Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Goverment Responds to EFF's Indymedia Motion
bergwitz writes "In a response to EFF's motion to unseal, the U.S. government claims that Indymedia hard drives were seized as part of an international "criminal terrorism investigation," and thus the U.S. District Court's gag order should be upheld." This will help refresh your memory.
It'd be rather embarrasing to admit we clamped down on a leftie news site just for political reasons.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
The 21st century's answer to Communism when it comes to ignoring due process.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
At least they didn't cite god's will as the reason. ;)
Linux banned as terrorist OS
Despite the conveniently edited write up above such that the response appears to be an inflammatory one dismissing the EFF's claims on "terrorism" grounds, there's not much of anything to see here. Basically, they say the documents should remain sealed because 1) the EFF is not in any position to request that they be unsealed, that's up to Rackspace and 2) the documents are part of an ongoing investigation that could be jeopardized by the unsealing.
Nothing to see here, move along move along. I'm sure, of course, this won't stop a bunch of card-carrying tinfoil elitists from crying wolf.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
More Patriot Act for you.
goddamnit, i'm tired of this do-it, see if they bitch, link it with terror/DHS/etc, gag everything about it, make whatever you did legal, and fuck the people.
wow, interesting to watch the changes that are taking place.
This is just a crazy, they call it the 'land of the free' but how free are you? Next thing you know they will be blocking website's to USA IP addresses if the FBI can't get it hands on the physical hardware.
going to even try to refute that the government merely has to cry terrorism to get whatever it wants? Where are you now apologists.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
... we didn't serve IndyMedia - we served RackSpace.
Ah, the complexities of an information society. According to the government, you'd better own the equipment, not just the data. Data owners apparently have no standing to sue if they aren't directly served, even if it's their data that's confiscated.
Let us live so that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry -- Mark Twain
As far as I understand it, the Indymedia was hosted in UK but the FBI seized it on the request of Italian and Swiss governments. Is there an active interest in this matter by the US government other then just complying with the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties (MLATs)?
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Your powers of deduction are indefagitable. Tell me, Holmes, how is it that your brilliant powers of intellect teased out that the poster is a "troll"?
Get the photos of the swiss cops here with this torrent
it was nothing about terrorists, just people taking pics of cops that were trying to intimidate activists.
Without being a part of the investigation, would it be safe to say you are only familiar with those parts of the incident that have been made public? Is it possible there could be other, non-public parts?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
And how happy they are to oblige our cheese-eating, surrender monkeys on THIS issue.
No doubt about it. This Administration will say anything, do anything, to stay in power.
Hell, they will even abandon their support for Reagan's famouns slam against Carter's Administration:
"I believe in states' rights; I believe in people doing as much as they can at the private level."
Now they are reigniting the whole debate over Oregon's Assisted Suicide Law.
I guess when you can abandon your principles to win, you become just another Democrat.
Republicans: Democrats without the guilt.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
he got modded up that all you need to know some one is a troll here, trolls get modded up.
...you should have said earlier.
Everyone back to their business.
and so do those who voted for in this government.
I ended up voting for Kerry but he also voted for the Patriot Act so it wouldn't have made any difference even if he won.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Does it pertain to an ongoing terrorism investigation in the sense that it discusses the politics surrounding terrorism? Particularly from a viewpoint unfavorable to the agencies performing the seizure?
Well maybe not all of them, but most of them right?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
They might as well have responded with a "cuz".
But this little paragraph bothered me a bit if I've read and understoood it correctly.
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Is it just me, or does that basically state the laws of any state anything in the Constitution do not apply when this law is used? It's saying there is a law *above* the Constitution?
Appear to be confused about this statement, claiming that it had to do with terrorism. No, it had to do with criminal terrorism. Other sorts of terrorism (as demonstrated by John Ashcroft's singing) are entirely legal. Please, please keep the distinction in your minds. Criminal terrorists are Bad. Legal terrorists are Good.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
This is the problem with the so-called "War on Terror." Any investigation can be kept secret and officially proclaimed to "pertain to a terrorist investigation." After that, it is closed to public debate and due process no longer applies.
that John Sutton (the US attorney) isn't full of shit when he writes:
"...3. "As further grounds for the denial of the Motion to Unseal, without waving the forgoing, the U.S. would show that the sealed documents pertain to an ongoing criminal terrorism investigation. The unsealing of the documents on file in the matter would seriously jeopardize the investigation. The non-disclosure is necessitated by a compelling government interest..."
unless we get a little more details that the vagueity that is the above?
Assuming it's really about terrorists, the "Bad guys" already know the hardware was seized. An organization that depends on secrecy to survive would treat this as an infection, and cauterize the wound. (Meaning, eliminate the infection by dissociating themselves from it, and anyone that links them to it.)
So, if it's really a part of an investigation, they fucked up big time by not slapping IndyMedia with some sort of silencing order before news of the confiscation became public.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Give us four new supreme court justices, and eight more years of control over the government, and the children will grow up to take us the rest of the way. Vote for charter schools, education is wasted on the poor.
Look, as long as the Patriot Act remains largely untested in court, the Justice Dept. would be incredibly stupid not to milk it for all they can. I'm pretty sure this kind of thing will be eventually overturned, but Congress passed the law, so now we've got to deal with it. Dealing with it will probably take the Courts striking down enough provisions that they send it back to Congress for a rewrite. This will probably take several years. Till then, it's a process. So far, it's a process that still seems to work. Give it time.
web operations and data that are clustered or distributed around the world would be immune to a single site's seizure.
You deserve it for being passive to such a horrible government. You deserve it for selling out your children through your greed. Every american knows that they agreed to this injustice due to their inactivity. Just wait for the day that they take you away.
Welcome to America, land of the... nevermind.
I have to find a local group that plays Paranoia.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
So, your mantra is "Hey, it's not quite as bad here as China, North Korea, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, several African nations such as Nigeria, Somalia, Etheopia when it comes to rights abuses, so I'm cool with it." Since when is being not quite in last place a good thing?
By citing Article VI of the Constitution and using it to say that treaty obligations require the seal, the government can conduct any black bag job it wants just by arranging a "confidential" request from any "friendly" foreign power.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
Only if you trust the government, and all its employees, and believe the war on terror should be fought with such secrecy that there's no way to know for certain if their actions have anything to do with the war on terror, or if they're using it as a blanket excuse to do whatever they want.
Of all the millions of servers out there, they picked IndyMedia's. And how many days should it take to copy a hard disk for investigation, or to make another copy to put back into the server in place of the original? Couldn't most people do it in half an hour?
It's not so much that they needed the evidence for their terror investigations that demands an explanation. They sought to do more harm than necessary to gather their evidence. Their actions were an assault on the free press and possibly an unlawful seizure, violating two constitutional amendments.
The contrast is striking. Our freedoms are disappearing. We now live in a nascent police state where police actions are justified on the say so of the police.
