C knew that, then there would/could be a *lot* of trouble for nation B?

The situation can also be akin to a reporter reveiling a source. After they have done so, they can kiss that (and any other) source goodbye.

I will agree that *eventually* that information must be made free. I just disagree tha the timescale is easily determined and can be applied the same in all circumstances.

--
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

- Charles Darwin
Re:Good news? Bad news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 01:30 · Score: 0

If you're one of the people who does anything the goverment doesn't like you to do, then it's not unreasonable to be paranoid.

Yes, if you are doing something illegal then I think any government should be after you, and hence, cause you paranoia.
Re:Good news? Bad news by ragefan · 2004-10-01 01:32 · Score: 1

Wow, I can't believe people are so selfish that they'd risk the U.S.'s relations with another country just so they, and _possibly_ others, can see what happened. If the FBI wants documents classified, the FBI has a good reason. I don't want another 9/11 in the U.S. or a foreign country just because people want to see some documents.

If they had just released the information, a vast majority people would probably never have paid it any attention at all. Now by saying no, they have piqued the interest of many people that want to know what the information is, on a guy that has been dead for almost 25 years, that needs to be held back as to risk foreign relations.

Its probably something silly like some foreign leader gets violently ill at hearing 'Instant Karma'.
Re:Good news? Bad news by NeedleSurfer · 2004-10-01 01:42 · Score: 1

I think you fail to understand the view your government (and mine for that matter) has on you. It obviously isn't there to get us, like you said, but we merely are the asset of one big organisation and this organisation must do anything in it's power so that we continue to consumme and obey. Hidding truth, propaganda, social measures all have this purpose in mind.

We live in a model, like every society, the values we decided we would cherish are the boundaries of this model, once it's running, if we stop it, the people operating it will fall. This is why everything must be approched with those values in mind, a change in values (not in polarity but in substance) will deffinitely trouble the leaders of our society, the day people got aware of the environmental problems and decided to fight for it has brought enormous changes in our society, it cost a lot, structures need to be changed and the leaders will do all they can to still hold power and until they have found a way to integrate this value in a way that doesn't change the chain of command and their power level ecological thinking will be a rebel thing they will invoke to look good in public speeches. I take the whole clothing industry as an example, eco-friendly design on environmentaly harmfull synthetic fabric (some synthetic fabric aren't harmfull btw...) is very common. The best way to hold power is to feed the opposition, give them clothes, music and movies that show their opinions and they will buy it and be proud of it and participate in the grand model you setted up, the biggest consummers are the rebels, this has been a great victory.

Keep that in mind, the governement isn't there to get us, they have nothing against us but they need to use us and gear our mindsets if we are to form a good base for their society. They've become very proficient in this art.
Re:Good news? Bad news by dpilot · 2004-10-01 01:51 · Score: 1

I think it's still a matter of lifetime. I agree that between nations, the lifetime issue might be longer, but frequently such lifetime issues are also related to the people in charge, and still take on human lifetimes, or human administration lifetimes.

I would just suggest that "never" is very rarely an acceptable secrecy duration. ALL information that is classified should be tagged with a release date, if only to trigger future review prior to release. There should also be guidelines to determine if the release is "administration," "human," or "weapons of mass destruction you can make at home" lifetime.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Re:Good news? Bad news by Feanturi · 2004-10-01 04:33 · Score: 1

I was really pissed off when, some time a few months after 9/11, some politician in california, don't remember who, went all blabby to everyone about a suspected terror attack imminent on one of the major bridges in the US. STFU and go there to meet and catch them, don't put up a big sign saying, "Hey we know your plan!!" Was there an attack on a bridge after that? No of course not, and why would there be? An opportunity to get more sections of the snake presented itself, and was dashed away just like that.
Re:Good news? Bad news by WreathOfBarbs · 2004-10-01 05:02 · Score: 1

So what you are saying is that because a government says something is bad (illegal) then we should automatically obey without thought or protest, even when it is a patently ridiculous law? The only way bad laws can be removed from the books is if they are challenged by people. However our society conditions us to be sheep, mewling our way into whatever pen our governments feel we should be kept. The appropriate behavior is for us to allow our leaders to abuse laws like eminent domain to force less profitable businesses and people to give their land over to more profitable new landowners. If we squawk we are unpatriotic and against the well being of our communities. Shall we bow our heads in acquiescence every time the government wants to steal another piece of our freedom, in the name of security?

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
Re:Good news? Bad news by terbor · 2004-10-01 08:20 · Score: 1

And when that small elite is a group like Al-Qaeda or Hamas, we're in for a world of shit

Moderators on vinegar? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:09 · Score: 0

Off-topic? Moderators must be on vinegar!

Re:Moderators on vinegar? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:19 · Score: 0

Nah, the moderator was 12 and has never heard a beatles song.

When will "they" stop trying to protect us from by Bob+Bitchen · 2004-09-30 14:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

the truth? Haven't we matured enough as a civilization to be able to handle the truth? It's as if "they" think we're all scared sheep that will fly into a panic at even the hint of "bad" news. We have come a long way and deserve the truth. Plus it's just not fair that "they" get to know all the juicy details.

--
http://tinyurl.com/3t236

Re:When will "they" stop trying to protect us from by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:12 · Score: 0

Grab your tinfoil hat and read this.
Re:When will "they" stop trying to protect us from by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 15:35 · Score: 0

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!
-My Dad
Re:When will "they" stop trying to protect us from by karmatic · 2004-09-30 16:15 · Score: 1

Why does your sig link to a password protected URL? Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose?
Re:When will "they" stop trying to protect us from by 26199 · 2004-09-30 19:49 · Score: 1

Sadly the honest answer to your rhetorical questions is "no, we haven't". Think what happens when someone reports that there's a one in fifty thousand chance an asteroid might hit the earth, or a hypothetical link between a drug and some nasty symptom. People panick.

People are, generally speaking, unable to deal sensibly with facts they're not qualified to understand, which for most people means a lot of facts.

Not that I can come up with a better solution than telling everyone... having to take a test before they tell you the truth probably wouldn't be productive :-)
Re:When will "they" stop trying to protect us from by maxpublic · 2004-09-30 22:27 · Score: 1

It isn't about trying to spare us a moment of panic, it's about control. People in power remain in power by maintaining control over those under them, and this is much easier to do when you can choose what information to dispense to your sheep and what information to deny them.

