Indymedia Seizures Initiated In Europe

Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-10 05:20 · Score: 5, Funny

Europe's not perfect! The United States isn't always the bad guy! Panic erupts on Slashdot.

Re:Oh no! by fenix+down · 2004-10-10 09:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Don't worry about it, see, a vital part of a strong fascist movement is the redefinition of the German/American/whatever people's historical enemies to create a popular myth that the current fascist movement has always existed, and has always warred against some single master-enemy, of which all other enemies are merely aspects. So, while the Nazis had a Heathen Anglo-Russo-Semitic Communist Movement which sought to bring down the Civilized Aryan Holy Roman Bismark Empire, other fascist movments might have a Liberal-Communist-Nazi-Islamic-Globalist-Atheist New World Order out to destroy the Evagelical Protestant Republic of American Freedom. Hence the constant comparisons of Saddam to Stalin or Hitler, or the suggestion that the UN was in Saddam's pocket. Saddam is merely an aspect of the larger Order which has Ever sought to bring down the eternal march of American Freedom, which is merely the end of the continuous march of progress which has foiled the Order at every stage since the dawn of civilization.

Just like Echelon . . . by user+no.+590291 · 2004-10-10 05:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

. . . each of Europe and the U.S. gets the other to do the dirty work that would be too hot in each home country. This was a J. Edgar Hoover through the side door.

Re:Just like Echelon . . . by Waffle+Iron · 2004-10-10 05:50 · Score: 3, Funny

Furthermore, Echelon begins with an 'E', while MLAT begins with an 'M'. Obviously, they have no similarities whatsoever.
Re:Just like Echelon . . . by demachina · 2004-10-10 06:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

In recent years, especially since 9/11, the FBI has expanded itself in to a global police force. They are quite proud of it, here is their web page where they brag about it.

"Office of International Operations (OIO). OIO now supports some 200 FBI employees in 45 Legats worldwide and hundreds of Agents rotating in and out of temporary assignments overseas."

"Thanks to the foundations laid by the Liaison Section beginning six decades ago, we now have solid working relationships with a range of colleagues in every part of the world, pursuing terrorist, intelligence, and criminal threats with international dimensions. It's no exaggeration to say that the FBI is a global organization for a global age."

Next time you hear Republican's/Conservatives rail about the UN and world government stop and think a minute. They aren't really complaining about the idea of a world government, they are only complaining about who runs it. They want to run it, out of Washington, out of the oval office and at the moment that means they want George W. Bush to run the world.

The bureaucracy at the U.N. is deeply flawed and a good case can be made against it running the world. But instead should the world be run by a religious extremist elected by a tiny percentage of the world's population and whose main goal in life is to enrich and empower that tiny minority at the expense of the rest of the world.

If you don't think the U.S. is angling for a global empire just read the above description of the FBI. Consider the U.S. now has troops in more than a hundred nations, along with big and growing DEA and CIA contigents, and of course the NSA is spying on all communications on the planet. The U.S. also spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined and that spending is accelerating, not slowing, though most of those conventional military forces are of little value against the Al Qaeda threat. The Bush administration is also actively developing new tactical nukes with the expressed intent of bestowing upon itself the privilege of being the only nation on the planet with the license to use nuclear weapons in otherwise conventional wars.

And of course add in the U.S. has bestowed upon itself the right to use preemptive aggressive warfare to take down any sovereign government it so chooses, with or without any valid justification for the action. All they need is to lay an accusation the nation might someday be a threat to the U.S. which is a charge that can be laid against any nation.

One can only hope that Bush and company are thrown out and Kerry doesn't pursue the same path, which is certainly in doubt on both scores.

If bush stays in power, or any U.S. government continues down the current course, the rest of the world really needs to consider forming a global alliance to counter the United State's imperial ambitions, unless you want extremist Christians running the entire planet, and forcing their "unique" idealogy on you.

Probably one of the best things the UN, and its members nations, could do at this point to give the U.S. reciprocal treatment in a three phase plane:

A. Move the UN headquarters out of New York and to Europe without giving the U.S. the option to veto in the security council

B. Place the U.S. on probation to end its imperial ambitions or be removed from the security council

C. If U.S. behavior continuesand eject the U.S.from the U.N. all together.

Maybe the Republicans will dance with joy at getting out of the U.N but I wager when they see their power and influence in the U.N. being eliminated they will freak and suddenly develop a passion for it.

I'd really like to see how much the U.S. likes being totally isolated and being the global pariah its current policies have called for. Their are obvious feasibility problems with this, since Britain, Italy and Australia would oppose it but I'm not sure how many other nations actually would.

--
@de_machina
Re:Just like Echelon . . . by demachina · 2004-10-10 07:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

"You forgot D. Figure out how to make up for ~25% of the UN's budget."

The UN spends according to one source $10 billion a year. What is the United States' cut when it bothers to pay, a couple billion dollars a year. Its chump change. The U.S. is the one that makes a lot more out of it than reality justifies. China, with its new found prosperity could pick up the difference in a heart beat.

Your ecomonic threats are hot air. Throwing the U.S. out of the U.N. would have nothing to do with economics and markets until and unless it escalated to full scale military or economic conflict. The U.S. is in fact more dependent on the rest of the world than the other way around. The U.S. despite its wealth is the world's biggest debtor nation, not just consumer but, in trade, production and government deficits. If places like China and Japan stopped buying treasuries and dollars the U.S. would be in an instant fiscal crisis. If China decided to shut off the container ship traffic to the U.S. the U.S. economy would crater. Its lost on the Bush administration but budget and trade deficits make your country very vulnerable to the whims of other nations.

"but the consequences of being right hurt you just as much as it hurts the US."

I'm American not European though I lived in Canada for years and am aiming to get out of America next year if it stays its current course.