Play Command HQ online
Disclaimer: I'm not trolling (if I were I'd of posted anonymous).
The EFF has become a high-tech version of the ACLU. To some that may be a complement. To others it may have a negative connotation. To me it's the latter. It would seem that the more sensational a case is, the more potential there is for an EFF/ACLU to get involved, no matter the merits. I'm not implying that neither does any good, as they do certainly have their share of just causes, they just seem to be getting fewer and further between. Just my observation peppered with my opinion.
Kind of like a gag order, eh?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
It is sad that in the United States you apparently need special standing to request the unsealing of information for a warrant/subpoena.
In Canada, the PUBLIC is considered to have an interest every time the STATE uses its power to seize something via a warrant/subpoena and any member of the public can request the information be unsealed and has standing to do so.
On a similar theme, the public has the right to order transcripts of court proceedings for the same reason.
The process of Justice is considered to be a matter of public interest. Not simply a private matter between the state and whoever the state is screwing over.
Their argument about the MLAT treaty is persuasive however. It seems to contradict their argument about terrorism however.
Either the seizure was according to the a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) and was therefore done on behalf of another country, or it was at the behest of US authorities to protect american national security.
Does anyone know the identity of the unnamed "REQUESTING STATE"? Or is that a secret also?
Because it seems by refusing to ID the requesting state the government is also necessarily refusing to ID the authority of which specific treaty they are relying on. Pointing out the Treaty would tend to ID the requesting state (in so far as it would be a signatory)
I don't think you can rely on a treaty if you don't want to identify it to the court. that is just my hunch. Justice is called Justice for a reason.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
A friend in the UK at Rackspace said the cops were asking about "pictures of undercover officers" and nothing about terrorists. The undercover officers presumably have to worry now that their faces are public. At least that's the fed's line. If they were really undercover or covert they'd use long range telephoto lenses from buildings, not wander amongst protestors.
It was playing the heavy, nothing more.
It means the Constitution is the authority which empowers the government of the United States to make and enforce law, and be the final arbiter of justice. And if the Constitution or to a lessor extent the laws of a State contradict what is being discussed, well, that's a special case and we know what happens.
Sounds good to me. Just try not to commit mass murder afterwards
AC
2004: part of an international "criminal terrorism investigation"
How can you question it? If true, and revealed openly, innocent people can die.
If false, and cover-up, heads should roll (figuratively).
I don't know about you, however all I can do is trust that the judge that releases, or holds up, the data is honest and accurate.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
So why are we still bothering? And why wasn't it defeated before Nov 2? Why was the attack on Fallujah held up until after Nov.2? No reason, sure, just coincidence.
Vote Quimby!
...people's "memory":
5 6
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/10/17162
You might want to check into his replacement. I know what you're thinking, "He couldn't be right of Ashcroft. That would result in an overflow and a sign error in 2's compliment politics." But while Ashcroft was close to that edge, his successor is closer. He was one of the people who advised the Whitehouse that, among other things, it would be legal under some readings of the Geneva Conventions to employ torture. Which not only means he's a true sophist, but not much of a student of history.
The reason we abide by the Geneva conventions is so that we may expect other to do so. It is the carrot to the stick the predates the conventions, wholesale destruction of population centers as a matter of course, with the intent of inflicting maximum civilian casualties. If we don't use the carrot, and they don't fight a civil war, it's more difficult to justify use of the stick. Which given it's cost in human terms is already difficult to justify, even if defeat and using the stick are the only choices left.
If the government needs something I have in a bank safe deposit box, they go and serve the bank with a warrant. If they need my employee records, they serve my employer with a warrant.
/. blurb). The EFF has no standing. However, even if Indymedia sues, doesn't mean records will be unsealed. There are plenty of cases where revealing specifics will screw an investigation, and in those cases the judge generally keeps the records sealed. They are unsealed at trial, when the case is dropped, or if it drags on for too long.
A warrant is just a legal declaration that allows law enforcement to etner a place they may not normally enter or seize something they may not normally seize. Law enforcement can't just come and take a computer randomly from a company or person. They have to get a warrant from a judge to do so. However the warrant is to enter the premises or seize the goods, so it is presented to the persons concerned. They don't go, present it to you, and ask you to go get the goods, then maybe alter them, before you hand them over.
Also, Indymedia has standing to sue, they didn't however, the EFF did and that was part of the judges ruling (read more than the
Nothing has changed in an information society, except that we'll probably see more seizing of computers to get at data used in criminal activities. It's no different than if you had a physical book with your accounting of illegal activities in storage or at a bank. They'd serve the place that physically had the book to get it. They aren't going to serve you and hope that you give it to them unaltered and intact.
Law enforcement is sometimes done for good reasons?
I know that's hard for a whacked out hippy to understand, since all they know about police is that they want to take their drugs away.
But think about it, WTF would any investigator unseal the records of an ACTIVE INVESTIGATION!!!
If that were the case you may as well legalize murder, because you'll NEVER put anyone away with that sort of disclosure.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
The servers were seized in the UK, although the order was delivered to RackSpace in the US (by the FBI). There was no order to return the servers, as no one even knows who actually was in possession of them. The servers were returned to RackSpace after a week as mysteriously as they were originally seized.
Now, I'm not in favor of letting some al-Qaeda operative escape because we blab about the investigation in open court. I'm also not in favor of letting the government shut down freedom of the press just because it embarasses them. And the problem is this: We can't tell which is going on here.
Neither can the judge. So they go through this little dance, where the judge tries to get them to say enough to let the judge know what's going on, and the government tries to say as little as possible, and they go back and forth several times, and eventually the judge finds out enough to convince him/her.
But why were these servers taken? What grounds did the government have to take them? What information was on them, or allegedly on them, so that was so sensitive to national security that they had to be confiscated? It's not rhetorical, I just want to know what the government said they were looking for.
I've read through all the prior articles and I can't seem to find that information-- all I can find is the legality/illegality of foreign countries (read: US) barging into other countries for 'national security'...
"In a Democracy, people get the kind of government they deserve." -Winston Churchill
Without being a part of the investigation, would it be safe to say you are only familiar with those parts of the incident that have been made public? Is it possible there could be other, non-public parts?
Right.
And they have WMDs too.
Fooled me once, shame on
And you don't in criminal cases. Sorry, but law enforcement can't, and won't, tell you why in a case like this. That's the whole point of having it sealed in the first place. They told the judge, who then decided it was appropriate to keep it sealed. That's how it works, and how it has worked. Real common to see that sort of thing in, say, organized crime busts.
However some people seem a little confused. Sealed isn't a permenant sort of thing here. Just during the investigation. It'll be unsealed either when charges are brought, or when the investigation ends. It'll also be unsealed if the prosecution is dragging it's feet and it gets challenged successfully.
However, in cases like this, you just have to wait. If you really care don't have the typical American week long attention span and actually keep an eye on it. Then in several months when something happens, look in to the reasoning, and if it's bad, challenge it.