Imagine two scenarios here, just for the fun of it (disclaimer: I do not believe there is any evidence whatsoever that aliens have, or are, visting this planet.)

- scenario A: The Roswell crash really was an alien spacecraft. Why hide it? Because if folks are presented with proof positive that there are, indeed, other forms of intelligent life in the universe, and that it's possible to travel between the stars, then they might start questioning the importance of certain issues here on Earth. They might even (gasp!) question the decisions of their own government, particularly in terms of spending and priorities (e.g., we know it's possible to travel to the stars, so why aren't we spending more money figuring out how to do it, and less on military adventures here on Earth?). It's much, much better if people are left with the impression that humans are the only intelligent life in the entire universe, and Earth is a one-of-a-kind planet. Focus their attention on Earth, and what we tell them is important on Earth; don't let them get distracted by thinking on subjects outside the box that we outline for them. They might become less manageable, and we can't have that!

- scenario B: a scientific team comes up with a viable way to alter the human genetic code to turn off the defect we call 'aging'. You think 'cool! I'll live forever!'; people in power go 'agh! disaster!'. Why? Because if immortality is shown to be achievable, then it'll be demanded as a natural right which the government MUST provide to every citizen. And following from that comes the realization that you no longer have to scramble every day of your short, miserable life working yourself to death to buy as many toys as you can before you drop dead. In fact, since barring accident or violence you have an effectively unlimited amount of time to earn whatever money you want, you might just come to the conclusion that working your ass off every day of the week is a waste; that perhaps frenetic consumerism isn't all that it's cracked up to be. You might even decide to only work 6 hours a day, and spend the rest of the time on hobbies - perhaps even take a serious look at political issues, and candidates, which you never had the time for before. You might come to the conclusion that spending on credit is a fool's game, when you can just save up your money for a year or two and be no worse off for waiting, to the great distress of banking institutions everywhere (you aren't aging, remember?). You might even wonder if having a multi-trillion dollar debt is a good thing, since it's quite conceivable that YOU will be around when it comes time to pay it off.

Now, what do you think would become of this new wonder-treatment? My guess is that the information would disappear into some dusty, heavily-secured archive, and that the members of the science team would be blackmailed into silence - or killed, if certain members didn't proof amenable to less extreme measures.

Restricting information is always about control. These two examples are extreme bits of fantasy (although effective immortality will certainly be discovered at some point, whether it's ten years from now or a hundred years from now), but you can see how the same ideas can apply to more mundane situations.

And let's also remember that government often fucks up, big-time. Hiding information is a good way to avoid embarrassment and possible prosecution for criminal behavior. In this case control is used to prevent outraged citizens from kicking the asses of certain current and former government goons.

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:When will "they" stop trying to protect us from by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 01:40 · Score: 0

/Media clip on

The Truth?

You can't handle the thruth!

/ Media clip off

Sorry could not help it.
Re:When will "they" stop trying to protect us from by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-10-01 03:15 · Score: 1

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"

--
Dyolf Knip
Re:When will "they" stop trying to protect us from by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 04:26 · Score: 0

Oblig. 'A few good men' quote:

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth

Are you now by empaler · 2004-09-30 14:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

Re:Are you now by Kadmium · 2004-09-30 19:41 · Score: 1

Nyet.
Re:Are you now by Threni · 2004-09-30 21:06 · Score: 1

> or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

Or a Jew..uh, I mean Muslim?
Re:Are you now by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 03:11 · Score: 0

You might not be aware but this is still a question asked on the interview to become US citizen and it is on pretty much every immigration application.

McCarthy's legacy is still alive and kicking.

What I wanna know is... by NeuroManson · 2004-09-30 14:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why oh WHY are records sealed regarding, in essense, a celebrity civilian who's been dead for almost 24 years now?

I mean I had my own conspiracy theory that it was due to the Reagan administration taking office, or a Manchurian Candidate situation, but hasn't the FBI figured out that hiding documents on cold cases long out of date only adds to the suspicion?

--
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!

Re:What I wanna know is... by CosmeticLobotamy · 2004-09-30 14:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

hasn't the FBI figured out that hiding documents on cold cases long out of date only adds to the suspicion?

The FBI knows what it's doing. If you only fight when you have something to hide, everyone will know you have something to hide when you're fighting. Every time there's a controversy made about it and it turns out to be nothing, people get less suspicious.

That, and they just don't like to have we mortals looking over their shoulders. It's a penis thing.
Re:What I wanna know is... by Xaoswolf · 2004-09-30 14:42 · Score: 1

if only lennon is dead, is it really a cold case?
Are any of the other people in the files still alive? If so, then it's not really cold, is it?

--
Xaotik Designs

And for anyone who thinks it wont happen by Unknown+Poltroon · 2004-09-30 14:09 · Score: 1

REmember all those files that they found in the whitehouse under clinton?

--
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.

Wrong. by DAldredge · 2004-09-30 14:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

They are not unintended consequences, they are deliberate. It will make it easier for those in power to stay in power and help keep 'undesirables' out of power.

Re:Wrong. by madmac666 · 2004-10-01 21:41 · Score: 1

The sole purpose of being in power is to keep the power. As in Dr. Goldstein's "Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Colectivism" (a book in a book, George Orwell '1984' )

He he by Basehart · 2004-09-30 14:14 · Score: 2, Funny

All I know is that you cannot lead if you send mexxed missages.

Re:He he by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:48 · Score: 0

Yes, but once he got it right he made sure we knew he could say it. Over and over again.....
Re:He he by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 17:50 · Score: 0

Just like Kerry wants you to know that North Korea has nuclear weapons.

Re:LOL by empaler · 2004-09-30 14:14 · Score: 0, Offtopic

You killed my excellent mood. Twit.

someone post a link to the files and receive by Savatte · 2004-09-30 14:14 · Score: 5, Funny

Instant Karma

Re:someone post a link to the files and receive by Mskpath3 · 2004-09-30 14:18 · Score: 1

Oh come now. Won't someone give this fellow some well deserved points?
Re:someone post a link to the files and receive by ggvaidya · 2004-09-30 17:24 · Score: 1

Wops, no karma for +5 Funnies. Sorry, mate.

Great sig by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:16 · Score: 0

--
http://64.21.238.149/cgi-bin/view.cgi?20040929 0745 28342711000000&id=58
Sure do hate when people uses anchor tags with URLs around text that actually explains what the fuck they're trying to point at.