It would be a trauma if the U.S. economy were sliced out of the world, but the U.S. would suffer far more than the rest of the world. America doesn't actually produce anything any more. Its wealth is predicated on past glory, service industries and controlling wealth and shuffling it from one pile to another. The nations that produce things like manufactured goods, electornics, steel and oil are where the real productivity and new wealth lies. If the world switched to the Euro as the dominant currency, especially for oil that would deal a mighty blow to American arrogance. If oil producers embargo the U.S. again the U.S. would be devastated far worse than it was in the 70's. The producers wouldn't really even miss the U.S. oil market because China is clamouring for more oil every day and there is a global shortage. That would be one way to bring down global oil prices, just shut off the supply to the U.S.

The only real leverage the U.S. has in the world is its military.

--
@de_machina
Re:Just like Echelon . . . by demachina · 2004-10-10 07:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yea why should it care, why doesn't it just get out. Because the U.S. actually cares in a massive way about the U.N. as a forum for the U.S. to arm twist the rest of the world in to doing its bidding. Its not real successful at it, and less so each year under the Bush administration, but I assure you if the U.S. were actually faced with be cutting off from throwing its weight around in the U.N., and were, in particular, denied its security council veto the U.S. would freak.

All you U.N. haters in the U.S. are blowing smoke, nothing more. You deserve to get your wish.

--
@de_machina
Re:Just like Echelon . . . by demachina · 2004-10-10 08:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

"$25billion certainly is not"

That is $25 billion over five years. Now you are all the way up to $5 billion a year and then you have to resort to the shady nether regions of "indirect investment estimates". That is like a weeks worth of America's trade deficit.

"Like China wants the UN to start poking its nose into Chinese affairs anymore than they already are."

Here you are showing how clueless you are. If the Chinese starts picking up the U.N.'s tab why would they start poking around more in their internal affairs. Chances are the U.N. would poke less in the affairs of its major benefactor. This statement sounds kind of like it has a undercurrent of desperation because you've started to think about the adverse consequences to the U.S. if it got its wish and was actually thrown out of the U.N. so you are FUD'ing the concept.

The Chinese take the long view. I wager if they saw the chance to gain greater influence over the U.N. and to replace the U.S. as its leading contributor it would pony up $2-5 billion a year in a heart beat. The Chinese would pay it for the same reason the U.S. pays it, control and power.

"Having lived in Canada, you of all people should be aware of what would happen to the Canadian economy if the US was somehow forced to its knees. And if it came down to it, backs against the wall sort of thing..yes, I believe the US would invade Canada for its oil plus use its military to break any world embargo."

Just because I lived in Canada for a while doesn't actually mean I care when arrogant American assholes do what they normally do, and threaten to solve their problems at the end of a gun barrel.

You might not have noticed but your post is a case study in why the world increasingly despise America and Americans who think like you apparently do. Your arrogant and your first approach to solving every problem is waving your dick in the air.

"do you think the oil flow will just keep on a'coming if you kick the US out?"

Uh yea, the U.S. doesn't have any kind of monopoly on oil field technology as much as you would like to think they do. You are just showing your arrogance again, you really think the world can't survive without the U.S. and probably be a better place. Iraq oil production would probably go up if the U.S. got out, because the insurgents would probably stop blowing it up on a daily basis.

"If you kicked all of the US workers in the Saudi Oil fields alone, do you think they could keep up their production levels?"

Who cares if they do, if at the same time you cut off oil to the U.S. it would be a net gain for the world. Americans, who insanely spend 2 and 3 hours a day driving from the suburbs, usually solo, to their jobs are single handedly squandering a disproportionate share of a precious resource.

--
@de_machina
Re:Just like Echelon . . . by cdrguru · 2004-10-10 09:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

Best thing in the world would be an argument with China that stopped all trade with that country. Yes, there would be some economic damage, but in two years or less there would be manufacturing jobs in the US again and the barely educatable would have a place to work.
Sure, it might be uncomfortable for a while, but it would be worth it.
Re:Just like Echelon . . . by BenEnglishAtHome · 2004-10-10 11:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

Look, I'm from Texas. Around here, we call Bush "The Texas Twit" or just plain ol' "Shrub." I have no respect for the guy.

But...

You characterized him as "a religious extremist." That's just flat wrong. If he was anything close to well-immersed in Christianity he would have understood the need to stay out of wars in the Middle East. He'd certainly have known better than to have started one. He would have understood the religious motivations that have produced conflict in the region for thousands of years and he wouldn't have seriously considered for more than a nano-second sticking his nose into that quagmire.

If he were a religious extremist, he would have just kept up support for Israel, made a few peace gestures that would produce good photo ops, and prayed that nobody over there chose to nuke anybody else until he was out of office.

A real Christian, someone who understands the history of his religion, would have known better.

Bush says he's a Christian. This gets him votes and, in this country, makes him seem like a nicer, more principled person. However, the evidence that he really gives a rat's ass about his faith is feeble to non-existent.
Re:Just like Echelon . . . by demachina · 2004-10-10 12:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

"The U.S. tossed out of the U.N.? Fuck that. How about we toss the U.N. out of New York?"

Well I guess we kind of agree, the U.N. should leave the U.S. one way or another and land in a neutral place like Switzerland or maybe Slovenia.

I'll bet you a hundred bucks if the world calls the America's bluff and moves the U.N. headquarters or throws out the U.S., the U.S. will freak. The U.S. needs the U.N. to interact with the rest of the world, a lot more than right wing nut cases think.

"That means we yank our troops out of Europe."

I think the U.S. already is. Oooo your threat really scare them. I wager the only objection you are getting from Europe over doing just this is from local political and economic leaders. Its the same objection you get from any community when you close a military base. Local economies inherently and unavoidably become very intertwined with them. I wager most Germans, outside those immediately dependent on the bases, will dance a jig when the U.S. leaves. Tanks and fighters are noisy and messy, and have no productive economic value. Having a large body of arrogant American teenagers in your midst probably doesn't improve the quality of life.

These U.S. bases are obviously completely worthless in the current world, since there is no military threat in Europe unless Putin continues down the road to reconstituting the U.S.S.R. Fortunately for Western Europe they have a large buffer now in Eastern Europe that wasn't a buffer during the cold war.