However you cannot in fairness (or legally) tell them "You have to tell me beforehand why it's sealed" because that ruins the point. It's just like someone telling you they need to keep something secret (like a supprise party for you on a certian date), and you demanding to know what it is. Well if they told you, that would defeat the point, now wouldn't it?
your miss informed.
Well I don't know about my miss, but your miss sure has some strange notions by the sound of it...
Iraq had nothing to do with 911, but it did have ties to those that supported Al Qaeda.
"Ties" as in "a known terrorist bad guy was once seen in Baghdad?".
Do your own homework son - Saddam was no angel, but he hated Islamic fundamentalists no less than you do.
Anyone remember the raid on Steve Jackson Games? ... the sealed search warrents, computer equipment that was never returned, the reasoning for the raid kept secret.
At least the al qaeda terrorist cells report back to someone that the US claims should be held responsible. The "US Secret Service" terrorist cell on the other hand seem to operate freely in the US without having to report to any higher authority or be held accountable for their illegal activities. Or has Bill Cook and the rest of his cell ever been held in judgement for their actions?
hu hu. watch much fox news right? or you might have already read that iraq was an al-quaeda ennemy.
not to say they don't have terrorists, but they surely don't have any ties to al quaeda.. at least no state sponsored terrorists
Saddam and sons were basically that of drug lords. They don't have loyality to anyone but themselves. But if there is something to gain from dancing with the devil (Al Qaeda in this instance), they will and have done it. Hell, just look how corrupt the UN is with the Oil-For-Food scam that went on.
Life is not for the lazy.
they deserve this? now I have not seen the pics but for gods sake, you are asked to remove a pic of a undercover cop and the web site is responisble, for the moment at least untill it can proven that there is no ligimat reason for the pics to be posted, then you go about posting the pics anywhere you can? uncensored and all. claiming free speech, hoow far do you want this free speech to go? i got a pic of you in a gay breothel do i have the right to post that at the drop of the hat? i know a terrorist that is going to kill a bunch of people tomarrow at 8, i also know he is going to be arrested to night for the right amount ill tell you who so you can get away. how about yelling fire in a room (without a fire) now as much as i am for free speech i am not fascist about those rights. be reasonable people and you wont find your self deserving of an arrest.
"Iraq had ties to orginizations that supported terrorism."
And the US had ties to organizations that supported terrorism (check your Central American/Afghanistan/etc. history). One man's "terrorist" is another man's "Freedom Fighter".
In fact we even had direct ties to Saddam while he was gassing his own people.
We should invade ourselves.
It amuses me to see people counterargument the fact that this is a blatant abuse by the government of the freedoms that people enjoy in the west, by pointing out how much worse some people have it in other parts of the world. It simply doesn't make sense.
How is it less a restriction of freedom, because other countries even have LESS freedom? that's like saying you get more hungry, but some are even hungrier then you...So what? Does that fill your stomac? Does it invalidates that you are hungry? No. Neither is getting less freedom any better by noting that others have even less. It doesn't contracdict the issue, and it does nothing to change it. We are not becoming more free because other countries are even less free.
The fact that so many people actually accept the bull that the state says in this regard, is proof of a more fundamental truth about human nature: the fact that, ultimately, for most ppl, freedom isn't the most important, it is security. Contrary to what a great leader once said, most hoi palloi are all to happy to exchange their freedoms for a gain in security, or even an impression of improved security. People want to feel safe, and most don't care all that much about other things, compared to that. They don't care that people get imprisoned without due process, because they are bad ppl and evil terrorists, which should be locked up indefinately - for their (the citizens) protection, of course. they don't care about all the draconian laws that restrict their freedom, because it is portrayed (and seen) as a necessary way to protect themselves.
A best example is a post I read about the iraqi people. Even though it was presented as a counterargument, in fact the poster gave a prime example of the kind of human nature I just described. He claimed iraqi's were getting far more freedom now then under Sadam. Well, yes. But the irony is, more and more people think the period they experience now is far worse then under sadam. In some area's, even to the point that they would rather have him back. Because, for all the atrocities he did (and a lot of people hated and feared him for it), their was one thing the populace recognise that they have completely lost, and that is security and stability. Humans abhor chaos, one could say.
I doubt many in the US will have ever seen all those documentaries that actually show how the populace yearns the order that was present under sadam, even if he was a ruthless dictator. Among the populace, they care a lot less about all the so called freedom they have gained, and a lot more about stability and security. what good does it do that you have the right to protest, if you have no job, no income, bombs explode every day, and you can get shot when making the use of the right to protest?
That's the deeper truth of human nature: by and large, freedom is a a far second or third in the list of most important things. That's why people don't care about freedoms getting trampled, as long as the impression exists it's improving safety and security.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Again, I will have to slam you for this post too...dumbass!
If we supported Saddam killing the kurds, we would have NOT started the first gulf war. God damn it! I'm surrounded by F-ing morrons on slashdot. shesh
Life is not for the lazy.
You are all forgetting the default disclaimers. Maybe there is some law against that, but then again, IANAL.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The Power of Nightmares
Iraq had nothing to do with 911
And that is the answer that we were not given before the invasion.
but it did have ties to those that supported Al Qaeda.
Fewer ties than Saudi Arabia. Did we invade there? How about Iran?
If ties to al Qaeda was the litmus test, then we still struck the wrong place.
Learn to love Alaska
These people are not fighting for freedom. They are fighting so that Afghanistan, Iraq, and, frankly, the whole world can "submit" to sharia.
"If we supported Saddam killing the kurds, we would have NOT started the first gulf war."
Really? That's funny. I thought we launched Desert Shield/Storm because Saddam invaded Kuwait. Up until that point we really didn't give a rat's ass what Saddam did as long as he was Iran's enemy. Rummy sure was chummy with him.
But what do I know, I only fought in that war.
"God damn it! I'm surrounded by F-ing morrons on slashdot"
Yep, that must be it. Everyone else is a moron. Reality-based morons. Must be rough being you. Hey, did you know that there were no WMD in Iraq when we started this latest war?
If we supported Saddam killing the kurds, we would have NOT started the first gulf war.
We didn't start it, he did with the invasion of another country. If we didn't support his gassing of his own people, why didn't we invade? Why did we stop at the door and leave him in power?
Learn to love Alaska
now we are greating laws that can justify policing activities as "secret matters of the state."
one step closer to China here we go...
And saw the problem the rest of the world sees and tried their best to change it. Alas, primitive superstitions, known as religions, started America down the road of Facism.
Condemn those who voted for this kind of regime, not those who voted for change away from it.
GOV> You can't ask that it be unsealed. Only rackspace can ask that it be unsealed. That's part of the rule.
EFF> So rackspace can ask that it be unsealed?
GOV> No, there's a catch. Rackspace can't ask that it be unsealed. Rackspace can't discuss it. With anyone.
EFF> Why can't rackspace discuss it?
GOV> We can't tell you. It's sealed.
