US government: "We seize - you can't complain"

P

PsychoSword

Moderator
http://www.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/112391.shtml

112392.jpg


US government: "We seize - you can't complain"
12 Nov 2004 07:47 GMT

Hard-disks nailed to the Italian consulate in Dijon, France

Yesterday, November 9, the U.S. government responded to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF) Motion to Unseal the court order that led to the seizure of two hard drives that hosted more than 20 Indymedia websites. The government claims that the order to Rackspace should remain secret because: (1) EFF and their Indymedia clients lacked "standing" (the legal right to initiate a claim) to contest the seizure, (2) the request came from a unnamed foreign government pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), and therefore was not subject to the protections of the Bill of Rights; and (3) disclosure would endanger "an ongoing criminal terrorism investigation." EFF intends to oppose these arguments and will file a legal brief responding to the government's letter. It's then up to the court to decide whether the court order should be unsealed or not.

The government response also contains details suggesting that the order may have originated in Italy. While the government refuses to identify which government prompted the court order, the letter cites language from "Article 8" that corresponds to the Italy's MLAT and not to Switzerland's. (As reported earlier, Italy and Switzerland were the two prime suspects.)

Meanwhile, more than 10,000 individuals have signed the Indymedia solidarity statement and at least 17 of the downed websites are back up and running.




Global Government along with global tyranny is upon us all in the guise of protecting us from terrorism.

It's time for some people to wake the hell up and realize what's going on.
 
Well welcome to the flip side of Bush policies. As long as it can be peripherally justified as anti-terrorist, or as part of the 'war on terrorism', they now feel that they've got carte blanche to do virtually anything, anywhere.
Last time I checked, weren't the Brits at least functional allies in the mid-east mess?
The vexation here in the US, is that Bush got in partially on overtly supporting the 2nd amendment, but the other equally valid amendments don't seem to matter.
In the future, unfettered access to the internet, may be as important, or even more so, than whether or not we all can have a mini-14, glock or whatever. Ironic with all the 2nd amendment posturing about Bush, there seems to be little concern about other equally needed liberties.
Or is it the guv'ment knows very well, that a bunch of isolated people, with some light weapons...are much less of a threat than information?. Seems they would, insofar as the Chinese have been happily shutting down ISP access...so the feds have a model to follow.
Methinks James Burke warned about this kind of thing in the "Axemakers Gift"
 
I would heavily doubt Bush' 2A position. Bush has yet to actively do anything for gun rights which would be historical (like pushing actively for a repeal of a gun law)
 
Quite true, its more the perception that he is 2nd amendment than any effective actuality.
That's one of the vexations about NRA, often they get too close to the people like Bush, who provide a good image...than to those whose other constitutional agendas, might make for good alliances.
But, images are easier to market.
That's where much of the 2nd amendment contingent can be so easily manipulated. As long as the perception is there, that the guv'ment won't take the guns...too many times we vote for people who'll quite happily take away other rights. And from a certain view, the guv'ment knows quite well that a armed civilian populace isn't as viable a threat as the people who advocate it, believe it to be...the guv'ment doesn't need to seize these weapons to control people. First,they know that any outright armed fight, would be likely disasterous to the potential insurgency, and second, its easier to control via regulation than it is by conflagration.
And Ashcroft going away, empty symbolism, it defuses criticism for policies which are still in place
 
It ain't just Bush and the Republicans. The assault on the fourth and fifth amendments have been under government assault for years. Under Bill Clinton and the Democrats, also. Remember the clipper chip proposal under Clinton?

Too many Americans are willing to see their rights eroded as long as the initial proposed target group is some group they don't like. So they start out targeting a group such as drug dealers or terrorists with an unconstitutional law. Later on, after the precedent is established, they start using it on everyone.
 
Certainly it was done with the Patriot Act. Ashcroft and the Bush administration promised that the provisions would only be used to fight terrorism. In the hysteria in the aftermath of September 11 this promise was all that was needed to give away some rights.
Immediately the Justice Department had in house seminars on how to apply the Act to domestic crimes.
Fortunately the Patriot Act had a sunset provision. More fortunately Patriot Act II did not pass.

Had this been done by the Clinton Administration we would have been up in arms, saying how shifty this was, how a false promise was given, and how this showed the essentially untrustworthy nature of the administration.

Guess its all better done by a Republican. :barf:
Yet another reason I dislike the party system - your choice is no choice.
 
Fortunately the Patriot Act had a sunset provision.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the worst parts of the Patriot Act don't have a sunset provision. That's another little media lie that we've had shoved down our throats....that the Patriot Act is sunsetting..
 
No, it's a bad thing when an unconstitutional law that says that you can be charged with terrorism for jaywalking is sunsetted... :barf:
 
I'd rather they never pass a law in the first place instead of this "run it up the flagpole and see who salutes" approach.

Sunset provisions are not a substitute for sound rational decision making.
 
I agree, but at the time you had a fearful public and politicians acting out of hysteria, fear of what rationallity would do to their re-election chances, and naked opportunism. Only one member of Senate dissented, IIRC. That certainly gives the lie that people over 35 would act out of wisdom for the good of the country.
The only rational judgements made at the time were by the people who realized that it was a golden opportunity to reduce our rights and by those who were looking at their next race.
In the face of that, I will take sunsets - as we did on the AWB.

Please tell me which parts didn't sunset.
 
Croyance
I agree, but at the time you had a fearful public and politicians acting out of hysteria, fear of what rationallity would do to their re-election chances, and naked opportunism. Only one member of Senate dissented, IIRC.
Click to expand...

The "public" had nothing to do with the passing of the "Patriot" Act. There was so little publicized about it at all that it was little more than a token waving around of the phrase, and it was pretty obvious that it was going to pass no matter who or how many dissented.

None of the Act has "sunsetted" to date that I know of. Act number II is not dead by a long shot and is very likely to resurface in the near future.
 
(2) the request came from a unnamed foreign government pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), and therefore was not subject to the protections of the Bill of Rights;
Click to expand...

This so offends me and my sense of what this country is supposed to be about, that I don't know what to say...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top