Indymedia Busted
October 7, 2004 4:51 PM Subscribe
FBI Seizes IMC Servers in the UK. Thursday morning, US authorities issued a federal order to Rackspace ordering them to hand over Indymedia web servers to the requesting agency. Rackspace, which provides hosting services for more that 20 Indymedia sites at its London facility, complied and turned over the requested servers, effectively removing those sites from the internet...The list of affected local media collectives includes Ambazonia, Uruguay, Andorra, Poland, Western Massachusetts, Nice, Nantes, Lilles, Marseille (all France), Euskal Herria (Basque Country), Liege, East and West Vlaanderen, Antwerpen (all Belgium), Belgrade, Portugal, Prague, Galiza, Italy, Brazil, UK, part of the Germany site, and the global Indymedia Radio site.
Wait a second, I thought the FBI was domestic law enforcement and prevention? What are they doing in the UK? Isn't that cheating?
This is bad news for free speech everywhere.
posted by fenriq at 4:59 PM on October 7, 2004
This is bad news for free speech everywhere.
posted by fenriq at 4:59 PM on October 7, 2004
This is fucked up.
Also - what fenriq said - but, the FBI does operate around the World, in a netherworld of unclear jurisdiction.
posted by troutfishing at 5:05 PM on October 7, 2004
Also - what fenriq said - but, the FBI does operate around the World, in a netherworld of unclear jurisdiction.
posted by troutfishing at 5:05 PM on October 7, 2004
On reflection - What the hell is at stake ?
I'm suspicious of a general crackdown on the net.
posted by troutfishing at 5:07 PM on October 7, 2004
I'm suspicious of a general crackdown on the net.
posted by troutfishing at 5:07 PM on October 7, 2004
The FBI's primary task has been redefined to be counterterrorism. And everyone know's that the independent media hates America. If you're not with us, you're against us.
posted by rafter at 5:08 PM on October 7, 2004
posted by rafter at 5:08 PM on October 7, 2004
Talking to Indymedia volunteers, Rackspace stated that "they cannot provide Indymedia with any information regarding the order." ISPs have received gag orders in similar situations which prevent them from updating the concerned parties on what is happening.
I thought the EFF got that part of the PATRIOT act overturned.
Or are gag orders accompanying subpoenas something else? How long has this been legal?
posted by lbergstr at 5:18 PM on October 7, 2004
I thought the EFF got that part of the PATRIOT act overturned.
Or are gag orders accompanying subpoenas something else? How long has this been legal?
posted by lbergstr at 5:18 PM on October 7, 2004
Only one link provided, and it's to indymedia.
But still, it may be so. And if it is, I just say welcome, Welcome, welcome to the new world of World Government. You guys called for it long and loud, hope you like it a lot.
posted by jfuller at 5:18 PM on October 7, 2004
But still, it may be so. And if it is, I just say welcome, Welcome, welcome to the new world of World Government. You guys called for it long and loud, hope you like it a lot.
posted by jfuller at 5:18 PM on October 7, 2004
Atrios better watch out 'cause I hear Ashcroft doesn't care for Friday cat blogging.
posted by y0bhgu0d at 5:24 PM on October 7, 2004
posted by y0bhgu0d at 5:24 PM on October 7, 2004
I never saw anyone on Indymedia calling for "world government". Not once.
In fact, I haven't seen anyone in the US calling for "world government" except Poppy Bush and the folks on the Trilateral Commission and people of that ilk, who are pretty much the opposite of Indymedia.
Nor do I see how this is "world government" in action--it looks an awful lot more like "business as usual" to me.
How does the UK rolling over for the US law enforcement community reflect some move for "world government". In fact, it's probably the opposite of "world government", because my guess is that the Hague and other international bodies will think this action is a Very, Very Bad Thing.
But nice straw man, jfuller. Maybe you can use it as part of your Halloween decor.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:28 PM on October 7, 2004
In fact, I haven't seen anyone in the US calling for "world government" except Poppy Bush and the folks on the Trilateral Commission and people of that ilk, who are pretty much the opposite of Indymedia.