EFF> So can we get it unsea... oh.
"Didn't they show it to you? Didn't you even make them read it?" "The law says they don't have to." "What law says they don't have to?" "Catch-22"
Why did we stop at the door and leave him in power?
/BR?
Why, the UN of course. They did not want us to continue. Need I go on?
Life is not for the lazy.
Saddam and sons were basically that of drug lords. They don't have loyality to anyone but themselves. But if there is something to gain from dancing with the devil (Al Qaeda in this instance), they will and have done it.
I may of missed the memo from Ashcroft, but when does speculation = evidence?
Of course, everyone in Iraq feels much safer now, as at least the US goverment looks after explosives there were already under lock and key... no, wait a sec....
Hell, just look how corrupt the UN is with the Oil-For-Food scam that went on.
I thought that the UN had a bet on with the US/Halliburton to see which could be more corrupt. The jury is still out on the winner.
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
Yeah, I was there also. in the gulf, mainly.
even stranger, I agree with you.
Not hard to. Osama was one of the U.S.'s biggest buddies at the time, and Iran was the great Evil, we looked the other way when iraq used the British supplied gas to attempt to erase the Kurds, because they were better than Iran, right?
Iran-Contra? remember?
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
STFC (study the fucking case). They had a warrant that they served to Rackspace, issued by a judge. A judge just reviewed the case to determine if anything should be unsealed and decided no. Sorry, but they had proper warrants, they just have a court order preventing it from being revealed what they were for.
You'll notice I said "practically nothing". Hussein's been a proponent of Palestinian terrorism against Israelis.
The point is whether or not Iraq was a terrorist threat to the United States. It's safe to say that it wasn't, despite the amount of effort that went into proving that it was, as well as the successful end-result of those efforts upon the American population.
Incidentally, can the posters who've marked this post as troll please reply why they've done it, assuming they can under a different account? I'm content to be modded down, but it'd be a lot more interesting to hear a rebuttal.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Or President Bush Sr and his senior millitary advisors. But don't let facts get in the way, any.
Ummmm...the only Al Qaeda in Iraq before the war were there fighting against the Bathists, the number two enemy of Al Qaeda after the U.S. Not that that makes either party good of course, but you should really check your facts when you do your homework, Dicky.
Simple - this was a threat to those who use the internet to criticise the US government.
There IS no terrorist threat. At least not on the scale insinuated by Bush & his neo-cons.
Why, the UN of course. They did not want us to continue. Need I go on?
Yes. If we act according to the UN, then why did we invade in the second war against the wishes of the UN?
We should have invaded the first time, or not invaded the second time. Either way, a Bush was wrong. So which one was wrong?
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Iraq DID have ties to Al Qaeda
Let us guess: You believe George W. Bush wouldn't lie to the US public?
You believe GWB's handlers wouldn't lie to him?
You believe Rumsfeld is as honest as the day is long?
BTW, the word is spelled "misinformed." "Miss informed" suggests his unmarried lady friend told him so.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
Wow! I was starting to believe Moosebyte, but when you called him a "dumbass" and a "F-ing morron", you totally convinced me! Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeda and the US never had any ties to Saddam. I mean, it's SO OBVIOUS to me now! That picture of Rummy and Saddam shaking hands is an obvious forgery (it's all grainy and shit -- cameras in 1984 couldn't do that). And MooseByte must be one of those liberal commie pinko faggots. I bet he has a poster of Saddam over his bed.
Anyone who doubts that the US Government is using the threat of terrorism to outstep its legal and ethical authority need look no further than this case. Think about this: it could be YOUR webserver that was confiscated, and your rights would quickly evaporate. It's not much of a stretch for many of the Slashdot crowd.
These are fascist scare tactics, they demonstrate that anything we take for granted as our "rights" are potentially null and void under the Bush regime. We need to send a very clear message that we are not going to stand for it.
Will you wait until you are under an "anti-terrorist" gag order to become involved?
That would give the terrorists everything they needed to circumvent the critical data extracted from simple harmless News servers that the FBI would use to hunt them down since they have been so sucessful at doing so.
Kinda like the Rape of Falluja has been so succesful...at pushing terrorist elsewhere to open up new fronts.
Screw the UN. They do not decide for the safety of the USA as far as I'm concerned.
Life is not for the lazy.
They came for the Mayor, and I did not speak up.
They came for the head of my HOA, and I did not speak up.
They came for my neighbor, and I did not speak up.
They came for my wife, and I did not speak up.
When they came for me, there was nobody to speak up for me.
The moral of the story is when power is abused and you do not speak up against it, it will eventually catch up to you and you cannot cry foul. I applaude the efforts of the organizations that strive to keep the checks and balances in place that are necessary, and rather than cry tinfoil hat maybe you should think about the tables turning and think about what is the next mark on the list.
Ultimate power, corrupts ultimately.
You avoid the question.
The Indymedia stuff was siezed at the bequest of other countries and in accordance with international treaty obligations. It's pretty funny to see the same Hate Bush crowd that's always whining about how he thumbs his nose at the rest of the world by ignoring international treaties (Kyoto, CTB, ABM, ICC, etc.) is now whining that how didn't flagrantly ignore international law to defend them.
I am ashamed to have you as my fellow citizen.
That is all.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Blaming Halliburton for being corrupt is so tired. You are telling me that 12,000(ish) individual stockholders all looked the other way? Im not buying it. Shrewd does not always mean unethical. While you and your liberal buddies like to pile-on Halliburton, Mr. Clinton signed the original no-bid contract with Halliburton; they are the only company in the world capabile of pulling off some of the tasks requested of them. Do some research before you casually slam a corporation. There is no such thing as a corrporation, there are only groups of people engaged in a common goal. In Halliburton's case BIG revenues. Oh and before you reply, revenue is NOT inherently bad. Coorporations have a responsibilty to be profitable, but you probably wouldnt understand that.
Phredd - "I have found people tend to take you far less seriously once you start waving your genitals at them..."
Preach on, my Brother! Fucking Slashdot hate-filled niggerlovers. But next time, your should blame the liberals and their faggot agenda. Those Kerry-ball-sack-licking traitors are the true threat now. We took out the niggers with crack in the 80s.
Know that Jesus is proud of your efforts.
Yes, the writeup ommitted the claim that EFF and Indymedia, the one whose servers were taken don't have the ability to request the unsealing. It also ommitted the claim that the request pertains to international treaty regarding confidentiality. But the government did in fact dismiss the claims on the grounds that, and I quote, " the sealed documents pertain to an ongoing criminal terrorism investigation". That's what the writeup claimed, that's what actually is in the document. So I'm left wondering what exactly your point is regarding "card-carrying tinfoil elitists crying wolf". There's the fucking wolf right there in writing, you can see it too, so this is not "crying wolf" in the allegorical sense but in the factual there-is-actually-a-wolf sense.