Come on, it's in the bloody summary by empaler · 2004-09-30 14:18 · Score: 2

'National Security', 'foreign intelligence'.

If the US had gotten intel from UK on French citizens, scandal would ensue if the frenchies found out. UK would not be happy to have incident repeated, thus would not share as much intel.

Lots of Data Collected by BisonHoof · 2004-09-30 14:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

It is certainly true that the FBI were *very* interested in Lennon, especially during his "Marxist" phase, circa "Some Time in New York City". According to John Wiener ("Lennon vs the FBI" in Thomson and Gutman's "Lennon Companion") there is a 288 page file on Lennon in the FBIs "domestic security" section, of which 199 pages are still classfied "in the interests of defence of foregin policy", and thousands of pages in the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Re:Lots of Data Collected by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:32 · Score: 0

"Are" "you" "sure" "about" "that" "?"

Just like when the CIA by empaler · 2004-09-30 14:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

had good reasons not to disclose information on how they managed the drug cartels in South America. Yeah, that was in public interest.

Re:Just like when the CIA by freqres · 2004-10-01 02:03 · Score: 1

Makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Sniiiifff....

--
Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception

Here's the top secret... by simetra · 2004-09-30 14:26 · Score: 4, Funny

The Walrus Was Paul.

--

"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou

It's Ringo not Paul by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:27 · Score: 0

It's Ringo, not Paul singing 'Goodnight'.

I've already seen them... by jcostantino · 2004-09-30 14:28 · Score: 4, Funny

Saw them already, Greedo shot first.

--
Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com

Is that stuff still around? by NotQuiteReal · 2004-09-30 14:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, I didn't RTFA, but it has been almost 25 years since he was killed. Why would anyone keep stuff that long - doesn't the FBI have a shread-on date?

Maybe that is what is driving it - release it or lose it? I dunno.

Then again, folks are still obsessed with Elvis and Marilyn Monroe. Go figure.

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.

Leaked documents on the net by Beatlebum · 2004-09-30 14:30 · Score: 1, Redundant

A leaked FBI document confirmed that the walrus was indeed Paul.

Re:Leaked documents on the net by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 18:02 · Score: 0

Is this like some kind of secret code to get free karma? Or just non-karma inducing funny mods?

I could swear that I've read about this walrus named Paul about 5 times now... :)

Finally, now we'll know... by The+I+Shing · 2004-09-30 14:32 · Score: 2

Once these documents are released, we'll actually know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall.

--
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.

Well... by iamdrscience · 2004-09-30 14:33 · Score: 4, Funny

a U.S. District Judge rejected the governments arguements to keep the secret records of John Lennon sealed.

Well, I for one, am looking forward to hearing a new John Lennon album because honestly, Imagine and the Wedding Album are getting a little stale. Still though, I understand the FBI wanting to keep it sealed, I mean, imagine the resale value of something like that, it has to be like 5 times a butcher cover of Yesterday and Today.

A deliberate cover 'issue' to avoid real ones. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:33 · Score: 0

Like the recent hailing of some of the patriot act not passing. Hello, that means some of it did.

So were they right? by anthony_dipierro · 2004-09-30 14:33 · Score: 0, Flamebait

The FBI argued that releasing the last ten pages would pose a risk to national security as a foreign government (not identified) secretly gave information to the US Government. Looks like another big step in the Freedom of Information Act.

Hopefully not a big step backward in national security, though.

I Care by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:33 · Score: 0

A mountain road. Tennessee. " Wait. What did the radio, just..is this a joke ? " A university. Thirty-thousand mediocre students. " This campus will be closed. " Two days. Mediocrity. Ignorance. And me. Strength. Pride. Intelligence. Manners. You.

Nothing to do with his murder by Average_Joe_Sixpack · 2004-09-30 14:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Lennon was an outspoken member of the anti-war movement. He had planned several protests for the 72 GOP convention as well as a nationwide tour to register young voters for the McGovern campaign who was an anti-Vietnam war candidate. Nixon had the FBI trail Lennon and tried to build a case to have him deported. The FBI had gone as far as tapping his phone to try and get evidence of any criminal activity. They focused on any donations to Left-wing "terrorist" groups and any narcotic evidence.

Found it by Sloppy · 2004-09-30 14:41 · Score: 4, Funny

Turns out FBI was using an old version of wu-ftp server. I got in and found what this is all about. It is indeed a threat to national security. Here's an exerpt:

Imagine there's no countries,
It isn't hard to do

If there are no countries, there's no USA. There is also some evidence of a communist plot that Lennon was involved with, which would have us all with no possessions, "sharing" all the world. Defeating the Soviets came at a prodigious price. We can't afford to let this plot reactivate or we'll have to fight it all over again.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.

Re:Found it by The-Perl-CD-Bookshel · 2004-09-30 16:24 · Score: 1

With regards to your sig. "My Name is Sloppy and I approved this Message." I saw a local Democrat with a tv commercial where he talked about himself for about 30 seconds, then said "my name is [Idiot] and I approved this message." I instantly thought, "You just said the whole thing yourself, obviously you approved the message. Do you not approve of everything you say?"

--
I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me
Re:Found it by madmac666 · 2004-10-01 21:47 · Score: 1

[paranoia agent mode on]
When there's only one country there are no countries. I think he found out a secret US plot to conquer the world, ant thus this had to be hidden.
[paranoia agent mode off]

Imagine there's no country. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:46 · Score: 1, Funny

It's easy if you try.

the reason? by Phantom+of+the+Opera · 2004-09-30 14:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

The simplest reason is that its kind of embarrasing for the government and some beaurocrats are there to cover their asses. John Lennon had some potential political influence and that made him a target, especially because he was a scumbag hippie type.

Re:the reason? by BLAG-blast · 2004-09-30 16:58 · Score: 4, Funny

John Lennon had some potential political influence and that made him a target, especially because he was a scumbag hippie type.
That's not why he has a file, it was because John Lennon was a seceret agent for MI6, feeding very unhelpful/false information to American Intellegence departments. This was part of an attempt to stem US world domination by keeping it locked in the cold war and keeping econimy suppressed....

--
M0571y H@rml355.
Re:the reason? by freqres · 2004-10-01 02:01 · Score: 1

So MI6 are the culprits for unleashing the terrible scourge known as Yoko Ono on the United States and the rest of the free world?