Nor do I see how this is "world government" in action--it looks an awful lot more like "business as usual" to me.
How does the UK rolling over for the US law enforcement community reflect some move for "world government". In fact, it's probably the opposite of "world government", because my guess is that the Hague and other international bodies will think this action is a Very, Very Bad Thing.
But nice straw man, jfuller. Maybe you can use it as part of your Halloween decor.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:28 PM on October 7, 2004
Well, jfuller does have a point. Let's say the Hague had some real power, worldwide - they can deal with bad guys no matter where they are. Then what happens if you don't like the people making international law? Centralized power is bad, mmkay?
However, that's not what's happening here. This is an unfortunate side effect of the "special relationship".
posted by lbergstr at 5:33 PM on October 7, 2004
However, that's not what's happening here. This is an unfortunate side effect of the "special relationship".
posted by lbergstr at 5:33 PM on October 7, 2004
Wow, it gets better.
The Portland Indymedia speculates that the reason for the seizure might be a request from the Swiss government to take down a story that included photos of Swiss undercover police. The story was running in (can you guess? can you guess?) France.
So.
To get that straight, the Swiss don't like the story running in France and call up the US FBI to kill some servers in the UK. The jurisdictional issues here are absolutely mind boggling.
posted by kaibutsu at 5:51 PM on October 7, 2004
The Portland Indymedia speculates that the reason for the seizure might be a request from the Swiss government to take down a story that included photos of Swiss undercover police. The story was running in (can you guess? can you guess?) France.
So.
To get that straight, the Swiss don't like the story running in France and call up the US FBI to kill some servers in the UK. The jurisdictional issues here are absolutely mind boggling.
posted by kaibutsu at 5:51 PM on October 7, 2004
What are the jurisdictional issues for an corporation with international offices but headquarters in the US? It seems like Rackspace's UK servers could very well be within FBI jurisdiction if the company is hq'd in the US.
Unless the UK Rackspace is some sort of independently operated subsidiary...
posted by mr_roboto at 5:51 PM on October 7, 2004
Unless the UK Rackspace is some sort of independently operated subsidiary...
posted by mr_roboto at 5:51 PM on October 7, 2004
This is why it's probably a better idea to own your hardware rather then lease it.
posted by camworld at 5:53 PM on October 7, 2004
posted by camworld at 5:53 PM on October 7, 2004
It's unclear to me what Indymedia means by a "federal order," but I assume it's a subpoena issued under a statute modified by the USA-Patriot Act. It's hard to comment on the propriety of this subpoena with understanding the context of the order. Of course, that's one of the problems with the attendant gag orders; there is no transparency to ensure full and fair due process. One note, however: this is not "the UK rolling over for the US law enforcement community." Rackspace is a U.S. company based in San Antonio. It most certainly is within the subpoena power of the United States courts, even when the assets happen to be located overseas.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 5:58 PM on October 7, 2004
posted by monju_bosatsu at 5:58 PM on October 7, 2004
So can somebody explain the gag order? Is that a PATRIOT act thing? (We actually don't even have confirmation from Rackspace that there's a gag order in effect, of course.) And if it is a PATRIOT act thing, it must be separate from the provision that EFF overturned, right?
posted by lbergstr at 6:01 PM on October 7, 2004
posted by lbergstr at 6:01 PM on October 7, 2004
Weeeeell. The gag order was successfully challenged in a lower appeals court. However, with the case still under appeal by the government, it could go either way with the SCOTUS. So to be quite honest, I'm not certain I would challenge the order to be honest.
Hopefully they can just pop in a new server, and be back online tomorrow.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:24 PM on October 7, 2004
Hopefully they can just pop in a new server, and be back online tomorrow.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:24 PM on October 7, 2004
Always have offsite backups. That way, even if you can't (beit for legal or technical reasons) fail over to another set of servers, you can at least get the information out so the general public can see what was seized.