The enemies of Democracy are
Did it ever occur to you that terrorists are real? I mean I'm neither defending nor damning, but c'mon. We all know what kind of damage press leaks can do to screw up terrorist investigations.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
I'm sure it had a lot to do with oil. I mean, lets be honest. You cut of the oil, and watch this nation grind to a hault. Obviously you don't want to bite the hand that feeds ya. But make no mistake. When push comes to shove, we will go to war again if need be.
Hate to say it, but Humans have always been fighting over resources. Always have...maybe always will. Dunno. But with China backing up Iran for it's natural gas contracts, expect things to really get dicey.
It wouldn't suprise me if we are in the midst of WW3. But honestly, your just bidding your time with deplomicy. Eventually, war WILL happen when pushed into a corner regardless of the nation that's being threatened.
Life is not for the lazy.
Why would the Gubmint really care all that much about Indymedia unless it was a big deal.
For all the chomskyist-libertarians here screaming about the repression of YOUR rights, there is an equal number of people deluded into believing that Indymedia or their Blog is something so momentous that the government felt the need to randomly quash it.
That's kind of the same worldview that alien abductees have, that they themselves are so significant that beings from the Horehead Nebula would hump it all the way over here to examine them.
Sorry but no, more than likely something Indymedia did, or some funding source attached to them did something to raise some red flags. Indymedia PRIDES itself on being subversive and doing tangential things with groups that are on the fringes to begin with. Why would this be any different? It probably is not different.
There's a problem with that assumption/speculation. Something very few Americans are aware of is that Al-Qaeda and Saddam not only were not cooperating, but that they actively worked AGAINST each other.
Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization based entirely on religious fanaticism and Islamic fundamentalism; Saddam's regieme was totally secular, and Al-Qaeda and many of the Muslim clerics hated him for that. He wanted an Iraq free of religions power, and worked actively to destroy the influence of Islam in Iraq. If we wanted allies against AL-Qaeda, Saddam would've been part of them - sort of how we allied with him against Iran in the 1980's. Al-Qaeda actually attempted to undermine Saddam in siginificant ways by rousing the population with religious messages, something Saddam and the Baath party both loathed.
Hope this clarifies things.
... and granted, I haven't read the original complaint... But the FBI's response seems to deny that Indymedia would have standing to sue, stating that the parties are solely the U.S. government, the "requesting state" and Rackspace and that nobody else has standing. I'm also not terribly familiar with Indymedia organization, but wouldn't the Urbana-Champaign IMC count as part of Indymedia?
The enemies of Democracy are
Yes!
It does!
You are missing some very crucial facts here.
.
Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1983, our government knew this, and yet we still sent Donald Rumsfeld over there to shake his hand and make nice because he was fighting against Iran. You know that infamous picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein and smiling? Understand that at that very moment Saddam was using chemical weapons on Kurds and Donald Rumsfeld knew it
Seven years later, Operation Desert Storm was launched in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, a reason which is completely unrelated to the previous use of chemical weapons. Your argument that this invasion means we could not have supported Saddam during his attacks on the Kurds is baseless and ignorant. Have a nice day.
The enemies of Democracy are
I suggest you do a google search for "School of the Americas" if you want to find out to what extent the US has supported unsavoury actions in the past. Heck I can do it for you.
meh
The 48% that voted for the folks that have no problem with this?
I thank you for your service.
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
We've supported "Freedom Fighters" who do all kinds of horrible things. Executions, cutting off people's hands, raping women, kidnapping, burning villages. Hell, we've trained a lot of them.
God damn it! I'm surrounded by F-ing morrons on slashdot. shesh
That's what you get for hanging out on slashdot.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
We didn't start it, he did with the invasion of another country
In point of fact, had Bush told Saddam that he didn't approve of the invasion plans when he FUCKING ASKED FOR PERMISSION, none of this would have happened. Yeah, Saddam's a nasty guy, but we aren't angels either.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
The Iraqis are quite grateful that the vast majority stand for the right thing
There was also no warrant. According to Rackspace, they were issued a subpoena under 17 USC 1728. It was issued by a court without necessarily meeting the same standards set forth for a warrant. The court issued a gag order with the subpoena. Please note the careful use of the word 'court' rather than 'judge'. The subpoena and gag order may have been issued by a court clerk.
I mean the 48% that find this an abhorent monstrosity that will be allowed to continue because Jeebus hates homos and Muslims.
The information could be sealed for any criminal investigation, not just terrorism.
They could just as easily say its a murder or kidnapping investigation.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I for one don't welcome your new Adolf W Hitler overlord.
If it is true that Indymedia's drives were seized as part of an ongoing investigation then the FBI has tipped their hand, telling the alleged "Criminal Terrorists" that they are under investigation.
So whatever they have to gain from a gag order is null.
It seems that there is some lying going on here to cover another, completely different operation.
Horribly OT, but it bothers me.
Can anyone explain the phrase "by and large" to a non-native english speaker?
I know what it means but the words just don't make sense. It feels awkward reading or even using it.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.
Look at the facts:
Also:
So, in reality, Haliburton may have been trading with the "axis of evil" Just like Prescott Bush did!
--jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
Try http://www.paranoia-live.net/
Report to the Sector Assignment Sector to find a group, or play it online with them via JParanoia. Allen Varney, the principle writer of PARANOIA XP [TM] browses their forums, by the way.
The Unfocused Anxiety Index is now at ELEVENTY BILLION! Playing is even more mandatory than usual, Citizen.
----
Disclaimer: I was a member of those forums and a contributor to PARANOIA XP. PARANOIA XP is a trademark of Mongoose Games (at least, I think it's them, I forget who owns what just now).
Well, thanks to the internet, the protesters are taking pictures of the troublemakers and they're sticking up the pictures and saying 'Who the fuck is this person breaking this car window? If anyone knows who this is, tell us.'.
Well...they're undercover cops. Duh. Everyone suspected that, but that's what all this racket is about.
Logically, it makes no sense, if you've infiltrated an organization, and they post pictures of stuff, to say 'Hey, that's our undercover cops! Take those pictures down!'. That's just crazy. If they don't know they're undercover cops, don't tell them. If they do know, well, you're screwed anyway, pull them back in.
But these undercover cops are there to cause problems so the police can escalate the force used against the protesters. Having their faces plastered around is likely to be rather bad PR.
Except, of course, the traditional news is completely ignoring this.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
We shouldn't invade other countries without UN support. However, we shouldn't have stopped in Iraq just because Saddam said 'Okay, I give, you can have back Kuwait'. The UN should not have agreed to any peace agreement that left Saddam in power or the government intact, and if they did, we should have kept going. (Yes, he'd still offer peace, if peace meant banishment from Iraq instead of rotting in a jail.)
So, in a way, I agree with everything the hawk loons have been saying...Saddam was not someone we should have in power in Iraq. But we can't go invading countries without an excuse. (And, no, we can't just invent the excuse ourselves, either.)
Once we got in there, though, we shouldn't have left until he was gone...and we could have even done it legally without UN support.