--
Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
Re:the reason? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 07:40 · Score: 0

'The Hippies' fucking own you, tool.

Teletubbies... by Phredd · 2004-09-30 14:48 · Score: 1

...And of course the Teletubbies folder *MUST* be kept from Madagascar & Kyrgyzstan for its sensitive TOP SECRET information it contains. John was a secret operative as you already knew...

--
Phredd - "I have found people tend to take you far less seriously once you start waving your genitals at them..."

Related to Apple vs Apple case? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:51 · Score: 0

After all, family members of this deceased artist wants to squeeze money from Steve Jobs. Maybe Steve Jobs and John Lennon had deep childhood grudges. :)

Re:Related to Apple vs Apple case? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 14:55 · Score: 0

Maybe they will find out Steve Jobs's parents worked for FBI. :D

An even more Obligatory Dodgeball: by Frogbert · 2004-09-30 14:52 · Score: 1

Looks like those hippies finally got something right.... just kidding... but not really.

Maybe, just maybe.... STASI by Siriaan · 2004-09-30 14:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

The US government may be nervous about these documents due to the early Beatles stint in Germany. Could it be possible that the East German secret police, who almost certainly had informers throughout West Germany, may have passed on information at the request of the United States? Just imagine how embarrassing it would be for people to know that the US government were in cahoots at one time with possibly the most notorious policing force ever created.

Re:Maybe, just maybe.... STASI by will_die · 2004-09-30 22:58 · Score: 1

It would not be STASI if it was obtained through a spy. They have already shown similar data.
Since they said it was because of a country I would guess it would be from the UK or what was West Germany that provided the data.

What is there to learn... by jzarling · 2004-09-30 15:00 · Score: 0

We all ready know Yoko broke up the band!!!

--
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.

Conintelpro? by hotspotbloc · 2004-09-30 15:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Could there really be anything worse? I mean this is a couple of surveillance reports so it is likely they only deal with Lennon's movements and how he was tracked. It's the "how" part that makes the FBI nervous, especially now with the PATRIOT Act up for permanent renewal. The last thing the DOJ wants is the public being reminded of Hoover's lack of respect to the individual man and the FBI's checkered past.

This is why the FOIA is such a good thing. While it's easier to forget about our mistakes, analyzing them helps us avoid repeating them. Its so we can see what the Govt has said about us.

--
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST

Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 15:03 · Score: 0

Boundless idiocy just ticks me off.

Real contents of the FBI document by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 15:10 · Score: 0

Steve Job is a neo-Nazist, Steve Woznick is a Facsist, and John Sculley is an Imperialist!!! With the help of Republican resources, the Beatles secretly allied with al-Qaeda to suicide bomb Apple headquarters!

Inquiring minds want to know.... by Russ+Steffen · 2004-09-30 15:12 · Score: 1

Will these files be good news or bad news for this guy ?

Re:Inquiring minds want to know.... by panda · 2004-10-01 05:14 · Score: 1

No, no, no! Stephen King was not involved in John Lennon's murder.

Everyone knows it was the Chief Blue Meanie who had brainwashed Chapman into killing Lennon. He was getting revenge for being bonked in THE YELLOW SUBMARINE.

--
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.

more by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 15:16 · Score: 0

No offense to the damnable hippies. " None taken. "

That's nice and all, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 15:19 · Score: 0

How do we know we're getting the genuine information?

Helter Skelter? by swein515 · 2004-09-30 15:23 · Score: 1

Not that this is at all relevant, but Helter Skelter is a Paul McCartney composition, thus making it not the most appripriate dept. heading

Figures by Hi_2k · 2004-09-30 15:26 · Score: 1

I'm doing a report on his murder for my Forensics class, and it's due tommorow. Just a little late, guys!

--
When life gives you crap, Make Crapade.
Sluggy Freelance.

Re:Figures by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 22:08 · Score: 0

well, get off Slashdot, and get to work, you procrastinator! The body's not going to get any deader.

Big Step? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 15:36 · Score: 0

Really. I couldn't care less about John Lennon documents. Gee, FIA, how amazing. Maybe next we'll get his dental records.

I do NOT care. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 15:38 · Score: 0

I do NOT care.

Especially considering that all his good work was well behind him.

What I do wish was that Yoko (the reason his best work was behind him) had been shot & killed too.

Re:Gee, I wonder WHICH country...? by Yaztromo · 2004-09-30 15:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

maybe FUCKING ENGLAND? You losers... if there's one country besides the U.S. that had any information on John Lennon it's god damned brits. How sensitive is that really?

Or possibly Canada. John Lennon spent a good deal of time in Canada doing things he wouldn't so in the US, like his and Yoko's North American bed-in (in Montreal), John and Yoko's "Live Peace in Toronto" concert, and the fact that he stayed with Ronnie Hawkins (IIRC) at a farm here in Ontario for some time.

During those days the RCMP and Canadian police forces were keeping their eyes on rock stars (or at least so it seems to me). In 1977 Keith Richards (Rolling Stones) was arrested for Heroin possession.

I wouldn't be too suprised if the RCMP collected some data on Lennon during his time here. What would suprise me is if the FBI would think that anyone here would care if such information were to be made public 24 years later.

(To be honest though, England does seem to be the more probable source).

Yaz.

I quote thus by Joe+the+Lesser · 2004-09-30 15:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

Commissioner Pravin Lal
"U.N. Declaration of Rights"

--
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)

Lost Lennon/Cat Stevens collaboration by ic0wb0y · 2004-09-30 15:41 · Score: 5, Funny

This is linked to the recent Cat Stevens deportation. What nobody picked up on is that he came to the US to meet with an RIAA attorney. According to insiders, FBI agents stole the Cat Stevens-John Lennon tapes in 1980 from Lennons apartment. When the unsuspecting Lennon showed up, he had to be distracted by drugged stoolie Mark Chapman as evasive action. Chapman went 'roidal and agents left out the back door with the material. If these secret documents are released, the RIAA will sue the FBI for millions for illegally obtaining and withholding copyrighted material and easily win. I can see why the Government is being this protective.

Re:Lost Lennon/Cat Stevens collaboration by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 21:29 · Score: 0

Now how on earth did you get Informative for that?

Such wondrous things these mods.
So quick to give, so slow to think.

Verily a post worth remembering when we think of the value of /. knowledge :)
Re:Lost Lennon/Cat Stevens collaboration by Kehvarl · 2004-10-01 04:17 · Score: 1

3 replies complaining about your moderation.. well now that you're +5 funny, all of them are redundant. How's that for justice?