It should be noted the U.S. isn't pulling all these troops out of Europe, many of them are moving closer to the Middle East and Central Asia where they can better exert influence over the oil and gas fields which are the only thing the U.S. cares about in the world these days.

"You castrated your armies because you knew the U.S. would help you if necessary. "

Actually no country can justify the massive resources the U.S. is squandering on its military especially since the Societ Union collapsed from within, thank you Gorbachev. Most of them are actually trying to strike a balance and build just enough military so they have one in an emergency, without destroying their economies in the process. Militaries are a complete economic waste unless you actually need them to stop an invasion. With the exception of some hot spots in the Balkans, Europe has turned in to a pretty happy, peaceful place and they don't really need or want the absurdly overgrown military the U.S. clings to.

"I would wish another European war on them"

Your little rant deteriorated in to sick at this point dude. You should probably rethink it. Someday America needs to get off this kick that the whole world owes them an eternal debt forever because the U.S. threw troops into World War I and II.

If you want to play this game the U.S. is eternally in debt to the French, you better say you're sorry. If it weren't for French generals, armies and navies, the U.S. may well have lost the American revolution and there wouldn't be a U.S.of A. The American revolution was won at Yorktown thanks to intelligence gathered by Lafayette, a French general who planned the strategy, a French army that was held half the line, and a French fleet that bottled up Cornwallis, preventing his escape and compelling his surrender.

--
@de_machina

Cry wolf by cyberlotnet · 2004-10-10 05:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

And half the people on here thought it was all the US/FBI's fault, that we are the bad guys..

Go figure, It just wouldn't make sense to wait for the facts before opening ones mouth, Instead we slashdotters like to shoot from the hip

--
Personal Website

Re:Cry wolf by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-10 05:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

So it's okay for the FBI to help foreign agencies attack their American critics?

I don't know about you, but it doesn't make me feel any better as an American knowing the FBI didn't initiate this action. In many ways, it's far worse to know that they'll help carry out foreign laws against certain types of speech (which I'll admit is an assumption at this point, but probably a fairly good one).
Re:Cry wolf by RAMMS+EIN · 2004-10-10 05:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

``half the people on here thought it was all the US/FBI's fault, that we are the bad guys..''

Good point, but on the other hand, the US intelligence services have quite a reputation. Wasn't it the US who put Pinochet in power? Supported Osama bin Laden? And Saddam Hussein? Arrested Dmitry Sklyarov for breaking US laws in Russia? Attacked Iraq under false pretenses?

I'm interested in how many such incidents can be reported about the USA and other countries. No, seriously. I'd like to know more such scandals.

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Re:Cry wolf by gibbsjoh · 2004-10-10 05:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Don't forget the fact the Yanks give God knows how many billions of Dollars to a regime that's in violation of over 100 UN Resultions and has killed over 3000 innocent civilans since 2000... oh the fucking irony.

--
-- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
Re:Cry wolf by Pig+Hogger · 2004-10-10 06:03 · Score: 3, Funny

The American asked how the KGB agent had left and gone unnoticed for two whole years. The agent responded, "The day I left there was a car accident and my car was burned up with bodies inside. When you work for the KGB it isn't difficult to get ahold of bodies."
What's amazing is that the russian was allowed to have a car in the first place...

curious... by the+gnat · 2004-10-10 05:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

How far does this MLAT extend? I'm wondering whether it would obligate nations to assist in cases where based on their own laws, the suspected crime wouldn't have been a crime at all. This is pretty relevant since the USA has significantly more anal-retentive IP laws right now, and Europe has significantly fewer protections on freedom of speech. Might a country that doesn't have anything like a DMCA be forced to help the FBI take down some infringing code? Would the FBI be forced to help some EU nation take down a website promoting "hate speech"?

I guess I realize why this sort of treaty is useful, but I'm having a hard time understanding how it avoids trampling on the local legal rules of each nation.

Re:curious... by general_re · 2004-10-10 05:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm wondering whether it would obligate nations to assist in cases where based on their own laws, the suspected crime wouldn't have been a crime at all.
As a general rule, the US does not recognize offenses abroad that don't have what would be considered parallel offenses here. That is, if you visit Upper Freedonistan, and fail to tip your hat to one of the local women - punishable by six months in jail and a fine of 10,000 klopkas - the US will not usually extradite you to face punishment, because no parallel offense exists here. The French can harass Yahoo France all they like, but there is no way they'll get an American judge to operate that way here - treaties cannot and do not supersede the Constitution. That is, you cannot perform an end-run around the First Amendment merely by signing some treaty with another nation, in the end. Whether other nations behave similarly, I can't say, but I presume that for the most part, they do.

--
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
Re:curious... by belroth · 2004-10-10 06:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

Except we in the UK now have a treaty with the US where if the US provides proof of identity we hand over a Brit for transportation to the US for whatever - maybe trial maybe not.
This is not reciprocal (as extradition treaties normally are) and hasn't been ratified by Congress - but we've started handing people over.
Note that this doesn't mean that the extraditee has ever left the UK, it's just if the US asks for someone by name we hand them over. It was dreamt up for terrorists but the first victims^Wsuspects are for alleged offences related to Worldcom.
The other big change is that every other extradition treaty we have requires some indication not only of the identity of the person to be extradited but some prima facie evidence of a case to answer. I suppose we could streamline the process by just throwing in jail whomsoever the US names...

--
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.

That's what you get... by rainer_d · 2004-10-10 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

from hosting with a large, multinational corporation.
It also serves as a good reminder to consider using encrypted discs for servers where the data should not fall into the hands of law-enforcement.

