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.

Comments

Re:It pertains to an ongoing terrorism investigati

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Loophole you can drive a truck through:

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

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.

Re:It pertains to an ongoing terrorism investigati

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

That's always been the case

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

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 /. 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.

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.

Re:That's always been the case

[plumpy]

Also, Indymedia has standing to sue, they didn't however, the EFF did

Incorrect. Read the response:
"Movants Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF"), Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center Foundation ("UCIMC") and XXXX XXX ("XXX")"

and that was part of the judges ruling (read more than the /. blurb). The EFF has no standing.

Incorrect again. This was not a ruling from a judge. This was an argument by the DOJ. The judge has not ruled yet whether or not they have standing.

Furthermore, if you read the argument, you see the DOJ claiming that there are only three parties to this case at all: The requesting country, the US government, and Rackspace. They do not agree that IMC is allowed to be a movant.

No.

[Sycraft-fu]

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?

Re:Translation:

[Rei]

> Honestly, has CNN ever said anything good
> about Bush?

Well, the headlining article is about Bush, so lets pull it up, shall we?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/10/bush.c ab inet/index.html

Why, wouldn't you know it - it's a big long piece of praise for Bush's appointment for Attorney General, consistantly calling him a "moderate". Of course, this ignores Gonzales's heavy hand in the Patriot Act, secret trials, tribunals, et al.

Not good enough? Lets take a FAIR look:
http://www.fair.org/activism/cnn-psyops.htm l (government PSYOPS agents working at CNN)

http://www.fair.org/activism/cnn-aljazeera.html (CNN to Al-Jazeera: Don't report civilian deaths)

http://www.fair.org/activism/cnn-casualties.html (CNN says that a focus on civilian casualties would be "perverse")

http://www.fair.org/activism/dobbs-annan.html (CNN attacks Annan for saying that the Iraq war was illegal, something that most international law scholars agree with)

http://www.fair.org/extra/0303/reliability.html (probably one of the more telling - they covered Reliable Sources for 1 year. The results? Media insiders were 76%. Right-leaning guests outnumbered left-leaning guests 2:1. Laura Ingraham came on almost as half as often as all left-leaning guests put together. White guests were 194 to 9, worse than Fox's Special Report. Male guests outnumbered female 155 to 48 (over 3 to 1). Not a single public interest group appeared during the entire year.)

http://www.fair.org/reports/fox-cnn-guest-list.h tm l
(Comparing Fox's "Special Report" to CNN's "Wolf Blitzer Reports" - CNN had 38 Republicans and 29 Democrats; Fox had only *6* Democrats)

I could keep going with dozens more. CNN is slightly right of center from a US perspective, which makes it solidly to the right on a global scale. In fact, it's interesting to compare CNN's coverage with CNN International. To market to an international audience, they had to make their right-wing coverage more liberal - so, while the US CNN showed the toppling of Saddam's statue all day with a waving red, white, and blue background, CNNi showed a split screen: on one side, the statue falling. On the other, images of the Iraqi wounded and dead, including Ali Ismaeel Abbas.

(BTW, if anyone wants to attack this, you can't get away with just attacking FAIR: you need to attack *the content*).

Re: Ah, terrorism

[Rei]

Yeah, they had to change it from "Still Better Than Saddam" after this happened. ;)

Re:I could be mistaken...

[Elizabeth007]

A minor correction to your correction. :)

Originally, yes you are exactly correct. However, after the Civil War, Article 14 was added to the Consitution which basically reads that the States can not make laws that messes with the Constiution. Section 1 of the article (in part) reads: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor denyu to any person within its jurisdiction the eqwual protection of laws."

This Article, taken also with the above section we were discussing, was used in my argument (which has also been used by the Supreme Court in their written opinions of several cases). Should have made myself more clear about that, sorry and thank you for pointing that out. ;)

Re:Iraq DID have ties to Al Qaeda

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:Nothing Important, People

[the_mad_poster]

... dude. Read the goddamn article. That's what the GOVERNMENT is saying. It's not anything out of the ordinary or unexpected. It's up to a court to decide the validity of the response.

Christ.. is it just me or does Slashdot actively make people dumber?

Re:Translation:

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Richard Perle on CNN called Pulitzer-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh "the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist".

Wolf Blitzer followed up by asking why Perle was accusing Hersh of being a terrorist. Instead of calling it a misquote, Perle said "he sets out to do damage".

Perle was Reagan's assistant secretary of defense. Until February 2004 he chaired the advisory Defense Policy Board.

Re:Iraq DID have ties to Al Qaeda

[DigiShaman]

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.

Re:Iraq DID have ties to Al Qaeda

[Chris Burke]

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.

STFC yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should STFC yourself. No judge has ruled on anything. The arguments you present came from the Justice Department, not a judge. The court hasn't even had an opportunity to look at the case yet.

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.

Re: Ah, terrorism

[Stealth Potato]

but as far as human rights go, especially women, the afghanis are far more free, and the iraqis are able to protest US involvment. Great. Try protesting under Saddam, or Castro, or Jong-IL.

Really? Iraqis are allowed to protest?

"United States troops opened fire on a crowd hostile to the new pro-American governor in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul yesterday, killing at least 10 people and injuring as many as 100, witnesses and doctors said." "US troops accused of carnage," Sydney Morning Herald, 16 April 2003. Also see Cox News, 16 April 2003

"American troops again fired on anti-U.S. protesters in Fallujah's streets Wednesday and said they won't give up their foothold in the one-time Baath Party bastion. At least two Iraqis were killed and 18 wounded, hospital officials reported. In a bloodier episode Monday night, 15 protesters and bystanders were killed, and at least 50 wounded, officials said. In both cases, U.S. officers - and the U.S. Central Command - said their soldiers were fired on first from among the crowds. But Iraqis denied it, and no weapons or suspects have been produced." Charles J. Hanley, "More protesters fall to U.S. guns in Fallujah; commander says Americans will remain," Associated Press, 1 May 2003.

