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
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.
I object to the term 'tinfoil elitist'. When I wear my hat, it is made of only the most generic proletariat foil.
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.
Does the executive branch get to claim unilaterally from claiming that the investigation is ongoing, or does some judge get to investigate that claim? If not, is there any check on the executive branch's ability to make that claim for anything they choose to seize?
I left my elitist card at home; I'm genuinely curious.
As far as I can tell from RTFA, this is just the government's response to the motion; a judge still gets to rule. Yes?
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.
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.
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.
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." ---
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?
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.
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
... 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?
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
You missed the fact that the "ongoing investigation" is described as an ongoing "criminal terrorism investigation".
That photographing secret police who are photographing protestors puts one under suspicion of terrorist activities is truly a frightening development.
But you know, maybe you're right. Maybe I should just stay at home, eat my porrige and think happy thoughts. After all, Government is here to protect and coddle us sheep, aren't they?
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"
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
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.
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