Rainer

--
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin

which court ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-10 05:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

The court prohibits Rackspace from commenting further on this matter.

which court , a US one ? French, Swiss ?
its almost a human rights issue if the suspect has been bound over from discussing the charges or suspected charges with anyone
then again USA and human rights never did get on well

Re:What's really unbelievable by Zocalo · 2004-10-10 05:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

Try telling that to the inmates of Belmarsh Prison who have been imprisoned under our shiny new anti-terrorism laws here in the UK. True, maybe some or even all of them should be in there and the evidence really is truly sensitive and could, for instance, compromise an undercover asset if made public. Even so, they are still being held without being formally charged with anything at all in many cases.

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!

So begins the next war...on the first ammendment! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-10 05:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Now that we have replaced the "war on drugs" with the "war on terror", some thought the next target would be Iran, Syria, North Korea, or heck, maybe Canada! Some considered the next big war of distraction would be the "war on copyright infingement", where mass arrests and jailing of file sharers would occur. Few would have guessed the next one will be the war on speech! Ah, but it seems so perfectly Orwellian.

Good citizen, this is not last week, we are not at war with oceana, we never were at war with oceana, and in any case last week does not officially exist.

Information Freedom Rule no.1 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-10 05:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Always *ALWAYS* make backups of everything and distribute many copies abroad.
This is not the first time that governments abuse their powers and surely won't be the last.

Hosting provider is a US corporation... by daveschroeder · 2004-10-10 05:35 · Score: 4, Informative

...and, as such, had to be served with a subpoena by a US law enforcement entity. That's why the FBI was tangentially involved. The FBI merely acted as a legal conduit under an international legal treaty to which the US, UK, and many other nations are parties.

Re:What's really unbelievable by goneutt · 2004-10-10 05:36 · Score: 4, Informative

First off, RTFA. Second, strongly centralized governments envy banana republics that don't have this "rule of law" democracy seeking people keep asking for.

I think Indymedia's problem really is that they don't know why the servers were seized, they just got a call from rackspace saying "dude, the FBI is here with a warrant, so that server is coming down". In fact, I think that this could have been done without Indymedia knowing until the server was unplugged, sort of a Patriot Act style no knock raid.

The first rule about patriot act is we don't talk about patriot act. The second rule about patriot act is we don't talk about patriot act!

--
Bacardi + slashdot = negative karma.

More info by zecg · 2004-10-10 05:40 · Score: 3, Informative

John Young of Cryptome.org says:

"This is not unprecedented. Some years ago several US ISPs removed material on sites at the request of foreign governments. They acted unilaterally, without court order, merely upon the request of the governments. Some of these incidents were made public, competing ISPs offered to refuse to abide such requests, and customers abandoned those who cooperated with the authorities.

This method can be used against Rackspace. Indeed, it is likely that Rackspace awaits public outcry, and customers leaving, in order to have grounds to resist the thinly justified action in this case.

Recall that the US DoJ is regularly bluffing and faking its attack on alleged terrorist suspects and political dissidents. Other countries are following the US in this vile practice. They cover for each other with these obnoxious mutual assistance treaties, in which fingers are pointed after the dirty deeds are done."

It's here

--
.i lu doi ringos.star. xu do puku'aroroi dunli dopecaku leni virnu li'u

Cryptome by tiny69 · 2004-10-10 05:42 · Score: 5, Informative

Cryptome has a couple of pages on the subject, inclucing the original article and pictures that started this.

http://cryptome.org/fbi-imc.htm
http://cryptome.org/fbi-imc/fbi-imc-doc.htm
http://cryptome.org/rackspace-axe.htm

--
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)

Re:Cryptome by p0ppe · 2004-10-10 06:09 · Score: 4, Informative

Mirror:

http://cryptome.sabotage.org/fbi-imc.htm
http:/ /cryptome.sabotage.org/fbi-imc/fbi-imc-doc.h tm
http://cryptome.sabotage.org/rackspace-axe.htm

--

"Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

Something that's been bothering me... by casuist99 · 2004-10-10 05:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

You cannot have a war on an inanimate object. Let me say that again: You cannot have a war on an inanimate object. That goes for drugs. Additionally: You cannot have a war against a tactic. "Terrorism" (of the sort seen in Iraq today) is a tactic which would have previously been covered by the adjective "guerilla" fighting.

Great how we let 3,000 people dying in a country of 260,000,000 eliminate some of our liberty that we're certain to never get back.

The concentration of power has been a society-destroying force in every major historic society. Think Roman Empire.

I think i'd prefer it if there WAS some "oceania" out there we could be at perpetual war with: at least it has borders which are easily defined. Terror is an excuse to use the military worldwide without checks and then to come after the citizens of your own country when they question the government's efforts to fight the terror.

Bottom line by daveschroeder · 2004-10-10 05:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

The bottom line here, for what it's worth, is that the US (or political agents within the US) had absolutely nothing to do with Indymedia's drives being seized, even though that's what 90% of the posters in the original article immediately assumed. And, on top of that, the ONLY reason the FBI was involved was because Rackspace, Indymedia's host, is a US company. However, the FBI itself did not do any of the seizing. MLAT complicates the issue, but the fact is that if they had hosted in the UK with, say, a UK company as opposed to a US company, there would have been ZERO US involvement, and the US involvement in this is merely a tertiary formality of MLAT. The FBI was obligated to pass on the request to Rackspace under MLAT, but in fact performed no enforcement duty, according to Rackspace itself and Indymedia.org's own report.

No doubt conspiracy theorists will still think it was some kind of US/Bush/GOP attempt to silence critics, when in reality Europe has no further to look than its own doorsteps - Italy and Switzerland - for the seizure requests...

Race to the bottom by mcc · 2004-10-10 05:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

The funny thing here is that the sort of "everyone is judged by the standards of the least free country" treaties that turn out to have resulted in this shutdown are the exact sort of thing that the Indymedia crowd has been trying to oppose with their "anti-globalization" tirades all along.

Now it turns out they're the first to be targetted by these treaties.

Go figure.

--
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts

Why they asked to remove the webpages by ptitvert · 2004-10-10 05:52 · Score: 5, Informative

Hello,

Living in switzerland, I could hear quite often the news concerning this article.