See, if a country starts a civil war itself, either side can ask for help, and we could have helped. We were this close to starting a civil war there, and we had already promised to help, when suddenly we folds, backed out, and left all the insurgents to be tortured to death. We could have easily started a 'civil war', we'd done it enough times before, and this time it would have been very short and very just.
Instead, we waited ten fucking years and went back in on an absurd pretext, and we did it when we should have been working in Afghanistan and actually fighting terrorist organizations. And the absolutely horrible timing of it created more terrorists! If we'd gone all the way a decade ago, the Iraqis would like us more, and the terorists wouldn't care...they didn't like Iraq anyway.
Hell, I hate to suggest it, but a new, secular run Iraq with strong ties to the US would be a much more convinent target for terrorists than the US...
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Maybe democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is a long shot. But as long as its possible, isn't it at least worth trying for?
We are still training a lot of these bastards, with a good example being the renamed School of the Americas...
We don't support democracy so much as go for any type of government we feel will benefit us. And in this process we ignore the kind of shit we do to all the people's lives...if you don't believe me take a nice long look at South America.
Terrorism is the practice of political influence of the people through spreading fear in the media. IndyMedia spreads fear of the state in the media, to influence people to change the state. They are terrorists. When you consider that terrorism is the media action, derived from more or less scary actual events described in the media, it is simply clear that they are terrorists. However, when you consider the vast legitimate, necessary messages of fear when actually scary events occur and are described accurately, terrorism itself begins to take on some nuance. When the stock market crashes, the Wall Street Journal report of the crisis is terrorism, but we need it just the same. Abusing terms like "terrorism", especially to control the media, is a greater terrorism, with no redeeming virtues. These counterterrorists are much more serious terrorist threats than a free press.
--
make install -not war
Right... now tell United States and those Western Eurpoean countries that Chechen "Freedom Fighters" are terrorists.
What, like the "Contrarevolucionario" aka Contras or Henry Kissinger's involvement in Peru? BTW, he still needs to check with his lawyer before leaving the US. Anyone that doesn't think the US doesn't have innocent blood on it's hands is uninformed.
Point to MooseByte
"Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983."
Betcha that's one photo op Rumsfeld wish he had skipped. The site even has video of the meeting.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
I don't think that's very odd.
In particular, I think fomenting revolt with the promise of aid and then reneging was a disastrous mistake. We were potential liberators turned into traitors. Ten years later when we came back, I don't think they'd forgotten what American promises of "bringing democracy" were worth. Sadly too few Americans remembered; I can't believe I had to learn about this from a freaking movie.
Hindsight may be 20/20, but that's why it's a good idea to use it. Even if it was difficult (I think it'd be harder than 'very short', but so much easier than now indeed) it would have been the best result.
Instead we go in 2003 with a completely unrealistic attitude as if we were ignorant of those last ten years and the whole situation goes to hell, surpising nobody but the people in charge of the venture.
The enemies of Democracy are
Didn't anyone notice that the motion to unseal was denied because the movants did not have the legal standing to file such a motion? Moreover, did anyone notice that unsealing the document would break international treaty? Granted that if those two reasons weren't there I am quite certain that the third would still be upheld, however, it's sad that so many people overlooked those.
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
nmsfw
http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/21702/index.p hp
Here are some earlier related stories:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/21273
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/20764
This is fascinating! Really. Could you enlighten poor uneducated me how did those ties between a secular Baath party dictator whom Osama Bin Laden called with disdain "a communist" and a pan-arab Islamic Fundamentalist movement seeking to restore the Caliphate worked? You mean they were about to share Bagdad as the capitol of the Caliphate and Saddam's Socialist Baath state?
Actually... I am not sure I want to hear the answer to that, we here in the reality based community might be frightened should you present us with some of the more impressive of the delusions you seem to be full of.
Wasn't it Iran's gas, anyway? Iraq didn't have such gas at the time.
Oh goodey. You mean in the First World War there were Good Guys vs Bad Guys as opposed to a bunch of brainless empires killing each other's cannon fodder off? News to me!
And in the WWII I seem to recall something about that Red Army thing who seem to have captured some city called Berlin despite the fact that the Germans had 190 divisions fighting in the East compared to 59 in the West..
and saved the entire globe from Communism
Err..no. Mr. Regan taking credit notwithstanding (he was fond of that particular gig) the USSR collapsed from within due to its loooong lasting structural weakneses which were seeded at the time of its creation. As far as Communism is concerned, it merely underwent some transformations and is alive and well, last time seen spending lavishly in China while sipping Martinis.
To these people the US and everything that we stand for is evil and they are rooting for us to lose
You see the saddest part is that the US was at a time a beacon of freedom and Enlightement, to which most of the world looked up in awe and inspiration. Then people like you, who use terms like "niggerlovers" got in power. Now the US is a rotting corpse of its former ideals, a zombie lurching about looking for blood and brains, a terryfing and sad sight, made more frightening by the fact that the rest of the world now knows with certainty that even the fairest and healthiest of nations are not immune to this terrible disease which seeks to lower the curtain of Dark Age back on our civilization. A disease feeding on greed, ignorance, hubris but most nurished by religious bigotry and zeal. This sad truth is only reinforced by the images of toys and candy handed out to children whose parents are murdered that same evening as "collateral damage" or "insurgents and terrorists".
It's better to just ignore them and their message of hate and move on knowing that the vast majority of us stand for the right thing
Right. Ignore discourse, ignore dissent, ignore information, ignore facts because you are Right by nature. Or perheaps made Right by your religion. Or a word of your pious leader. Onward Christian Soldiers.
No, in 1989 Iraq used gas against Iran and the Kurds in the north. Bush Sr. blocked attempts to condemn Saddam's use of gas at the U.N. It wasn't until he went too far -- invading Kuqait -- that the U.S. stepped in.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
He blocked it? OK, this I have to read for myself. Please post some sources. One would be enough.
Life is not for the lazy.
So what? I used to beat up little kids in elementary school. sure, I've made mistakes in the past. I can't let that paralyze me from acting out now.
A successful get rich quick scheme through violence is a long shot, but as long as it's possible, isn't it at least worth trying for?
You know what? That's just too damn bad for the police then! This is America, where we're supposed to be FREE! I would gladly trade another 3000 lives for that freedom, even if it includes my own! But I'll be DAMNED if I'll let this country turn into a police state while I'm still around!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Ironically, in a non-free format (RAR) which cannot, in this case, be extracted by an free tools. All it is is 3 JPEGs. What was wrong with tar or zip?
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Watch your newspeak! If the thought police notices you you're good for 5 year of rehab at the minister of love!!
The way to say it is "People who interfer with the press job of manufacturing consent for the war are non-citizens anyway, let's lock them without due process or warning their family as illegal combatants".
Or "People who cost a single american job are enemies of the state's right to pollute enough to kill one american life instead".