Delaying tactic by M.+Silver · 2004-09-30 15:45 · Score: 3, Funny

They're just stalling while they reprint them without the proportional font and superscripts.

--

Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife

Re:I can see it now.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 15:49 · Score: 0

That Latin is important. A dodger posted to a wall. " Go Away Illuminatus. " White paint lettering. Maine boulders. " Don't Litter. Please. " Jesuits. Spain. Cave paintings. Ghosts burn our throats like soda-pop. The book falls from, Allegory's hand. Her brain is on fire.

I got the files! by benjonson · 2004-09-30 15:55 · Score: 4, Funny

Good news folks: the files were released under the Freedom of Information Act. I just got them. Here they are:

The ambassador from [blacked out] assured [blacked out] that Mr. Lennon gave [blacked out] to [blacked out].

Thank God that's all out in the open now.

--
=-+

Re:I got the files! by 0x0d0a · 2004-09-30 21:05 · Score: 1

Oh, *SHIT*.

Where's that cyanide pill? Where?

--
May we never see th
Re:I got the files! by Kehvarl · 2004-10-01 04:19 · Score: 1

Cyanide? I thought that was dehydrated almond paste...

Transparent Government by Tony · 2004-09-30 15:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

The idea that our government can operate in secret is a scary one. The whole idea of keeping this information around is that, after 25 years, information can and should be released to the public. This is a great step in helping keep our government relatively honest.

Granted, it is scary to learn 40 years after the fact that the Cuban Missile Crisis almost led to nuclear war. A Russian submarine officer disobeyed a direct order: he did not launch nuclear warhead tipped torpedos at the US fleet.

This came out via the freedom of information act. Yes, it's a little late to learn about it so long after the fact, but it's great to know we should all thank Vasili Arkhipov for stopping the destruction of the world as we know it.

--
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.

Re:Transparent Government by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 21:26 · Score: 1, Interesting

So, what happened to him? Death, concentration camp or court martial and dishonourable discharge?

What is the penalty for stopping mutually assured destruction?
Re:Transparent Government by Oddly_Drac · 2004-09-30 23:02 · Score: 4, Informative

"A Russian submarine officer disobeyed a direct order: he did not launch nuclear warhead tipped torpedos at the US fleet."

Actually he pointed out that the conditions for the SOP change to fire on other combatants were not met to another officer on the submarine. There were no direct orders to fire from the Supreme Soviet, but they do have discretion under certain circumstances, such as hull damage.

Valentin Grigoroevich was the officer that ordered the assembly under stressful circumstances (low air, high temperatures, no communications and constant depth charging from American destroyers enforcing the blockade).

--
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
Re:Transparent Government by Feanturi · 2004-10-01 04:48 · Score: 1

Look at any large power structure.. Think the CEO of your major corp is telling you everything? Do you think he's being told everything? Politics are played not just in government, and secrecy is always involved, it's what gets them off or something.

America - You've got bigger problems by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 16:06 · Score: 0

I'd be more concerned about your last election if I were you, instead of some over-hyped dead hippie.

Black markers are still good for something by sweetshot97 · 2004-09-30 16:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, they are ordered to hand over documents, but they do have a discretion to use a black marker and mark out what they don't want to reveal. Little loophole in the Information Act. One theory many have speculated is of course, Manchurian Candidate theory. I remember watching a documentary on Lennon and one reason as to why the governemnt would want him axed is because of Reagan. Don't get me wrong, I loved the man, but word has it, Chapman was trained to kill Lennon because Lennon was the only world renowned figure who could gather masses to rise against opression and the incoming government thought he might pose a threat to Reagan. It's all speculation right?

Re:GB by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 16:17 · Score: 0

He is happily married.

Then you better investigate Linux community too by commodoresloat · 2004-09-30 16:29 · Score: 1

After all, I think US interrogators also have a lot of questions for its elusive Colonel.

Re:Then you better investigate Linux community too by Al+Dimond · 2004-09-30 17:02 · Score: 1

If the government doesn't have the right libraries it won't be able to make any sense out of what the Colonel says anyway. It'll have to go ask the community for help.

I knew it by commodoresloat · 2004-09-30 16:33 · Score: 1

He was probably in cahoots with that "Peace Train" terrorist. These times call for drastic action. It's time to lock up all musicians!

CEO of Disney by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 16:38 · Score: 0

can't let Steamboat Willie become public domain now can we?

Re:Gee, I wonder WHICH country...? by mark_space2001 · 2004-09-30 16:44 · Score: 1

Oh sure, blame Canada...

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-09-30 17:17 · Score: 4, Funny

Comment removed based on user account deletion

That was answered in "Glass Onion" by _damnit_ · 2004-09-30 17:27 · Score: 1

From memory, it was on the White Album, in "Glass Onion" that John says:

So here's another clue for you all:
The Walrus was Paul.

--

_damnit_

It's my job to freeze you. -- Logan's Run

Re:That was answered in "Glass Onion" by DenDave · 2004-09-30 20:10 · Score: 1

kukukuchoo... I am the eggman I am the eggman A kuka chucka...

--
-if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
Re:That was answered in "Glass Onion" by Alioth · 2004-10-01 04:24 · Score: 1

The observant will also notice that Ferris Bueller was wrong when he was getting ready for his day off - he stated that John Lennon was the walrus.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows

Nothing to see here... by cliveholloway · 2004-09-30 17:59 · Score: 4, Funny

These "secret records" were kept hidden to protect the public. Apparently they were titled, "Yoko Ono - unplugged (Vo1. 1 to 10)".

Imagine the Aural pain that would ensue if these were ever "released".

cLive ;-)

--
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism

Is there another means? by xenocide2 · 2004-09-30 18:22 · Score: 1

As hard as Washington has tried, I don't think the Fed can be called encrypted. Certainly it is difficult to comprehend the documents, procedures and statements from the Beltway, but it's little more than word substitution.

--
I Browse at +4 Flamebait

Open Source Sysadmin

Re:I can see it now.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 18:34 · Score: 0

What the FUCK?

No Joke by wwphx · 2004-09-30 19:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

To get my current job, I had to sign a loyalty oath. One part of it was that I could not be a member of the Communist Party. I couldn't be a subversive or revolutionary.