At least concerning the Switzerland, I cannot say for Italie, the problem was that Indymedia was publishing some pictures of swiss cops under cover with 1 name, addresses from both cops.

From this point of view I can understand that it's quite dangerous for them to be exposed in such way.

here is an article (in french) http://www.edicom.ch/news/suisse/041009160849.sa.s html

if you want to read it by yourself!

LG

Re:Why they asked to remove the webpages by airmax · 2004-10-10 07:00 · Score: 3, Informative

There were only some photos, bot no names and no adresses on Indymedia's website. See the : google cache for example. When swiss newspaper are talking about adresses, it's only a lie they are repeating, maybe originating from the swiss governement.
Re:Why they asked to remove the webpages by BrookHarty · 2004-10-10 07:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem with this is, how do you show police abuse of a foreign country if our police will assist them in comvering up the event?

It's amazing, if this was Fox news reporting riots in G8 and police abuse pictures, it would stay on the air. (Not that FOX shows anything negative about police actions.)

Riot control is being censored in all media, hence Indie news agencies. Being here in Seattle, we saw the police mass arrest people, tear gas and physically assault peaceful protesters. The police chief had the local news agencies stop broadcasting, and they complied. (It was reported in the SeattleTimes about the "Blackouts")

I read that people are suing NY City because of the RNC mass arrests. They had to let people go who wouldn't plead guilty. So they arrest you, and you agree you commited a crime so they can fine you and let you go, after the RNC.

In the DNC they had people in "Protest Zones" aka, caged off areas with barb wire. Thats now how protesting works.

Police spending is up in Riot control. But what Riots? We hardly ever have real Riots with stores and property being damaged, but we do have people protesting.

Learn from history folks.

Just as Whites never saw the abuse of blacks in poor areas, Working people don't see the police abuse on peaceful protesters. LA's Blue Shield took years to bust, organized crime in our own freaking Police departments!

News is being censored, your freedoms eroded, polution is increasing, corporation crime is on the increase, people dieing in a police action.

We need to protect the Indie news agencies, its the only objecting voice in the crowd of sheep.

-
http://www.studentsfororwell.org

Re:Eh? by An+Onerous+Coward · 2004-10-10 06:08 · Score: 4, Informative

I think you speak for those who didn't bother to read the articles when you ask: "Who the heck is Indymedia and why should we care?"

From Yahoo! News:

"The website was established by organizations during the 1999 World Trade Organization (news - web sites) protests claiming the mainstream media failed to adequately cover the news."

"It calls itself 'a network of collectively run media outlets for the creation of radical, accurate and passionate tellings of the truth.'"

In short, they're a site that helps coordinate and inform the worldwide anti-globalization movement.

As to the question of what they might have been involved in, they can only speculate on what exactly their servers were yanked for. But speculations abound. It could be a story they ran about the Swiss undercover police, or their publication of the names and addresses of RNC convention delegates, or their involvement with the Diebold memos.

But even if they were totally irrelevant, the fact is that they've had legal action taken against them and are unable to determine the parties or reasons for the legal action. That's honest-to-god police state stuff, and we should be asking our elected officials tough questions about it.

--

You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

To the knumbskull that modded me a troll... RTFA by CPM+User · 2004-10-10 06:09 · Score: 3, Informative

Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, comments:

"Rackspace may be a US company but Rackspace in London is subject to UK law not US law. If they took down and handed over Indymedia's servers simply on the basis of a US subpoena communicated to them this would not be lawful in the UK.

However it seems more likely that the US subpoena was the subject of a request for mutual legal assistance from the US Attorney General to the UK Home Secretary under the MLA Treaty. It would for the Metropolitan Police, probably accompanied by the FBI, to enforce the request and take possession of the servers.

This begs the questions: Why did the Home Office agree? What grounds did the USA give for the seizure of the servers? Were these grounds of a "political" nature? Has the Home Office requested that the servers be returned? What does this action say about freedom of expression and freedom of the press?

A trail that started in Switzerland and Italy has now ended fairly and squarely in the lap of the UK Home Secretary to justify."

Mirrors needed! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-10 07:04 · Score: 4, Informative

If anyone wants to help out (there are still many IMC sites down) some more mirrors would be good!

You can get in touch with IMC techies via email or via #tech on irc.indymedia.org.

The sites that are easy to mirror are the ones running Mir since this CMS generates static HTML, this includes the global site and the UK site.

Also one of the siezed London servers was the main Blag Linux server and it ran some other Free software mirrors... :-/

Office of International Affairs is responsible by Animats · 2004-10-10 07:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

This has to have gone through the Office of International Affairs in the Justice Department, which handles all MLAT matters. So that's whom journalists should contact for information. The Director of that unit, Molly Warlow, is the responsible party.

This is clear prior restraint and a First Amendment violation. No treaty can override that. Remember, the Patriot Act gag order provisions were ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. District Court last week. Further use of those provisions by the Government is questionable and may be illegal.

Summary attempt by SignalFreq · 2004-10-10 08:00 · Score: 5, Informative

8 Sep 2004: Indymedianates publishes an article with photos of at least 1 (maybe 2?) undercover swiss police. Google cache of another site with pictures here. Translation of original Indymedia post.

Unknown date: FBI asks the post to be removed, but admitted no laws were violated: "The FBI agents told me that they were not concerned with the photos, but with the identifying information. There never was any such identifying information, and even if there was, it would likely be protected by the first amendment if it was obtained legally. (There was a recent case here in Washington that you may be familiar with on this very issue). But, even assuming it is illegal to post identifying information (which it is not), there WAS NO SUCH info. The FBI agents freely admitted to me that individuals have a right to take photographs of agents in public places and post those photos on the internet."

7 Oct 2004: Two Indymedia servers hosted by Rackspace (a US Company) but physically located in LONDON are taken. FBI agents are present at the seizure. No information is given other than the servers were taken. The order was issued to Rackspace (not Indymedia) and Rackspace was apparently barred from talking about it.

8 Oct 2004: Rackspace publishes that they turned over the servers in response to an order under MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty).