Just remember not to mention deaths in other countries due to pollution, global warming, depleted uranium, or the vaccine companie's immunity from lawsuits due to excessive use of mercury as attached to the Homeland security bill. The three-letter acronyms hate it when you do that.
And by the way. The minister of truth has missed one here:
The first church of common sense:
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/
So go close it already! AND AVENGE THE CRUSADERS!!!
Microsoft is pure dog-ma. FreeBSD is pure cat-ma.
It's very important to the party in power (but not the government or citizens) to protect our terrorists against other terrorists. Indy media are interfering with manufacturing consent!
Microsoft is pure dog-ma. FreeBSD is pure cat-ma.
From what I have read (and did my homework), Ties to Saddam + AQ were about as good as Bush + AQ. Come to think of it Bush+AQ is probably better because Saddam has always had AQ on its hit list, where as the US had OBL working for them at one time (along with Bush family ties).
As for AQ in Iraq, the only reported instances of it were in UN controlled areas of Iraq.
And next time you tell someone to check their homework, back it up with a few links so we can figure out what you do be reading to believe such tripe.
It's called WAR dumbass! Duh, when the british invaded America, we had the right to kick their ass and claim independence.
Obviously America does not have a clean record. But name me just ONE major country that does?
Hint: trick question, there is no such country.
Life is not for the lazy.
Absolutely.
As far as Communism is concerned, it merely underwent some transformations and is alive and well, last time seen spending lavishly in China while sipping Martinis.0 4/countryratings/china.htm
I dunno what your smoking, but I want some of it. Now before you go about praising China to be some great utopia, maybe you should do some reading. It's OK, just a *little*. Here, let me help you help yourself with a provided link.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/20
Life is not for the lazy.
1- Pass a bad, vague law about terrorism in other nations (and NOT terrorism by our nation; that's counterterrorism).
Optionnal: if after a terrorist event, attach last minute "immunity from lawsuits for bad vaccines" clause to homeland security bill to protect vaccines companies that generously donated for reelection.
2- Abuse vague new laws on every nonterrorist case. Keep a few (probably innocent) axe-of-evil citizens in jail without trial or even questionning them about *anything* for good measure; this "validates" the antiterrorism laws in the warped mind of CNN.
3- When the courts puts the bad parts of the bad law in the shredder until only the name of the law remains, just make another vague, bad law. Nominate some more extreme-right supreme court judges so you don't have to make laws too often.
Optional: take a month's vacation to avoid being in contact with official intelligence reports. This official vacations has nothing to do with coordonating false terrorist events and carlyle group profits together, of course!
4- Forge photos of "liberating Irak" to get reelected (see link in my
5- Be reminded to do the same with elections. Abuse until the courts say what's a bad voting machine, then use another bad voting machine. Make sure there is a chance in 10000000000000000000000 that the exit polls are that far apart from the voting so it stays "credible". Except for all the things CNN didn't mention.
6- ???
7- Profit! (Or "avenge the Xtian crusaders", or whatever)
Microsoft is pure dog-ma. FreeBSD is pure cat-ma.
If the US had supported the Kurds in the past, then they could have overthrown Saddam. At one stage, the kurds thought that they had support and were about to launch an offensive when the US withdrew their support.
Saddam is a Sunni, Osama a shia. The two do not mix, in the "I want to kill each other" sort of mixing. Saddam ran a secular state, an anathema to Bin Laden. In a sense, Osama wanted the US to overrun Iraq. It gives a chance for the shia muslim to have a religious state.
Osama has got his first goal - the US military out of Saudi Arabia. Now all you have to do is suppress Iraq. And look how that's going. I think you need help. You need an expert. I think you need Saddam back in charge.
I reckon Saddam will be back in power in a years time and you lot will be eating crow. You heard it here first.
h
h
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
Im sorry, but you are wrong. All of this is being orchestrated to secure the American lifestyle.
Peak oil hits in 2005. This is not my argument, but that of the bush administration and dick cheney himself, not to mention countless independant studies, including that of the students of the guy who predicted the 1970s oil crash.
In case you havnt noticed, were in the middle of WW3, and its about securing oil.
Without oil, we lose more then just SUVs. We lose everything made from plastic as well. Try to wrap your head around that one.
Not to mention that this country LIVES on the back of the trucking industry, and if we want to feed the nation, we need oil. Otherwise millions of americans will starve, as the food simply wont get to them.
Also, the US' plan for peak oil has been the same since then 1970s.
A) Find oil wherever we can and take it
B) Kill anyone that gets in our way
To stop this we need to do 2 critical things.
1) Develop alternative energies
2) Change the american lifestyle.
Well, good luck with #2. Denying americans ANYTHING makes them pissy. We are worldpigs, and will continue to be so as long as we can. We all live like kings, even those who live in the ghetto still get food, shelter, soft beds, and working showers. It is an anomoly for so many people to live so well.
and #1? Well, heres a factoid for you. Retrofitting the nation for alternative fuels is impossible. Why?
When it comes to oil, for every 1 unit of energy we put into getting oil, we get 100 back. 100. Thats unbelievable. Think about how much effort and energy we spend on getting oil.
Biodiesel? Which many are claiming will save america, is a farse. For every 1 unit of energy we put into getting biodiesel, we get 3 back. 3.
In short, we are screwed, and you should buy a bike and have a vegetable garden.
I implore everyone to do their own research and come to their own conclusions. I dont want anyone to take what I say at face value. Investigate it yourself.
Me? I think we have until around thanksgiving 2005. If you arnt out of debt, healthy, and ready to work the fields by then, then you are in big, big trouble. (Or a millionare, in which case youll be able to afford the normal life for at least a few years.)
Saddam is a Sunni, Osama a shia.
No, OBL is also a Sunni.
FreeSpeech.org
Yeah, great point.
Say, what are the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists nurished by, anyway?
Strangely, I've never heard of arabs, muslims, or al-quaeda protesting the WTO or world bank. I doubt that they, or any other terrorist organization (Timothy McVeigh gun nuts, Waco-ites, Japanese death cults, etc) has been involved in this.
Christ, Dubya himself doesn't persecute his own protesters nearly as much as the WTO does.
Say, what are the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists nurished by, anyway?
I see you are attempting to dodge the issues raised by bringing up an irrelevant subject.
Correct.
This was Saddam's true fault in the U.S. gov's eyes. It wasn't killing his own people (gassing the Kurds), we supported him right through that atrocity with full diplomacy. It was disobeying orders, or at least misinterpreting them by invading Kuwait. Kuwait had oil.
People being murdered actually is almost never the reason the U.S. gets involved. It's not in our "national interest". Look at Darfur. 10k were being murdered a month. We gave them 200 mil and stayed out of if. Iraq, on the other hand, was worth thousands of American lives, and 200 BILLION. You see, Iraq had oil, Iraq was an easy target as they had no army, no air-force... nothing, (easy to conquer, not to build obviously), etc... This made them the "perfect" target to set precedent for preVENTIVE war, one of the most horrific prospects of our time. To spread fear, and to also set precedent for unilateral action at any point, no matter what the rest of the world thinks.