The job? 19 hours a week walking through the computer lab at a local community college helping people with Word, Excel, burning CDs on the Mac, etc. for minimum wage.

Yes, I am one of the 400,000+ who's been out of work for 3.5 years.

--
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.

Re:No Joke by loraksus · 2004-09-30 23:09 · Score: 1

I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry. Ignoring the fact that the whole premise is fucking mental . . . feh, details would be cool.

--
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
Re:No Joke by empaler · 2004-10-01 01:54 · Score: 1

Well, that's your human rights being violated right there. Here in Denmark, the only place I've heard of that they won't have you if you've been a member of the wrong party, is in the military.
Re:No Joke by wwphx · 2004-10-01 19:11 · Score: 1

Here's a PDF of the oath, it's Section E, 5th line.

--
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
Re:No Joke by loraksus · 2004-10-02 16:45 · Score: 1

Wow. I'm shocked, I feel sorry for you.
This would be funny if it wasn't so stupid.

--
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/

News for "nerds"? by 1029 · 2004-09-30 19:09 · Score: 0

How exactly is this "News for Nerds"? I mean, sure, it is definatly interesting news, but wtf does it have to do with tech or science or anything /. is supposed to be reporting?

Ah well, take it as it comes, eh?

--
- I love animals. I try to eat at least one a day.

Re:News for "nerds"? by 0x0d0a · 2004-09-30 20:58 · Score: 1

What, you haven't heard? Lennon got added to the "Patrick Stewart" and "William Shatner" cannon of "geeks must like" material.

--
May we never see th
Re:News for "nerds"? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 21:37 · Score: 0

We are by definition nerds if we read slashdot. Now look how many comments that have been made, and how many of them are complaining about the topic? Maybe you aren't the nerd you thought you were.

Look for the person who will benefit by 10Ghz · 2004-09-30 19:34 · Score: 1

DUDE: It's all a goddamn fake. Like Lenin said, look for the person who will benefit. And you will, uh, you know, you'll, uh, you know what I'm trying to say--

DONNY: I am the Walrus.

WALTER: That fucking bitch!

DUDE: Yeah.

DONNY: I am the Walrus.

WALTER: Shut the fuck up, Donny! V.I. Lenin! Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov!

DONNY: What the fuck is he talking about?

WALTER: That's fucking exactly what happened, Dude! That makes me fucking SICK!

DUDE: Yeah, well, what do you care, Walter?

DONNY: Yeah Dude, why is Walter so pissed off?

WALTER: Those rich fucks! This whole fuckin thing-- I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that this fucking strumpet--

DUDE: I don't see any connection to Vietnam, Walter.

I think "fucking strumpet" refers to Yoko Ono.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.

You think Lennon knew? by pjt33 · 2004-09-30 20:43 · Score: 1

Didn't he admit once that he just denied all suggestions as to the meaning behind his songs until someone made a suggestion he liked?

In context. by fmaxwell · 2004-09-30 20:47 · Score: 1, Informative

John Kerry "I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages" Don't blame me, he said it.

And here's what immediately followed:

"All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

You take a man of conscience who is speaking out against the people who ordered such war atrocities and make it sound like he was bragging about his involvement. You right-wing assholes should be in prison for your vile distortions.

Re:In context. by rgsmith · 2004-09-30 23:25 · Score: 1

10 posts in, and already TWO references to throwing people in jail for:

1. Not making old information publicly available
2. Quoting a presidential candidate

It occurs to me that we should probably be focussing our efforts on defeating the terrorist threats and shoring up our economy rather than on one another for having a different opinion than ourselves. ...then again, this *IS* slashdot...
Re:In context. by }InFuZeD{ · 2004-10-01 00:20 · Score: 1

I can't count the number of times the left-wing extremists have done it to Bush, so kindly step down from your self-righteous podium.
Re:In context. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 00:31 · Score: 0

> defeating the terrorist threats

What, you're all gonna commit suicide now?
Re:In context. by Dr.+Evil · 2004-10-01 00:52 · Score: 1

10 posts in, and already TWO references to throwing people in jail for:

All you damn listmakers should be thrown in prison!
Re:In context. by FatAlb3rt · 2004-10-01 01:26 · Score: 0, Offtopic

the audio

the man also shot a guy in the back to get a medal - 'chased VC inland behind Hootch and shot him while he fled'. (6th line) a man of conscience?

wow.
Re:In context. by Performaman · 2004-10-01 01:54 · Score: 0, Offtopic

The way you say this makes it sound like Mr. Kerry shot an unarmed man in the back with no warning. Shooting an armed enemy soldier in a combat zone is something that happens in wartime. It does not matter if they are running towards or away from you, an armed enemy soldier is a legitimate target.

--

I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
Re:In context. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 02:05 · Score: 0

Sounds sort of like the way Bush Sr. delt with Iraqis who were fleeing Kuait in US v. Iraq I.

I suppost that means Bush Sr. isn't a man of conscience either then?
Re:In context. by MachineShedFred · 2004-10-01 02:12 · Score: 0, Offtopic

You right-wing assholes should be in prison for your vile distortions

Yeah, because there sure isn't anyone who would distort truth by taking things out of context for the left-leaning people of the United States, is there?

(Don't flame me as a republican OR a democrat. I'm standing square in the most sought after crowd - the undecided moderates.)

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:In context. by SCSI-Wan · 2004-10-01 03:32 · Score: 1

Now we see why there are laws about information...
Re:In context. by fmaxwell · 2004-10-01 08:50 · Score: 2

I can't count the number of times the left-wing extremists have done it to Bush, so kindly step down from your self-righteous podium.

I didn't do anything of the kind to Bush, so I'll remain on my self-righteous podium. The actions of others are neither a reflection on me nor a license for you to behave as they did.
Re:In context. by Izago909 · 2004-10-01 10:31 · Score: 2

The difference in popular culture: If a person, in any way, does't agree with Bush, then he is a "left wing extremist" or "liberal hippie" or "unpatriotic". If someone from the left ran across someone else who didn't like Kerry they wouldn't necesarly assume he is a "conservative, gun lovin, bible burnin nut job" until he gave proper evidence for that assumption.

This election year, people are so polarized that they forget to see that most of America doesn't like being forced into only 2 different camps. Are we to believe that America is the most diverse society in the world, yet these 2 parties are able to accurately represent the majority of our views? I stand back and laugh at how each side does everything short of picking up arms and declaring each other enemies, rather than opponents. I believe that time will make fools of us all.
Re:In context. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-04 08:44 · Score: 0

If someone from the left ran across someone else who didn't like Kerry they wouldn't necesarly assume he is a "conservative, gun lovin, bible burnin nut job" until he gave proper evidence for that assumption.