"U.S. troops threatened by a stone-throwing crowd killed two Iraqis during a demonstration outside the headquarters of the occupation authorities, the military said. ... [The] two Iraqis were killed by American gunfire during a demonstration by former Iraqi Army soldiers seeking back wages. A military spokesman said that the violence had begun when protesters threw rocks at a convoy of military police vehicles moving toward the arched gateway of the Republican Palace, Saddam Hussein's former presidential compound, which is now the headquarters of the U.S.-led administration."
- The Associated Press Wednesday, June 18, 2003

"At least 24 people, including four Salvadoran soldiers, were killed yesterday and 200 people wounded as Spanish-led troops clashed with backers of a Shi'ite radical leader outside this shrine city ... An AFP correspondent said the clashes began when demonstrators hurled rocks at a convoy of six vehicles from the coalition's Spanish-led Plus Ultra Brigade and started shouting at them: "No, no to America. No, no to Israel." The convoy pulled back and then opened fire." - AFP, 5 April, 2004

"The Pentagon said yesterday it was investigating cockpit video footage that shows American pilots attacking and killing a group of apparently unarmed Iraqi civilians. The 30-second clip shows the pilot targeting the group of people in a street in the city of Fallujah and asking his mission controllers whether he should "take them out". He is told to do so and, shortly afterwards, the footage shows a huge explosion where the people were. A second voice can be heard on the clip saying: 'Oh, dude.'" - The Independent, 6 October 2004
[See the video clip here]

Oh, well, they're allowed to protest as long as there aren't any Coalition troops within firing range.

Additionally, if you would take a look at Iraq under Saddam Hussein, you'd see that although the people had zero political liberty, they were afforded much more civil liberty. If they spoke out against him, they disappeared in the night, but they could also buy alcohol and the women didn't have to wear veils. If you look at Iraq now, you'll see bars and alcohol-vendors closing down, and women in some areas are afraid to go about without veils, for fear of fundamentalist retribution. Sure, Saddam's gone, and it is my hope that good will still come of that in the future (obviously, I'd rather have the veils and no beer than a brutal tyrant), but there's no denying it's a mess there right now, and this trend towards radical fundamentalism should be troubling.

I understand your point, though. We aren't yet doing as poorly in the civil liberties area as we have in the past; I just don't think that's an excuse to ignore what's going on. Something that is less wrong than a very wrong thing is still wrong.

Re:Iraq DID have ties to Al Qaeda

[statusbar]

Don't bother looking at the liberal buddies.

Look at the facts:

Vice President Dick Cheney was a vocal critic of trade embargoes while he headed Halliburton, a Houston-based oil services conglomerate, from 1995 to 2000. Under Mr. Cheney, Halliburton expanded its trade with Iran through an offshore subsidiary. That arrangement is being investigated by a federal grand jury.

Nineteen executives or directors of companies fined by OFAC for dealing with state sponsors of terrorism were top campaign fund-raisers for Mr. Bush.

Also:

Federal authorities also are investigating whether Halliburton broke the law by using a subsidiary to do business in Iran and whether it was involved in an alleged $180 million bribery scheme in Nigeria. The company admitted in 2003 that it improperly paid $2.4 million to a Nigerian tax official.

So, in reality, Haliburton may have been trading with the "axis of evil" Just like Prescott Bush did!

--jeff

UC-IMC Links

[wayward]

Hi, I'm part of the UCIMC, and here's a link to our coverage:

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

Re:Aren't all lefties terrorists?

[metlin]

Hello?

He was the _leader_ of Hamas at the time of his assasination. He was _killing_ people. He was _ordering_ the deaths of more civlians through suicide bombings, and openly admitted and challenged Israel to it.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1989, and later on released in 1997 - following which we went back and started a spate of attacks on civilians through suicide bombings. The Hellfire missile hit him and all the people who were killed were his aides and his bodyguards.

Yeah, it's sad that Israel has lowered itself to the level of the militants whom they're up against, but when peace does not work, what is it that we could do against people who would not go against the word of "God".

Ask yourself this: even if a man is guilty, is it right to kill him without trial, without provocation, without immediate threat, and at the cost of innocent lives?

He was guilty, a terrorist who was leading a terrorist group at the time of assasination, who was a threat and would have ordered more, had he been alive. And oh, there were no innocent casualties - the only people who were killed in the vicinity were his aides and bodyguards.

If Osama were out there and we could kill him, do you expect us to stay our hands because we've not had his trial?

Re:Aren't all lefties terrorists?

[1u3hr]

The My Lai Massacre? Are you kidding me? This happened during the middle of a nasty war. The Lieutenant who ordered the attack was charged with murder. No one in our government condones what happened.

William Calley was charged, and convicted, but got "house arrest" for a few years. His actions were apparently condoned by your then-president, who set him loose. They were just gooks, after all.

http://www.vietnam-war.info

Calley ordered the men of Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, American Division to shoot everyone in the village.

He was initially sentenced to life in prison, but President Richard Nixon ordered him released from prison. Calley served 3 1/2 years of house arrest in his quarters at Fort Benning, Georgia and was then released in 1974 by a federal judge.

Re:Iraq DID have ties to Al Qaeda

[PatientZero]

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.

Re:You are WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

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.)