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.
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!
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.
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
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
Uhh... if the only copy of their data is a website somewhere, then they're idiots (albeit Real Men). So the feds have confiscated their backups; restore from the originals (or, in the case of web-sourced data, mirrors that they should regularly / continuously take). There's no excuse for relying on a provider for anything more than connectivity; if you need more than that (in terms of security, for example) you ought to be your own provider.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
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?
web operations and data that are clustered or distributed around the world would be immune to a single site's seizure.
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.
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.
Except people with guns aren't entering your home and taking your computer, as they would be in the situation to which your previous post appears to lend support.
True, this moderation system doesn't work so well, but you can't legitimately complain that people here only disagree with you due to your post's "unpopularity."
I think the US definition of a terrorist is someone who puts their interests, or the interests of their family or country before those of the US.
I define a terrorist as someone who is willing to use terror against civilians as a means to further their cause. By this definition, the US administration is a terrorist organisation. Not only that, I believe that the US can now be classed as a religiously fanatic state sponsor of terrorism.
Just ask yourselves, who is responsible for spreading fear throughout the US and the world? What colour alert level is the US on this week?
Shitdrummer.
"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." ---
These people are not fighting for freedom. They are fighting so that Afghanistan, Iraq, and, frankly, the whole world can "submit" to sharia.
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"
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.
But the whole point is that the gov't runs the mainstream media. The mainstream media has NOT reported this, and will not, because Indymedia isn't considered "real" press, and because the gov't simply does not want people to know about it. And finally, 51% of the US population obviously either doesn't give a shit, or are completely clueless about what's going on. This will get ignored, and nobody but the tiny minority of informed citizens will ever know (or care) that this happened. People won't get upset until the gov't starts taking away their SUV's.
I don't respond to AC's.
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.
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.
You are correct if you are suggesting that the US did not orchestrate the 9/11 attacks. However, you are dead wrong if you are claiming that the United States has never blown up unarmed civilians, going to work or otherwise. In war, the civilian populations are almost always the ones who suffer the most, and the United States military has its share of civilian deaths under its belt.
Look here for a few examples of what I'm talking about. [Note that that page says, from the "2003 Iraq War", but it should probably say, "2003, 2004, 2005, ... Iraq War"] Many of these could be described as unfortunate accidents, as happen in a war, but remember also that it was the United States that employed the practice of striking "economic" targets in the first and second Gulf Wars; that was the euphemism they used for the killing of civilians in their workplaces. What was the World Trade Center but a very large economic target, and those innocents murdered but "collateral damage" (as the military likes to term it)? I'm not trying to justify 9/11, but you should think about these things in perspective. We're not in a position to decry such acts when they occur on our soil if we happily commit them abroad.
Looking a little farther back, there was Operation: Just 'Cause [my apostrophe ;-)] in which the US invaded Panama in an attempt to seize General Manuel Noriega, in which somewhere between 300 and 3,000 Panamanian civilians (depending who you ask) were killed in waves of indiscriminate neighborhood bombings, and thousands more were rendered homeless. There are many more examples, if you would care to study our military history. Nothing can possibly justify the slaughter of nearly 3,000 innocent people in the United States on September 11th, but if you look at our history, you'll see that our government and military haven't exactly let civilian lives stand in the way of their objectives either.
You're half-right. The "rich jerks" part is dead on, and the bit about using religion to accumulate power could conceivably be applied. Of course, there's no way to truly understand the motivations of our leaders, but there's little doubt that they have thus far taken advantage of panic and fear to further their political careers. As for the killing of political dissidents, it hasn't happened in this country so far (at least, that we know of ;-), but just look at all the other countries that bear the mark of US-sponsored totalitarianism. How about Nicaragua, with the US-trained death squads and terror groups? Or Chile, where the US helped install the brutal tyrant Auguste Pinochet? Or Israel, which is to this day supported by US funding and weapons, and which freely executes alleged "terrorists" (including a paraplegic in a wheelchair) without any trace of due process, and without even any regard for the civilian lives that happen to be around when the missiles hit? The list goes on.