8 Oct 2004: The AFP states that the request for the seizure originated with the Italian and Switzerland governments.

Re:Please, by all means, continue to ignore... by demachina · 2004-10-10 08:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

The facts in front of you are the Bush administration sold this war to the world based on Iraq possessing WMD's, and having ties to 9/11 and Al Qaeda. Neither of these were true. its revisionism to make out like it was really about "Freedom and Democracy" and because Saddam liked to build palaces.

You are missing two critical fact about Saddam's obstruction of the WMD inspection regime.

A) When the war was actually launched he was cooperating with U.N. inspectors, the inspectors had to flee the country ahead of the invasion.

B) The CIA has after billions of dollars spent and a year and a half of unfettered searching found no WMD's so apparently as troubled as it was, the sanctions worked.

The bottomline is when the time came for the U.N to authorize the invasion of Iraq it didn't, so as a result, the U.S. invasion was illegal under current international law. Either you abide by UN votes or you don't in which case you should get out, instead of adhering to the decisions you like and ignoring the ones you don't. Building consensus is hard, it usually ends in everyone being unhappy but its usually better than unilateralism.

It appears the U.N.'s judgement was in fact right because they didn't buy the U.S. propaganda that Saddam was on the verge of giving a nuclear bomb to Al Qaeda.

The fact that Saddam was a prick and built palaces is no justification for preemptive warfare. Before the first Gulf War and sanctions Iraq was in fact a pretty prosperous place. It was a secular state versus an extremist Islamic state like Saudi Arabia or Iran. Yes Saddam was a two bit dictator but the world is full of those. If the U.S. wanted to take him down they should have done it in the first gulf war when they had a fresh justification. If they would done it then it would have saved the lives of millions, for example the lives of the Kurds and Shia's George H.W. Bush encouraged to revolt and then turned his back on.

"I'm wondering how much aid the U.S. has given your country through the years."

I'm American, though I'm increasingly embarrassed to admit it. The chump change the U.S. hands out in foreign aid doesn't even register against what its sucked out of the world over the years. The World Bank and IMF in particular hand out billions of dollars most of which disappears into the pockets of corrupt dictators, and leave the country and its people deeply in debt, worse off, and at the mercy of the tyranny of the IMF's economic dictates. I'm willing to bet you the third world would be a better place if the IMF never existed. It is just another tool by the U.S. to acquire control over poor nations.

--
@de_machina

Wow by Erwos · 2004-10-10 08:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

A lot of mourning over an organization that made Fox News look like it was completely unbiased. Good riddance to them.

I know this comment's a karma burner, but to hell with it. I'm sick of people who bitch about CNN being biased, and then point to IndyNews as the "accurate" source of information.

One of the most important life lessons I've learned on /. is that "biased" is mostly defined as any opinion you don't agree with. Courts ruled a way you didn't like? Obviously they were biased because they were bought off (in some fashion never actually explained). Don't like the way a news story was written? Must have been the work of the evil Corporations/Americans/Israelis/Europeans/Arabs!

Get a grip. It's impossible to report truth, because the facts lend themselves to any number of truths if you arrange them properly. And, no matter what you do, you MUST arrange the facts in order to report a story.

What's worse is that Europeans have been steadily conditioned by their news media to believe that they are somehow less susceptible to media bias, or that their media doesn't have any. I don't know what's scarier anymore: the obviously biased US news sources, or the more subtly biased European news sources. I pray that it is only European /.'ers who have this problem, but alas, I suspect it is far more than that.

In summary: shut up. You are not unbiased in any way, shape, or form. Your news sources are not unbiased in any way, shape, or form. You will need to use your head to discern facts from the truth that is given to you, and then use these facts to reconstruct a more likely truth about the situation. What's worse is that you will need to consider that other people can do this, yet come up with a different truth than you.

-Erwos

--
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.

Re:Please, by all means, continue to ignore... by danheskett · 2004-10-10 08:46 · Score: 3, Informative

The bottomline is when the time came for the U.N to authorize the invasion of Iraq it didn't, so as a result, the U.S. invasion was illegal under current international law.
Your argument is flawed. The US invasion wasn't strictly illegal by international law. Hussein was in material breach of the Gulf War cease-fire, and a number of UN treaties.

By any measure of International law, the cease fire that Iraq/Hussein signed was violated in any number of cases over the years. Any one of those violations was enough to justify - legally - renewed military operations.

George H.W. Bush encouraged to revolt and then turned his back on.
One final note. This is again overly simplistic view of the matter. The dynamics of the countries in the middle-east are vastly complex. Countries like Saudi Arabia who are railed against for being on the side terrorists (especially by the left in the media - "18 of 19 hijackers were from there", type of stuff) are a mish-mash of conflicting political entities. Saudia Arabia was nearly torn apart from within due to the US intervention the first time around with Iraq. The ruling family is not in complete control of the nation. They have a tacit agreement with the religious clerics to preserve and protect the order - but the House of Saud knows that this could turn at any moment. Make no mistake: if the House of Saud falls to a fundamentalist regime like the old Taliban or the Iranian government the world as a whole will be in a really nasty spot.

It's hard to underestimate the effect this would have on the world.

HW Bush was warned off deposing Hussein the first time because of tensions in moderate nations, specifically Jordan and Saudia Arabia.

Middle-East politics is an amazingly complex thing. Citing a single reason for anything that happens there is a sure-fire way to be wrong.

Info on Server Seizures & Indymedia by Yeb · 2004-10-10 09:03 · Score: 5, Informative

Unknown agents have seized servers. They have yet to issue demands.

I'm the tech who had the contract with Rackspace. My blog has info about this, including copies of the rackspace trouble tickets:

http://jebba.blagblagblag.org

I'd like to clarify a few misconceptions I see in some slashdot comments (imagine that!):

daveschroeder wrote in comments (he also submitted this story to slashdot):
The bottom line here, for what it's worth, is that the US (or political agents within the US) had absolutely nothing to do with Indymedia's drives being seized, even though that's what 90% of the posters in the original article immediately assumed.

