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.
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
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.
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.
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." ---
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.
Here's what I don't get about your "point": There's nothing about this case that makes it sensational. There were no naked people, no animals hurt, no child molestation, etc.
If you think this case is "sensational" you think so because the very idea of the government clobbering free speech without even giving an explanation is an injustice. If you disagree with that sentiment, there's nothing "sensational" to this story at all!
So, what sorts of cases do you think the EFF/ACLU should pursue that aren't sensational?
I think perhaps you're confusing "sensational" with high-profile. The problem is that it's often the EFF/ACLU's involvement that makes a case high profile. Like when the ACLU argued that Nike should be allowed to lie in marketing materials: that case really only became high profile because the ACLU got involved, not the other way around.
How are there no merits here? You think the government should have the right to seize property without due process, without judicial oversight, and without disclosing the nature of why they are seizing the property?
The "justness" of the cause is measured by the fact that our government is abusing its power systematically. Sneak-and-peek warrants, requiring no judicial approval - and now seizing of servers "at the request of another nation", claiming protection under treaty and revoking the property rights of somebody to their leased servers under the guise that the warrants weren't served to them, therefore they have no right to information on said warrants. This all adds up to flagrant abuse, and it makes me disgusted to be an American.
Sometimes, as in the this case, the EFF is standing up for an organization, IndyMedia, that I find incredibly distasteful. I'm a liberal (which is a good thing - I won't allow that word to be perverted to mean something bad as your ilk keep trying to do), and I share almost no beliefs in common with the radicals at IndyMedia. Nonetheless, I will stand up for their right to express themselves and be free from persecution.
And THAT my friend is the difference between you and me. I don't think you are trolling, but I really wish you were. The worst part is that you aren't even embarrassed to hold such disgusting views. Now go wash your mouth out with soap and think about how horrible it is that you think that defending civil liberties has "negative connotations", because you don't agree with some people and don't think they ought to have the same civil liberties that you have.
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
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?
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.