As an aside, this story is on Slashdot right now, and it's amazing to see the moderation wars going on. Attacks on the left and right get modded up and down by people with mod points. One comment generalizing about the right wing got modded up to +5 at one point, then modded right back down to zero; who knows how many times, I can only infer that it occurred by people commenting on the moderation.
I have points right now. I believe I'll use them in another story.
posted by George_Spiggott at 6:26 PM on October 7, 2004
As an aside, this story is on Slashdot right now, and it's amazing to see the moderation wars going on. Attacks on the left and right get modded up and down by people with mod points. One comment generalizing about the right wing got modded up to +5 at one point, then modded right back down to zero; who knows how many times, I can only infer that it occurred by people commenting on the moderation.
I have points right now. I believe I'll use them in another story.
posted by George_Spiggott at 6:26 PM on October 7, 2004
Well, this certainly could set a dangerous precedent if anything, if this is held up in whichever jurisdiction this happens to be determined the CRIME happened in.
Indymedia has been in existence for about five years. In that span, enumerable examples of violent crime have been wrought upon the peaceful freedom loving peoples of planet Earth -- especially us Americans. We can all vouch for this can we not?
It was high time the authorities began tracking down and thwarting the willy-nilly dispensing of information. Where better to cut your teeth but with the hapless anarchists of Indymedia? One would think that we will begin seeing a marked increase in world peace as this global effort against thoughtcrime begins to ratchet up. That, anyone can support.
I actually feel safer already.
In other news, there also happen to be websites which proudly advocate a violent sexual dysfunction which has metastasized within our fledgling society. Those of course, are usually best enjoyed during breaktime at the old FBI.
posted by crasspastor at 6:34 PM on October 7, 2004
Indymedia has been in existence for about five years. In that span, enumerable examples of violent crime have been wrought upon the peaceful freedom loving peoples of planet Earth -- especially us Americans. We can all vouch for this can we not?
It was high time the authorities began tracking down and thwarting the willy-nilly dispensing of information. Where better to cut your teeth but with the hapless anarchists of Indymedia? One would think that we will begin seeing a marked increase in world peace as this global effort against thoughtcrime begins to ratchet up. That, anyone can support.
I actually feel safer already.
In other news, there also happen to be websites which proudly advocate a violent sexual dysfunction which has metastasized within our fledgling society. Those of course, are usually best enjoyed during breaktime at the old FBI.
posted by crasspastor at 6:34 PM on October 7, 2004
> I never saw anyone on Indymedia calling for "world government". Not once.
I was actually thinking of mefi, not indymedia, but either will do. The current meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss phrase is international community, about which a great many of you yammer all the time.
> To get that straight, the Swiss don't like the story running in France and call
> up the US FBI to kill some servers in the UK.
World Government, meet International Community. You two should get along real well, you have so much in common.
posted by jfuller at 6:37 PM on October 7, 2004
I was actually thinking of mefi, not indymedia, but either will do. The current meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss phrase is international community, about which a great many of you yammer all the time.
> To get that straight, the Swiss don't like the story running in France and call
> up the US FBI to kill some servers in the UK.
World Government, meet International Community. You two should get along real well, you have so much in common.
posted by jfuller at 6:37 PM on October 7, 2004
lbergstr, you are missing the point here. If the US goes into the UK to take down a server for Andorra, that seems to be the opposite of "one-world government" to me--instead, it seems to be the same old "special relationship" nonsense that's been going on for the past 200 years.
Here's the thing. It's possible that there could be some 1984-style "Big Brother" one-world-government that dominates everything. I, for one, would be spectacularly against that.
However, this isn't an illustration of that. What this is an illustration of is two countries long in each other's back pocket once again bending the rules of law.
This situation didn't arise because of any calls for one-world-government. Nor have I ever seen any calls for one-world-government on Metafilter, and I note that jfuller can't find a single one to link to.
It's a far cry from formal agreements on the rule of law between sovereign nations to a "one-world-government".
What, jfuller, would you suggest instead? Privateering? Letters of marque and reprisal?