True. I'm very glad to live in a country where we have such liberties that, even as they are being gradually eroded by panic and fear-mongering, are much greater than those experienced in most other places in the world. But your comment about the grandparent poster wanting to join a terrorist organization doesn't even make sense. H
Yea, right. The government "dismissed" the claims with a wave of its hand. Despite the fact that they laid out a series of reasons as to why the docs shouldn't be unsealed, only one of which dealt with an "ongoing criminal investigation". Despite the fact that they cite backup for their position in the form of prior court decisions.
What exactly are you idiots complaining about? The fact that the court system is currently working exactly as its supposed to?
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
And like I said, there were the many civilian "economic" targets destroyed by the US in Iraq. One could argue that the World Trade Center was just an "economic target" in the war against the United States. What exactly is the difference between that terrorist attack and the American missiles that rip through hospitals, schools, and places of commerce?
And how about this video clip, showing a US helicopter crew firing on a group of unarmed civilians? Last time I checked, blasting civilians into a bloody spray as they walk down the street serves no military purpose.
Obviously, not all the civilian deaths in the Iraq conflict were the result of attacks specifically targeting civilians. However, I still call into question the judgement of those in command, who made the decision to exercise military power, knowing full well what the cost would be. After all, you try explaining to the man whose entire family was slaughtered that his loved ones died because of recklessness instead of malice. Do you think it makes much difference to him?
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
Or Israel, which is to this day supported by US funding and weapons, and which freely executes alleged "terrorists" (including a paraplegic in a wheelchair)
Bah! You're probably referring to Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
That so called "paraplegic" is the co-founder of Hamas, a terrorist organization which probably wouldn't care about killing even a helpless baby just because it is Jewish. After Israel released him following a peace accord mediated through Jordan, Yassin went back to lead Hamas once again and started a new wave of attacks -- this time through suicide bombings.
So, by International Laws he was a terrorist, and the leader of a terrorist organization. I don't fucking care if he was blind or quadriplegic or whatever the fuck he was -- he was a terrorist who blew up innocent civilians, who broke a peace accord and initiated more in the form of suicide bombings.
If you want such people to be excused just because of their physical condition, I pity you -- because as someone who receives his order from Allah, he'd not care a fuck about you even if you were lying on your deathbed.
Some people deserve mercy, but motherfuckers like these don't.
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.
Depends. If he is found in a combat situation, shoot first, ask questions later. But in another situation (say, coming out of a mosque after morning prayers), some effort to apprehend or otherwise arrest him should be made before using lethal force. These are the principles of justice encoded in our heritage and in our Law - why should we make exceptions to them? I, for one, will not let fear make that decision for me.
As far as I can tell, you say it's okay to ignore human rights because we're afraid of something, and I'm just saying it's not.
What I've heard is that eight people were killed, including Yassin and his two bodyguards, plus 17 wounded. Not exactly a surgical strike. And the question remains: why kill him in a street outside of a mosque, instead of, say, at his home? Why, if not to terrorize the people as well? It's not as though Israel hasn't killed enough Palestinian civilians in shellings of refugee camps anyway. By your logic it would be just fine for a member of Hamas to kill Sharon with a rocket launcher.In any case, the assassination of Yassin was not only a barbaric act, it was a foolish one. Do you really think it will help matters for Israel to simply begin assassinating everybody suspected of acting against them? Within hours of his death, newborns in Palestine were being named Ahmed Yassin in honor of their martyred "hero". With every violent blow and reprisal, with every home demolished by American bulldozers with Israeli drivers, a generation of young Palestinians sees the same oppression, the same merciless enemy, the same total lack of hope for peace.
This is not how you end terrorism; this is how you breed it.
Don't you mean "before those of the US government"?
But we are NOT in peace time
You're not at war either - otherwise you'd have to apply those quaint Geneva Conventions to all those prisoners, and we couldn't have THAT, could we?
Can you imagine a battlefield where one army tries to arrest every member of the opposing force - and only uses deadly force after all other options have been exhausted? Absolutely rediculous!
I agree, completely, in a war situation, it's every man for himself, subject to a few universally agreed upon minimum standards - but as I said, you have not declared war.
http://instantbadger.blogspot.com