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!
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
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.
...you should have said earlier.
Everyone back to their business.
They might as well have responded with a "cuz".
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Huh? Where do you live, Citizen? AmeriComplex is the largest MMOLARP on the planet, featuring 300,000,000 LARPers playing 24/7!
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.
It does not say in the treaty that the government is obliged to honour the request for confidentiality,
Therefore, the part that says that unsealing the documents would be a violation of any treaty is bullshit. BTW, what government is going to unilaterally give away their right to decide what is and isn't confidential?
More lawyer weaseling.
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.
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?
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?
"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." ---
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. ;)
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
"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?
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.
What colour alert level is the US on this week?p ?application=firefox&id=352&vid=1084, you wouldn't need to ask that question.
If you were using Firefox and this extention: https://update.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.ph
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
Yes, the government did not have to agree and if they had not at the beginning, there would be no standing in the court to keep it confidential.
Furthermore, as long as the other parties involved say "we want this information kept confidential" and because the U.S. agreed to do this at the beginning, there really isn't anything our courts can do about it (again, because of this section of the treaty). UNLESS, it involves an United States citizen. Then it is a whole different ball game.
I agree with your assessment about the War on Drugs and Terror being used to chip away at our rights. I also am sickened by the fact that I am actually defending the government on this case because of my understanding of International Law and the U.S. system of law. I want to make it clear that I think what my government is doing is morally wrong, but perfectly legal. To me, that makes this one sad case.
P.S. Thanks for checking up on me on the grammar. ;)
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
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.
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
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"
we want free speech beacuse free speech is good and free speach enables us to write messages to forums sucha as slashdot without free speech we would not be able to. If you dont like that. that is your problem. but some people might not need free speach beacaause theyve learned how to write without proper puctations or grammar. then the feds cant find them anyways cause without prper punctatons and grammar noone is able to read the message and it is hard to prosecute for messages that are incomprehensible. without first decoding them. it further helps having a broken shift key. without a functioning shift key the message is even harder to read and in this case. it is good. if people only learned to whrite in this fashion no one would find them selves deserving of arrest anyway. yay. im starting to like riting this way no capitals no grammar and disfunctional punctation sure makes it easy writing large blocks of text ill tell yall. over and out.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
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!
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
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?
Even if the US army drops bombs and kills some civilians, it was for a military objective such as taking control of a city, or bridge. 9/11 was an action, like most "terrorist" actions, that was not towards a military objective, but rather just an act to get attention and cause fear in the populace affected.
How about if it was an indiscriminate kill free-fire zone, like we had in Vietnam? Or what if the ojective really was to get attention and cause fear, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What if we started arbitrarily kidnapping and holding people hostage without any form of due process, like Guantanamo? What if we shoved people into roofless huts until they froze to death, like we did to the Japanese in WW2? You can say that's all in the past now, but as we are repeating most of the same pattern it really isn't.
The "terrorists" didn't do what they did because to "get attention and cause fear." They did what they did as an attempt to dislodge us from our complete financial support of Israel's occupation of Palestine. The "terrorists" didn't occupy the school in Russia to get attention and cause fear, they were attempting to convince Russia to dislodge their troops from Chechnia. Heck, the Basque sepratists didn't blow up the Madrid underground to cause fear, they did it to change the cost-benefit equation of continuing to occupy the territory.
It's not a big difference. If anything the terrorists are more noble in their cause, as they are spending their lives for an ideology they believe in, as opposed to the current administration who is merely risking other people's lives for financial gain.
We live in a morally ambiguous universe. Not because "They" are clean, but because "We" are dirtier than we imagine.
The ______ Agenda
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?
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
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..."
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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!
Don't you mean "before those of the US government"?
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.)
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.
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