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:50 PM on October 7, 2004
Here's the thing. It's possible that there could be some 1984-style "Big Brother" one-world-government that dominates everything. I, for one, would be spectacularly against that.
However, this isn't an illustration of that. What this is an illustration of is two countries long in each other's back pocket once again bending the rules of law.
This situation didn't arise because of any calls for one-world-government. Nor have I ever seen any calls for one-world-government on Metafilter, and I note that jfuller can't find a single one to link to.
It's a far cry from formal agreements on the rule of law between sovereign nations to a "one-world-government".
What, jfuller, would you suggest instead? Privateering? Letters of marque and reprisal?
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:50 PM on October 7, 2004
I thought the EFF got that part of the PATRIOT act overturned.
Or are gag orders accompanying subpoenas something else? How long has this been legal?
This is something else. A subpoena and accomaning gag order is something issued by a court. The PATRIOT act thing that was overturned was special national security letters that could be issued by FBI bureau chiefs. At least that is my understanding.
posted by falconred at 7:13 PM on October 7, 2004
Or are gag orders accompanying subpoenas something else? How long has this been legal?
This is something else. A subpoena and accomaning gag order is something issued by a court. The PATRIOT act thing that was overturned was special national security letters that could be issued by FBI bureau chiefs. At least that is my understanding.
posted by falconred at 7:13 PM on October 7, 2004
World Government ? - Please. Constant mention of that is a far right wet dream.
In fact though, this is the US and it's lapdog at play.
posted by troutfishing at 7:19 PM on October 7, 2004
In fact though, this is the US and it's lapdog at play.
posted by troutfishing at 7:19 PM on October 7, 2004
Maybe the justification for shutting down the servers and seizing the hard drives passed that "global test" that everyone's talking about these days...
posted by clevershark at 7:51 PM on October 7, 2004
posted by clevershark at 7:51 PM on October 7, 2004
lbergstr, you are missing the point here. If the US goes into the UK to take down a server for Andorra, that seems to be the opposite of "one-world government" to me--instead, it seems to be the same old "special relationship" nonsense that's been going on for the past 200 years.
I went back and re-read my original comment, and incredibly, I said exactly the same thing:
'[blah blah blah one world government] ... However, that's not what's happening here. This is an unfortunate side effect of the "special relationship".'
posted by lbergstr at 8:00 PM on October 7, 2004
I went back and re-read my original comment, and incredibly, I said exactly the same thing:
'[blah blah blah one world government] ... However, that's not what's happening here. This is an unfortunate side effect of the "special relationship".'
posted by lbergstr at 8:00 PM on October 7, 2004
What, jfuller, would you suggest instead? Privateering? Letters of marque and reprisal?
BaaaZING!
I've been reading Quicksilver lately and find the idea of pirates busting into a server room hysterically funny.
posted by TungstenChef at 8:38 PM on October 7, 2004
BaaaZING!
I've been reading Quicksilver lately and find the idea of pirates busting into a server room hysterically funny.
posted by TungstenChef at 8:38 PM on October 7, 2004
lbergstr, you were absolutely getting the point, and I had just mis-scrolled and typed a completely stupid response to your quite insightful comment. Please accept my apologies.
Here's the thing: arsenic is poison, and so is strychinine. That doesn't mean that arsenic is strychinine.
A "one-world-government" would be hideous and repressive, which is why no sane person would want it. The current "bully rule" that I see in the world today is, in my opinion, hideous and repressive, which is why no sane person would want it.
To say "Well, don't complain about the arsenic, because you asked for strychinine" is ridiculous--especially when nobody asked for strychinine.
I think that the Hague has about as much power as it needs to, i.e., very little. However, in my opinion, there do need to be some kinds of international bodies of legal review and recommendation just to oil the wheels of interactions between countries.
Of course I prefer the current faineant system of international justice to a global Big Brother. However, I would prefer a slightly more above-board approach to process and detente to the current "laws are for the other countries" attitude and martial-law stance of the current administration.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:40 PM on October 7, 2004
Here's the thing: arsenic is poison, and so is strychinine. That doesn't mean that arsenic is strychinine.