It is believed that it is the US State Department that had the drives (servers?) seized. You say the US had absolutely nothing to do with it? How about the Federal Order? Do you have info I don't have? Sounds very much like US agents are involved...

We do not know for certain whether it is related to Italy or Switzerland or somewhere else. It is a good guess, but still a guess. All we know is that it was a Federal Order from the U. S. of A.

ptitvert wrote in comments:
Indymedia was publishing some pictures of swiss cops under cover with 1 name, addresses from both cops.

Really? Did you ever see the post? I never saw a single name or address of a cop. There was just a newswire submission (very similar to a slashdot comment, except that it's multimedia enabled). See my blog and trouble tickets with rackspace for more info about this issue.

Also, folks write things like:
It could be a story they ran about the Swiss undercover police

Indymedia has feature articles and a newswire. Indymedia "ran a story about undercover cops" in the same way that CmdrTaco ran a story about your comments. Get it? FREE POSTING TO ANYONE WITH A FREAKING MODEM (npi).

Anyway, no one really knows what is going on, and that's the spooky part. I mean, the Feds just yanked the servers and never even contacted us once. And they still haven't. (Um, not that I'm inviting them over for coffee or anything...)

Look! They're just grabbing servers, no comments. This sucks folks, even if you loathe indymedia.

I know there is a lot of noise/spam/junk on indymedia, but there is on slashdot too... Since ANYONE can post, the posts are of greatly varying quality. But Indymedia has some of the best (if not the best) coverage from the street, especially at demonstrations. It does break news which is found no where else. It is extremely valuable for this alone.

Let's say there is a Swiss pharmaceutical company in Ohio that does something the Mexican cops don't like. Do the Swiss cops raid? The Mexicans? It seems we really have Team America: World Police.

The rockin' EFF has volunteered to represent me/indymedia pro bono. Very nice. :)

Have fun,

-Jeff

Re:Info on Server Seizures & Indymedia by Yeb · 2004-10-10 12:24 · Score: 5, Informative

OK...
daveschroeder wrote:
Why are you not asking questions of the Swiss and the Italian authorities?
What makes you think we're not? People are trying to figure this out.
daveschoeder wrote:
You and I both know that the only reason the US was involved is because Rackspace is a US company.
I don't know that this is the only reason, and likely neither do you. In fact, what is your connection to this whole thing anyway?
daveschroeder wrote:
Now I realize that's laughable to many on slashdot: believing the FBI when it says it's not an FBI operation.
I'm glad people realize believing the FBI is laughable. They and the rest of the cops have certainly earned it. I don't necessarily think this is a FBI operation though, but I sure as hell don't trust their word.
daveschroeder wrote:
But the FBI proudly talks about its own investigations
Uh, you've got to be fucking kidding. Ya, I'm sure they talk proudly about some but they keep plenty in the dark. Hell, we still don't even know all the things that Hoover did over 25 years ago.
daveschroeder wrote:
I didn't say the US had nothing to do with anything relating to this
But, daveschroeder wrote in an earlier comment:
The bottom line here, for what it's worth, is that the US (or political agents within the US) had absolutely nothing to do with Indymedia's drives being seized, even though that's what 90% of the posters in the original article immediately assumed.
Anyway, I'm not going to continue showing your trollishness. I'm a bit busy.
I'll just add that the US certainly ain't standing up for Free Speech anymore. And their sense of justice is quite whacked since this is all done in the dark now.
Also, I'm not saying European govt's do no wrong. They're jacked too, especially that fascist running Italy.
Enjoy the spectacle,
-Jeff

I hate this argument by Theatetus · 2004-10-10 09:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Calling Nazi's "left wing" or "right wing" doesn't make sense the context of the US. American politics don't really mesh with European politics in that sense: in most European countries, for instance, the leftists are the hawks and the right wingers want to end military spending.

Naziism was socialist in fact, not just in name, in that the state controlled most of the means of production. So in that sense, they were leftist. Naziism gets associated with the right in America because their rhetoric of traditional blue-collar values as against the elitist urban bourgeois matches a lot of right-wing American rhetoric ... the closest match to naziism in a lot of policies was the American Populist movement: people like Huey P. Long. Even then, it doesn't quite work because the Populists didn't rely so heavily on ceremony and ritual as a means of political control.

--
All's true that is mistrusted

Re:I hate this argument by GozzoMan · 2004-10-10 19:40 · Score: 3, Informative

in most European countries, for instance, the leftists are the hawks and the right wingers want to end military spending.

As an European, I disagree.
Even if I agree that American and European politics are quite different, I think you are quite wrong on this point.

Maybe just UK can be an exception, since the well known position of the labourist Prime Minister (but I never heard of any end-military-spending of their rightwingers, altough I admit it is possible).

As an instance, here in Italy I can assure it surely isn't that way (even if the main leftwing party can't be defined a hard-line pacifist one, having approved military intervention in Kosovo at the time).
Leftists are mainly, and strongly, against any militarty intervention. Some even insistently asking immediate troops withdrawal from Iraq.
As another important example, I remind you that Spanish new leftist government has just done it.

Re:Please, by all means, continue to ignore... by demachina · 2004-10-10 09:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Your argument is flawed. The US invasion wasn't strictly illegal by international law. Hussein was in material breach of the Gulf War cease-fire, and a number of UN treaties."

Excepting you are doing exactly what I said you were doing. You like the resolutions that sanctioned and condemned Saddam so you are using them as justification, but you when you either didn't get a vote or lost the vote sanctioning the most extreme form of enforcement, an invasion, and all of sudden the UN's will is irrelevant. Since the UN passed all those resolutions it was the UN's call to decide if they had been violated and what the punishment should be, instead the U.S. through a tantrum and decided itself. Like I said the U.S. should either get out of the U.N. or be thrown out instead of using it when its convenient, and then ignoring it when its convenient. ...quote lengthy rant on Saudi Arabia here...