Bullshit, yes they would assume that. It's all over the place. Especially here. If you disagree with the least thing that Kerry has ever done you are instantly ridiculed as a small-minded, bigoted, racist, white, warmongering rabid fucktard who lives in the backward racist South, fucks their own daughters, and wants to bomb brown people for oil.

MODs Smoking Crack by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 21:56 · Score: 0

+4 Interesting?!? WTF!

Ignorance is bliss by annenk38 · 2004-09-30 22:11 · Score: 1

Actually, she has quite a following. Her vocal style follows traditional Japanese performing arts much more closely than modern j-pop. Aside from that, her music has overall more complexity and depth than Lennon's, and perhaps worth mentioning, several songs have made it into other performers' repertoirs.

Any brains left in these Mods? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 22:13 · Score: 0

How about +1 Creative.

This is such a troll!

Re:GB by loraksus · 2004-09-30 23:00 · Score: 1

I'm not sure about that, have you seen his wife?

--
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/

Redaction by erroneus · 2004-09-30 23:10 · Score: 1

...and they hand over 10 pages that more closely resembles bar code than English....

I don't know why that practice should be considered acceptable at all! To me, if it's not released in its entirety, it's not released. But with any luck, they'll be released in PDF form so that we can remove the redaction ourselves.

+1 pwnD by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-30 23:17 · Score: 0

# Please try to keep posts on topic.
# Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
# Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
# Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
# Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

...then again, this *IS* slashdot... by dpilot · 2004-10-01 00:33 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, from what I can see, it's not that different from the bulk of political discourse in the US, other than being somewhat *better* informed and maybe more civil.

That's not meant as a compliment to Slashdot, either.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.

Russian submarine officer disobeyed a direct order by dpilot · 2004-10-01 00:41 · Score: 1

Never heard this. Reference, please?

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.

US Right-Wing Fanatics & UK Right-Wing Fanatic by carlgt1 · 2004-10-01 00:44 · Score: 1

I think the embarassment will be how ridiculous the Nixon-era gang and their counterparts in the UK were in that they were wiretapping & doing surveillance on John & Yoko. Of course at the time, when John mentioned this, the usual cast of right-wing apologists were screeching "THE HIPPIE MUST BE ON DRUGS CLAIMING THAT WE ARE SPYING ON HIM!"

Can you imagine Lennon around nowadays? They would do a "Charlie Chaplin" on him a la the McCarthy days.

The more things change...

Lennon by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 00:48 · Score: 0

John Lennon was an MI6 agent.

Lennon and Vermont trivia... by dpilot · 2004-10-01 00:48 · Score: 1

Sometime after they broke up, the Beatles did have a meeting to consider getting back together. But at the time, one of the ex-Beatles (forget who) wasn't allowed into the US. If he left the US, Lennon wouldn't be allowed back in. So how the heck do these guys meet?

There's a town called Derby Line, straddling the US-Canada border, specifically the Vermont-Quebec border. In that town, there's a church straddling the border. They met in that church. Lennon was able to stay IN the US the whole time, the other (unknown) ex-Beatle was able to stay OUT of the US the whole time.

Obviously the meeting came to naught.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.

Re:Lennon and Vermont trivia... by ggvaidya · 2004-10-01 03:26 · Score: 1

I seriously doubt this. Harrison was recording with Lennon on "Imagine" (remember 'How do you sleep?') soon after the Beatles broke up, Paul was over at the Lennon residence in NY a coupla times (apparently, he'd drop by a lot, and John would have to shoo him off), and Ringo was always close with all the other Beatles. I don't think they'd have a problem meeting in India or Tahiti, unless Lennon was worried that the US govt would pull a Charlie Chaplin on him - revoke his re-entry permit while he was outside the country.

My favourite Beatles re-union story is the one Lennon mentions in his final (playboy) interview: once, Paul and him were at his house, watching TV, and a TV announcer offered the Beatles a huge sumo of money to play together one last time. Apparently the two were tempted to drive down to the studio right then and claim the amount (or atleast half), but didn't even get as far as the cab.
Re:Lennon and Vermont trivia... by dpilot · 2004-10-01 03:50 · Score: 1

The story about the Derby Line meeting was on a local show a few years back. Actually, the story was more about the oddities of a town that straddles a national border. They showed weird things like in-town deliveries going through customers, etc. The thing about the Beatles was just a side-show to the whole article, which was really just a side-show. They did show the church, though.

The reason for the odd meeting place was that Lennon feared not being able to get back into the US. I believe the Canadian side was driven by McCartney staying out of the US because if drug charges, but that may be defective memory.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Re:Lennon and Vermont trivia... by Untimely+Ripp'd · 2004-10-01 06:55 · Score: 1

The show was Saturday Night Live, the "announcer" was Producer Lorne Michaels, and the "huge sumo" of money was $3000: "You divide it up any way you want. If you want to give Ringo less, it's up to you"

--
And let the angel whom thou still hast serv'd tell thee ...

Re:Russian submarine officer disobeyed a direct or by acceleriter · 2004-10-01 01:08 · Score: 1

me too I'd love to read about that!

--

CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

This will probably get overturned by karb · 2004-10-01 01:13 · Score: 1

Not disclosing classified information given to us by foreign governments is the keystone of our intelligence sharing.

The concept is simple : if you decided a bit of information should be classified, and pass it to another country, they won't suddenly decide anybody can know about it.

I could see this being overridden in very specific cases, maybe as part of a war crimes investigation or some such. But files on a dead celebrity? Please.

--

Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone

Worst military screw up of the last 100 years by Mr+Guy · 2004-10-01 01:25 · Score: 1

No, that was the British.

--
Never confuse volume with power.

Vietnam-era pre-Ashcroft dirty tricks by smchris · 2004-10-01 01:36 · Score: 1

The FBI argued that releasing the last ten pages would pose a risk to national security as a foreign government (not identified) secretly gave information to the US Government.

Gee, I wonder what the foreign government could be. Could it, could it, could it be.....Great Britian?