A "one-world-government" would be hideous and repressive, which is why no sane person would want it. The current "bully rule" that I see in the world today is, in my opinion, hideous and repressive, which is why no sane person would want it.
To say "Well, don't complain about the arsenic, because you asked for strychinine" is ridiculous--especially when nobody asked for strychinine.
I think that the Hague has about as much power as it needs to, i.e., very little. However, in my opinion, there do need to be some kinds of international bodies of legal review and recommendation just to oil the wheels of interactions between countries.
Of course I prefer the current faineant system of international justice to a global Big Brother. However, I would prefer a slightly more above-board approach to process and detente to the current "laws are for the other countries" attitude and martial-law stance of the current administration.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:40 PM on October 7, 2004
I, for one, welcome our Poland-forgetting PepsiBlue overlords.
There. I have combined all the annoying MeFi catchphrases into one comment. May I have my pony now?
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:27 PM on October 7, 2004
There. I have combined all the annoying MeFi catchphrases into one comment. May I have my pony now?
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:27 PM on October 7, 2004
There. I have combined all the annoying MeFi catchphrases into one comment. May I have my pony now?
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:27 PM CST on October 7
This pony, it vibrates?
This is very bad for non-vibrating ponies everywhere.
Seriously, it's very hard to even have an opinion on this since we can't even hear/be told wtf it's all about. But, unless it is kiddie porn or something similar, it is likely unwarranted and definitely overkill.
Whatever happened to cease and desist orders? Do governments not do that?
posted by Ynoxas at 9:39 PM on October 7, 2004
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:27 PM CST on October 7
This pony, it vibrates?
This is very bad for non-vibrating ponies everywhere.
Seriously, it's very hard to even have an opinion on this since we can't even hear/be told wtf it's all about. But, unless it is kiddie porn or something similar, it is likely unwarranted and definitely overkill.
Whatever happened to cease and desist orders? Do governments not do that?
posted by Ynoxas at 9:39 PM on October 7, 2004
Damn you and your functioning brain cells, Ynoxas! Would I need a television to get in on this intelligence business?
"Unwarranted overkill" seems to be the name of the game in the War On Terrorism (except when it comes to, say, actually capturing actual terrorists). Remember Chaplain Yee?
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:43 PM on October 7, 2004
"Unwarranted overkill" seems to be the name of the game in the War On Terrorism (except when it comes to, say, actually capturing actual terrorists). Remember Chaplain Yee?
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:43 PM on October 7, 2004
What, jfuller, would you suggest instead? Privateering? Letters of marque and reprisal?
The Libertarian candidate for president advocates the use of letters of marque and reprisal to fight terrorism.
Yes, this makes me very depressed to be a libertarian. (Though there is a certain elegance to the idea.)
Really, though, I'm as anti-UN as the next gun-toting non-perishable-canned-goods-purchasing guy, jfuller, but surely you can't support this? I mean, seizing the assets of a fucking journalistic enterprise because you don't like their point of view (and forget the fucking Swiss, since when has the FBI taken orders from the goddamn Swiss?) is right fucked any way you look at it.
Not that there's not a certain schadenfreude in watching those whiny Indymedia motherfuckers get theirs. Maybe now they'll understand why some of us would rather not the government keep an inventory of our firearms, just in case.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 10:03 PM on October 7, 2004
The Libertarian candidate for president advocates the use of letters of marque and reprisal to fight terrorism.
Yes, this makes me very depressed to be a libertarian. (Though there is a certain elegance to the idea.)
Really, though, I'm as anti-UN as the next gun-toting non-perishable-canned-goods-purchasing guy, jfuller, but surely you can't support this? I mean, seizing the assets of a fucking journalistic enterprise because you don't like their point of view (and forget the fucking Swiss, since when has the FBI taken orders from the goddamn Swiss?) is right fucked any way you look at it.