The evidence against any U.S. moral high ground when it comes to reasons to "help others" (/invade, bomb, kill, etc...) was lost decades ago. No one accept the ill-informed believe any of that crap anymore.
The evidence is overwhelming.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
For those that haven't read of him, Vannu was only recently released from an 18 year sentence as punishment for providing hard evidence to the west of an illegal middle east nuclear weapons progam. Though he has been a nominee for the Nobel Peace price every year from 1988 to 2004, he has not been allowed to speak with foreigners or reporters.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
So why do we American's *pretend* that our country has a clean record whenever it's convenient?
We act all high-and-mighty, holier-than-thou, and when somebody points out that we've done things just as bad (or worse) than the country we just finished dissing, we jump back to "nobody's perfect".
I JUST FINISHED reading this book (any relation to Cowboy Neal?) and now here's a perfect example of why a data haven is so important.
Exactly the same things. That alone should be enough to set you thinking.
Very observant. Yes indeed they are nurished by the same thing. While King George seeks to remake the world into a neo-con Christian-capitalist utopia, Osama and crew seek to remake the world into a Islamic Empire known as the Caliphate. They are the two sides of a very ugly coin. You should also realise that they need each other badly. In the absence of Osama, Bush would have difficulties frightening his sheeple into spending trillions and giving him near absolute power. In the absence of the Bush's Crusdade, Osama would have to deal with a reasoned and shrewd leader who would alter US policies in the Middle East, thus making Osama to be considered by Muslims to be a criminal instead of a hero and thus cought in a short order and his group rendered powerless.
B) Kill anyone that gets in our way
While I agree with you, these are only some of the components of the mosaic of motivations and goals of the present US administration. Bush understands oil well, but at the same time he and his crew are hate-filled megalomaniacs. While Hitler really believed that expansion East was crutial for his Third Reich to become powerful economically, his disdain and hatred of Slavs and Jews was a core element of that plan. The same is true of Bush. While an imperial power struggle to secure oil and energy sources is on the mind of some neocons, their disdain and hatered of Arabs and love for Israel is also the heart of their actions.
That wasn't the litmus test. It was U.N Resolution 1441 which was approved by all members of the council.
Some tidbits:
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material
Note that the requirement of the cease fire was that a full detailed disclosure of all weapons programs (which did exist, as proven by the U.N Inspectors). Hans Blix up until they left still would say that Iraq was cooperating on location checks, but that they wouldn't give any new information about their programs.
I'm sure it had a lot to do with oil. I mean, lets be honest. You cut of the oil, and watch this nation grind to a hault. Obviously you don't want to bite the hand that feeds ya. But make no mistake. When push comes to shove, we will go to war again if need be.
And this is justification to wage war and murder thousands? Sorry, I don't buy it. There's billions of other people in other countries who get along just fine without all the oil consumption that Americans do with their huge SUVs. If we can't live within our means, we have no right to steal other people's resources to live our preferred lifestyle.
I'd really love to have a big-screen HDTV, a huge house, and various other things. But if I got a bunch of guns and took these things by force, would it be ok? I don't think so.
If energy is so important to this country's economic well-being, why are we not developing alternative technologies such as fuel cells, biodiesel, etc., and working hard to deploy these in order to decrease dependence on foreign oil? Because some huge corporations won't make as much profit if we take this more difficult path?
If we as a nation can't live within our means, not steal other countries' resources, and adapt to our situation by developing energy sources which don't require us to bow down to thuggish dictators or murder thousands of innocent civilians, then we deserve to have our economy collapse and turn into a third-world dump.
That's a great post that I don't disagree with at all.
Do you have an actual point, or are you just here to post bizzare non-sequiturs?
Whatever you believe about our reasons for invaiding Iraq, surely you have to agree that the best thing we can do for them (and us) is to do our best to establish a democratic style government?
Or do you think (like the other AC on this thread) that our state department and armed forces are so hoplessly corrupt and/or inept that the best thing we can do is stay at home, bury our heads in the sand, and hope the terrorists forget about us?
I'm particularlly fond of the claim that Indymedia is not an involved party and thus cannot file this motion. That's insane. Apparently just because it was their servers that were taken it doesn't mean that they have any standing.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
What was wrong with 3 separate files?
Zip won't comprss JPEGs substantially, so why bother?
(Yup, archivers would be OK, and zip can be just an archiver, but one substantially less capable than tar.)
However, they've already played the terrorism card.
To late to put it back in their hand, everyone else has seen it.
And now they should _justify_ it.
FP.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Hah! If you wanted Bush out of office then you probably feel like we *did* invade ourselves right about now!
-Rich
If you arent out of debt, healthy, and ready to work the fields by then, then you are in big, big trouble.
Bring it the fuck on.
If you think Bush I made war on Iraq because of Kuwaiti oil, please explain how it harms U.S. interests to buy oil from Iraq instead of Kuwait? No, the hard reality is that Gulf War 1 was instituted in order to set Iraq back from being a regional military-industrial power, because it was Israel's number 1 threat, the Saudi's being entirely co-opted. Iraq had to be tricked into invading Kuwait. It wasn't hard to do. We just cued Kuwait to start slant-drilling Iraqi oil, and then signalled to Hussein than he was good to invade. A few PR stunts like the "babies torn from incubators" perjury before congress were trivial to arrange, and handed the reigns to pappy Bush.
Hell, no one believed that Hussein gassed the Kurds until it was time to build up to Gulf War 2. Both the DIA and the CIA analyst reports indicate that the Kurds were gassed by the Iranians using blood agents. Iraq had nerve agents, by contrast. Halabja was in a war zone during the bloodiest war since WW 2, and suffered for it, being attacked not by their own state, but by the enemy with which they were at war.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
You should run for president! :-)
;-)
Or make a book: "How to stop a war in 4 easy steps."
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I agree with your assessment. I, at times, simplify for the sheer sake of casting a net over as many as possible. Arguing further becomes an easy task at that point.
I thank you for doing just that, and quite deftly I might add. I do, however, feel strongly that purchasing oil from Iraq over Kuwait and the uncertainty of what that new paradigm would have suggested was part of the decision making process, however minute it truly was as you pointed out.
Thanks again.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
Either way, a Bush was wrong. So which one was wrong?
Bush Sr.
We shouldn't have stopped at simply kicking them out of Kuwait. It's at that crucial point that we could have instituted a regime change and democratized Iraq with the almost unanimous support of the Arab world. But when the time came for a tough call, Bush Sr. blinked, presumably fearing something similar to the unpredictable situation that we have today or, even worse, heavy losses upon invasion as in Vietnam.
In both cases, however, notice that the U.N. too consumed by its petty squabbling and member states' political antics, stood contrary to the best interests of us (except Saddam Hussein) all in both instances.
-Grym