Marianne Fiathfull has always said that the "Mars Bar Incident" (look it up kids) was a total lie and, in her opinion, a coordinated activity among international intelligence agencies to ridicule and discredit high-profile media stars who might protest U.S. policy in Vietnam. Right down to the shady U.S. drug dealer who preceded the police raid.

What do John Lennon and National Security by g0bshiTe · 2004-10-01 01:49 · Score: 1

have in common? Is Yoko really a terminator built by Lennon to be unleashed on the world? Is Julian really JFK's son?

Come on people he made music, some good, some bad. What threat this man can pose to National Security decades after his death are a mystery to me, unless the Government had him killed.

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!

I haven't seen that. by Just+Some+Guy · 2004-10-01 02:26 · Score: 1

I'd have to disagree. I display my real address here (using Slashdot's possibly-effective anti-harvester mangling) and say all sorts of stuff that isn't popular:

I'm a born-again Southern Baptist.
I'm a staunch conservative.
I don't hate Microsoft (although I don't use their products).
I'm married and have kids.
I practice censorship in my home by not allowing them unmonitored Internet access.
I support tort reform.
I don't support campaign finance reform.
I eat meat.

In spite of the fact that I'm pretty vocal about those things, I've never, not once, gotten an email either supporting or complaining about my opinions.

Part of it is knowing how to be persuasive. I've actually received a lot of interesting and conversational replies here on Slashdot for unpopular opinions when I was careful to explain why I believe the way I do and avoided attacking others' beliefs. You'll always get the errant jackass, of course, but it's easy enough to ignore them.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?

Re:I haven't seen that. by jrockway · 2004-10-01 03:50 · Score: 1

I posted some comment here a while back that made some troll mad and he unobfuscated my email address. The account that got no spam went to 99+ per day!!!!

Oh well, I'm pleased to say that I have never received SPAM to my UIC account.

--
My other car is first.
Re:I haven't seen that. by yuri+benjamin · 2004-10-05 16:47 · Score: 1

If I get too much crap on slashdot@mydomain I'll redirect it /dev/null
Right now I don't need to.

--
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.

Easier explanation by Just+Some+Guy · 2004-10-01 02:31 · Score: 1

Mark David Chapman killed John Lennon and is currently serving time at Attica Prison. My brother-in-law is a correctional officer there and said that Chapman is actually a pretty nice guy and fairly intelligent. He said they had this conversation one day:

Bro-in-law: "Hey, man, I've gotta know. What made you shoot John Lennon?"
MDC: "I was on acid. I thought that if I killed him, I could be him."

Occam's Razor seems heavily in favor of that explanation.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?

Re:Easier explanation by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 07:55 · Score: 0

People take acid and stare at oranges for 8 hours. They don't decide to kill lennon randomly while on a fucking trip.

Fuck MDC. Asshole.

I don't see that either... by FatSean · 2004-10-01 02:40 · Score: 0

I don't have a list of my positions, I'm just an opinionated asshole.

--
Blar.

They're not even a real country anyway by Scrameustache · 2004-10-01 02:40 · Score: 1

Oh sure, blame Canada...

...with their beety little eyes
and flapping heads so full of lies!

--

You can't take the sky from me...

Also revealed... by grgyle · 2004-10-01 03:12 · Score: 1

The Seether is Louise. We don't know which one's Pink, however.

--
----- And all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks, with one word...UNLESS.

Re:I can see it now.. by Kehvarl · 2004-10-01 03:19 · Score: 1

fnord.

Men of conscience don't commit war crimes. by DAldredge · 2004-10-01 03:33 · Score: 0, Offtopic

It is a DIRECT QUOTE OF WHAT HE SAID. Just because you do not like what he said doesn't change the fact that he said it.

If he had such a fucking conscience he would not have done what he said he did in the first place. He would have disobeyed the orders and faced the results of his actions.

He didn't.

If you are GOP everything that the GOP does is PERFECT and they can do no wrong.

If you are DEM everthing that the DEM does is PERFECT and they can do no wrong.

Well, that's bullshit. Somethings are still flat out wrong and what kerry did in Vietnam falls under that catagory.

Re:Men of conscience don't commit war crimes. by fmaxwell · 2004-10-01 07:29 · Score: 1

It is a DIRECT QUOTE OF WHAT HE SAID.

Bullshit. I quoted what he said. You quoted some tiny little piece of it in order to distort the meaning.

If he had such a fucking conscience he would not have done what he said he did in the first place. He would have disobeyed the orders and faced the results of his actions.

Yeah, it's real easy for you, sitting there in your swiveling office chair, to say that Kerry, as a young man just out of school, should have disobeyed direct orders in a foreign, hostile country after being brainwashed by the military boot camp experience. Come back when you have some actual combat experience in that kind of circumstance.

When did Stalinism become respectable on Slashdot? by DesScorp · 2004-10-01 03:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

"You right-wing assholes should be in prison for your vile distortions."

This is +4, Informative?

Yeah, and the left never distorts anything? The right should be imprisoned for what their saying?

You're actually talking about IMPRISONING your opponents for their speech and ideals, do you realize that?

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel

funny... by carlcmc · 2004-10-01 03:36 · Score: 1

your position is not internationally recognized while our position is. I distinctly remember that during the neuremberg trials that they said it doesn't matter what your superiors order you to do. if it is morally wrong you are required not do it. if you do it, it is YOUR responsibility.

the sign that someone has lost the argument is when they start degenerating into name calling i.e. "right-wing assholes" and arguing that people should be punished for their THOUGHTS and OPINIONS "should be in prison ".

Unfortunately, this tactic is employed by many instead of discussing things in a substantive manner.

Re:funny... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-10-01 03:55 · Score: 1

Finally- a reason for Bush to have asked his daddy to get him into the National Guard- so he wouldn't have to follow illegal orders.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:GB by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 08:31 · Score: 0

Have you seen pictures of them when they were younger? They were both very attractive people. You can't expect people to keep their looks forever though.

Re:When did Stalinism become respectable on Slashd by fmaxwell · 2004-10-02 11:48 · Score: 1

You're actually talking about IMPRISONING your opponents for their speech and ideals, do you realize that?

No, I'm talking about imprisoning people who purposely slander people for political gain.

Re:When did Stalinism become respectable on Slashd by jcr · 2004-10-04 12:25 · Score: 1

I'm talking about imprisoning people who purposely slander people for political gain.

???

Why do you want James Carville in the clink?

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

Slashdot Mirror

FBI Ordered to Turn Over Lennon Files

396 comments