Not that there's not a certain schadenfreude in watching those whiny Indymedia motherfuckers get theirs. Maybe now they'll understand why some of us would rather not the government keep an inventory of our firearms, just in case.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 10:03 PM on October 7, 2004
So is the general consensus that other countries are taking advantage of the U.S.'s lack of civil rights by using the FBI to police things in their country? Sort of like Cuba renting out Guantanamo Bay.
Also, I just wanted to mention that it seems that the page that got it taken down had pictures of anti-G8 police and possible threats against them.
posted by destro at 10:27 PM on October 7, 2004
Also, I just wanted to mention that it seems that the page that got it taken down had pictures of anti-G8 police and possible threats against them.
posted by destro at 10:27 PM on October 7, 2004
No! Are you serious, IG? Badnarik actually advocated a return to letters of marque and reprisal?
LINKS! I must have LINKS!
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:46 PM on October 7, 2004
LINKS! I must have LINKS!
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:46 PM on October 7, 2004
Please accept my apologies.
No problem.
arsenic ... strychnine
Hm, I see it differently. I agree there needs to be some form of international law, for the same reasons you do, I'm guessing. But there is a risk, right? If that body adopted the wrong laws, and if it had the power to enforce them, the consequences would be catastrophic.
A world in which the US had untrammeled ability to enforce its laws worldwide would be even worse, of course; we don't quite live in that world yet, though.
posted by lbergstr at 12:04 AM on October 8, 2004
No problem.
arsenic ... strychnine
Hm, I see it differently. I agree there needs to be some form of international law, for the same reasons you do, I'm guessing. But there is a risk, right? If that body adopted the wrong laws, and if it had the power to enforce them, the consequences would be catastrophic.
A world in which the US had untrammeled ability to enforce its laws worldwide would be even worse, of course; we don't quite live in that world yet, though.
posted by lbergstr at 12:04 AM on October 8, 2004
And here I thought the American far-left was against violence because of the nasty state retributions for violent actions in the early 20th century, more than any deep-seated predelictions against the use of force.
That, or maybe the idea that it would be a waste to send people out to get themselves killed when there are only twelve or so in the movement to begin with.
More seriously, IndyMedia is an awesome idea, and if it isn't looking the way you'd like it to, there's nothing to stop you from participating and changing it that much. Or starting your own variant on the basic idea: Returning the power of the media to the hands of individuals. The IndyMedia implementation is something admirable: people from around the world gather news and post situated perspectives on the events occuring right around them, for people in their general area or whoever else decides to take a gander. This is grass-roots, bottom-up reporting, and I defy anyone to say that this is a bad idea in the face of the media conglomerates that decide to the best of their power what we're going to see. From this light, the seizure is can be seen as nothing but a tragedy.
Imagine if the Chicago Sun-Times had been shut down by the FBI in the Novak/Plame affiar...
posted by kaibutsu at 1:35 AM on October 8, 2004
That, or maybe the idea that it would be a waste to send people out to get themselves killed when there are only twelve or so in the movement to begin with.
More seriously, IndyMedia is an awesome idea, and if it isn't looking the way you'd like it to, there's nothing to stop you from participating and changing it that much. Or starting your own variant on the basic idea: Returning the power of the media to the hands of individuals. The IndyMedia implementation is something admirable: people from around the world gather news and post situated perspectives on the events occuring right around them, for people in their general area or whoever else decides to take a gander. This is grass-roots, bottom-up reporting, and I defy anyone to say that this is a bad idea in the face of the media conglomerates that decide to the best of their power what we're going to see. From this light, the seizure is can be seen as nothing but a tragedy.
Imagine if the Chicago Sun-Times had been shut down by the FBI in the Novak/Plame affiar...
posted by kaibutsu at 1:35 AM on October 8, 2004
> Really, though, I'm as anti-UN as the next gun-toting non-perishable-
> canned-goods-purchasing guy, jfuller, but surely you can't support this? I mean,
> seizing the assets of a fucking journalistic enterprise because you don't
> like their point of view (and forget the fucking Swiss, since when has the FBI
> taken orders from the goddamn Swiss?) is right fucked any way you look at it.