What does this have to do with anything I said. Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with George H.W. Bush sending signals to the Kurds and Shia at the end of the first gulf war that the U.S. would support them if they revolted against Saddam. They did revolt, and the then first Bush administration looked the other way while Saddam slaughtered them. As a new height in hypocrisy George W. Bush uses some of the mass graves full of those rebels as justification for the second war, though most of those people are dead thanks to the actions of his dad's administration.

"if the House of Saud falls to a fundamentalist regime like the old Taliban or the Iranian government the world as a whole will be in a really nasty spot."

So its OK to topple a despotic regime in Iraq with a high probability it will be replacted with a fundementalist regime like the one in Iran. But somehow its crucial to the entire world that a despotic, already fundementalist regime in Saudi Arabia stay in power. Not sure you were aware but Saudi Arabia already closely resembles Afghanistan under the Taliban, women are deeply oppressed and people are routinely beheaded in public because thats what Islamic law stipulates. The only key difference is Saudi Arabia has lots of oil money, and its royal family is massively corrupted and many of them are decidedly bad Muslims, thanks to the womanizing, gambling, jet setting etc. things that most people do when they are filthy rich.

I'm pretty sure Americans are no judge as to whether the world would be a better or worse place if the House of Saud was deposed. America might be worse off for it because they own like 7% of America which is why we don't complain about all the things we complained about with Saddam and the Taliban. Americans think the House of Saud is sacred because they have massive influence over America's political, economic and media leaders, the kind of influence massive quantities of money can buy. The poor Taliban didn't have that kind of money.

"HW Bush was warned off deposing Hussein the first time because of tensions in moderate nations, specifically Jordan and Saudia Arabia."

So why did that matter then and it was irrelevant the second time around when most of the world condemned the invasion? Was it because the Saudi's secretly gave it the green light the second time and as I said above the Saudi's practically own the Bush administration?

--
@de_machina

Re:Oh no! - The first poster was correct. by Sein · 2004-10-10 10:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

Pal, you have *no* idea what you're talking about.

The Nazis were backed by corporate interests and were good Fascists. The Socialist tag was just a bit of Orwellian Newspeak thrown in to confuse the common worker who thought socialism was probably a Good Idea given how the Weimar Republic had worked them over.

Classifying them as leftist is buying into their Newspeak. Like all Fascist regimes, the name tag on their politics have little or nothing to do with their actual politics - which was pretty ordinary Corporate/Statist Fascism. Now, both the extreme Right and the Extreme left converge on dictatorships, but that doesn't mean that all dictatorships are extreme left.

Your assumptions are blinding you to the effect of Corporate Fascism and right-wing rethoric though, which is the point from the PoV of the current NewSpeak propagandists. I think a little rechecking of your assumptions might be in order.

Re:Please, by all means, continue to ignore... by demachina · 2004-10-10 13:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Women are not routinely executed like in Afganistan under the Taliban. Quite frankly you are terribly wrong."

You are putting words in my mouth. I said "women are deeply oppressed" and "people are routinely beheaded in public". I didn't say "women are beheaded in public" though I'm pretty sure they must be if they violate the laws that call for beheading. The key point is most Saudis, outside the royal family. don't really have a better life than those under the Taliban and Saddam did. Women had more rights under Saddam. Americans don't seem to realize this because Saudi Arabia is an ally so they haven't been demonized by propaganda the way Saddam and the Taliban have.

"They, despite innuendo, do not support terrorism against the West."

As you recall there were 80+ pages censored from the Congressional 9/11 report that were entirely about Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. I'd sure like to read what they said.

You seem to be echoing a Bush administration propaganda theme that the Saudi's are pure as driven snow. I doubt that is true and you seem to have fallen for some very good propaganda that said, Saddam was involved in 9/11 and Saudi Arabia wasn't. Reality is almost certainly the exact opposite.

The Saudi's have only very recently officially started to fight terrorism, partially thanks to the fact Al Qaeda launched attacks in Saudi Arabia against Arabs. Prior to that they either denied the problem or were indifferent as long as it was targeted at infidels.

Unofficially its a near certainty wealthy Saudi's are still funnelling large sums into Madrassa's to raise new extremists and to fund Al Qaeda, Hamas and the rest.

"First off, foreign investment is a way of life in the US, and has been for two hundred plus years. It's nothing new."

There is nothing new about it but when a small number of foreign investors own a stake as big as this one, they are insured they will get special treatment. If they pulled their investment out they could single handedly crash markets. You just have to factor in they get special treatment when the U.S. government deals with them. For example they get 80+ pages of embarrassment censored out of report on their involvement in 9/11, and they get to fly their nationals out of the country right after 9/11. After Pearl Harbor most Japanese Americans were rounded up, stripped of their property, and eventually landed in concentration camps.

--
@de_machina

Hello. My name is Indy Media. You killed my father by Doc+Ruby · 2004-10-10 13:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

So much for "you can't police/censor the Internet - it's international, it's impossible, we'll just route around it". The FBI has figured out how to handle that, at least when it means stomping out troublsome independent media. Until all content is available through URIs that, unlike URLs, are not coupled to a single physical location, but rather in a distributed, redundant, semantic space, physical access to the machines will still trump any security regime.

--

--
make install -not war

Re:Wrong by Yeb · 2004-10-10 15:13 · Score: 4, Informative

daveschroeder, who the hell are you? You submitted this article and have been posting comments like mad yet you don't know jack about what's going on. You're just spreading massive disinformation.

You say "Any enforcement was done by the UK Metropolitan Police IN the UK".

How are you the privileged one that knows this? People have contacted the Met and have heard nothing. My lawyers know pratically nothing. Yet you know it was done by the Met?

Who is modding this stuff insightful? Geez, and people complain about crap on indymedia...

MODERATORS PLEASE MOD THIS DUDE DOWN FOR THE TROLL HE IS!

-Jeff

Slashdot Mirror

Indymedia Seizures Initiated In Europe

52 of 563 comments (clear)