Good Lord, how could anybody think I support this action? I want a world in which there is some refuge from somebody's gang of enforcers. My point is that if you support "international cooperation," you just got a good up-close look at what "international cooperation" is like in action. Whether you call it "World Government" or "International Cooperation By The Community Of Nations," it's a difference only of righty verbal style versus lefty verbal style, without any difference of substance. Both locutions describe our gang of thugs in bed with your gang of thugs and their gang of thugs and consequently no place for you to hide when anybody's thugs want you--no refuge here, none there, none yonder.
To answer Sidhedevil's question without sugar coating: I'm in favor of keeping nations at arms' length, possibly even at dagger points, so that borders mean something from the point of view of personal freedom. Please observe that the currently poorish relations between the US and the EU were not bad enough to prevent this outrageous incident from happening. Relations must worsen. If somebody's government gang wants you, and you're across a border, they should have to want you badly enough to gear up their army and invade in order to get you--not just make a couple of palsy phone calls.
posted by jfuller at 4:54 AM on October 8, 2004
> canned-goods-purchasing guy, jfuller, but surely you can't support this? I mean,
> seizing the assets of a fucking journalistic enterprise because you don't
> like their point of view (and forget the fucking Swiss, since when has the FBI
> taken orders from the goddamn Swiss?) is right fucked any way you look at it.
Good Lord, how could anybody think I support this action? I want a world in which there is some refuge from somebody's gang of enforcers. My point is that if you support "international cooperation," you just got a good up-close look at what "international cooperation" is like in action. Whether you call it "World Government" or "International Cooperation By The Community Of Nations," it's a difference only of righty verbal style versus lefty verbal style, without any difference of substance. Both locutions describe our gang of thugs in bed with your gang of thugs and their gang of thugs and consequently no place for you to hide when anybody's thugs want you--no refuge here, none there, none yonder.
To answer Sidhedevil's question without sugar coating: I'm in favor of keeping nations at arms' length, possibly even at dagger points, so that borders mean something from the point of view of personal freedom. Please observe that the currently poorish relations between the US and the EU were not bad enough to prevent this outrageous incident from happening. Relations must worsen. If somebody's government gang wants you, and you're across a border, they should have to want you badly enough to gear up their army and invade in order to get you--not just make a couple of palsy phone calls.
posted by jfuller at 4:54 AM on October 8, 2004
Sidhedevil: I heard it in a speech, but it looks like he's mentioned it elsewhere:
However Article I, Section 8, clause eleven, that gives Congress the right to declare war, also gives congress the right issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. What we are being told of course, is we are given this false choice of either peace OR war. As if those are the only alternatives. Since the World Trade Center has fallen, obviously we have to go to war and stomp their country into the ground. Well, the truth of the matter is, that we do not require a complete and total assault with our entire military. However we could, on good constitutional procedure, issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and send small groups.posted by IshmaelGraves at 6:14 AM on October 8, 2004
LBergstr, my metaphor was unclear. Both arsenic and strychnine are useful medicines if taken in small doses, but deadly poisons if too large a dose is used.
JFuller, thanks for the clarification. I had interpreted your previous post as an endorsement of the existing "new world order" a la Bush pere et fils and a denunciation of the hypothetical "new world order" as espoused by the Maoist International, Spartacist Youth League, and others of that ilk.
Your followup post makes your position far clearer. If I understand you correctly (and given my record on this thread, I may well not!) that you don't like either, or anything that smacks of either, and that you were arguing from a libertarian/isolationist perspective.
Not mine, but certainly one I respect. I wonder what your take on the anarchists' flavor of the same point is--for example, that espoused by some of the folks who protest the WTO meetings?
Ishmael Graves, bless you. Now I know what I'm going to do if my clients fire me because I spend all my time on MeFi instead of doing their work. Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me!
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:42 AM on October 8, 2004
JFuller, thanks for the clarification. I had interpreted your previous post as an endorsement of the existing "new world order" a la Bush pere et fils and a denunciation of the hypothetical "new world order" as espoused by the Maoist International, Spartacist Youth League, and others of that ilk.
Your followup post makes your position far clearer. If I understand you correctly (and given my record on this thread, I may well not!) that you don't like either, or anything that smacks of either, and that you were arguing from a libertarian/isolationist perspective.
Not mine, but certainly one I respect. I wonder what your take on the anarchists' flavor of the same point is--for example, that espoused by some of the folks who protest the WTO meetings?
Ishmael Graves, bless you. Now I know what I'm going to do if my clients fire me because I spend all my time on MeFi instead of doing their work. Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me!
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:42 AM on October 8, 2004
Anyone able to give a quick run down of what a "Letter of Marque and Reprisal" is? I'm picturing two guys at ten paces and that doesn't make much sense.
posted by Mitheral at 10:49 AM on October 8, 2004
posted by Mitheral at 10:49 AM on October 8, 2004
All the discussion becomes less relevant if some backup copy exists of the removed hard drives...sooner or later somebody will address this backup copy thingie..maybe with some law restricting what you can copy and what you can not copy or by making backup process expensive or technically hard to achieve.
Anyway back to the topic: don't you guys think it's interesting one can seize some property because it (allegedly) contains pictures of some "undercover operative" looking at protesters ? If we are to follow this logic, one could claim some "agent" is embedded in almost every picture and seize it..if challenged in court, the FBI would probably need to show the judge who was the operative to justify the action.
The judge could either reveal who the agent was, assuming there was any, but by doing so the coverup would be exposed even further....or not say a word and state sufficient proofs of presence of an agent were offered by government...raising mounting suspiciousness about a further coverup, judge covering fbi covering agent.I guess that in a police state such a behavior could be accepted.
But at that point, with the picture of the agent already distributed it would serve absolutely no purpose to seize the server, but to reinforce the feeling indymedia was after something very very wrong.
posted by elpapacito at 4:05 PM on October 8, 2004
Anyway back to the topic: don't you guys think it's interesting one can seize some property because it (allegedly) contains pictures of some "undercover operative" looking at protesters ? If we are to follow this logic, one could claim some "agent" is embedded in almost every picture and seize it..if challenged in court, the FBI would probably need to show the judge who was the operative to justify the action.
The judge could either reveal who the agent was, assuming there was any, but by doing so the coverup would be exposed even further....or not say a word and state sufficient proofs of presence of an agent were offered by government...raising mounting suspiciousness about a further coverup, judge covering fbi covering agent.I guess that in a police state such a behavior could be accepted.
But at that point, with the picture of the agent already distributed it would serve absolutely no purpose to seize the server, but to reinforce the feeling indymedia was after something very very wrong.
posted by elpapacito at 4:05 PM on October 8, 2004
Here's another story about the seizure of the servers. What's interesting to note, I think, is that the FBI has said that it wasn't a US operation, and that the US was not conducting an investigation...but that they were operating in the interests of unnamed 3rd countries.
From the link above: An FBI spokesman, Joe Parris, told AFP (link) that: "It is not an FBI operation. Through a legal assistance treaty, the subpoena was on behalf of a third country". The subpoena he confirmed had been issued at the request of Swiss and Italian authorities. He further said that there was no US investigation but that the agency had cooperated under the terms of an international treaty on law enforcement.
posted by dejah420 at 11:10 AM on October 10, 2004
From the link above: An FBI spokesman, Joe Parris, told AFP (link) that: "It is not an FBI operation. Through a legal assistance treaty, the subpoena was on behalf of a third country". The subpoena he confirmed had been issued at the request of Swiss and Italian authorities. He further said that there was no US investigation but that the agency had cooperated under the terms of an international treaty on law enforcement.
posted by dejah420 at 11:10 AM on October 10, 2004
« Older Goodbye 411? | Terrorism against tourists Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by amberglow at 4:59 PM on October 7, 2004