|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights : Government Secrecy : International Relations : Media : UCIMC |
|
Government Responds to Motion to Lift Veil of Secrecy Concerning Indymedia Server Seizure. |
Current rating: 0 |
by Sascha Meinrath
Email: sascha (nospam) ucimc.org (unverified!) |
09 Nov 2004
|
|
The United States Government responded to a motion filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center Foundation to lift the veil of secrecy surrounding the seizure of two Indymedia servers last month. The US Government claims that (1) the movants have no standing; (2) that the MLAT, as a treaty obligation, supersedes the law cited in the EFF/UCIMC motion; and, (3) that there is an ongoing investigation that needs to be kept secret. |
|
 IndymediaServerSeizure_govt_response.pdf (245 k) |
The case number is SA-04CA0676-OG.
The three main points of the US Government's filing are:
1. None of the Movants have standing to file the Motion to Unseal [because] the subpoena at issue was served on Rackspace in San Antonio, Texas.
2. ...pursuant to Article 8 of the treaty between the United States and the requesting country... "If deemed necessary, the Requesting State may request that the application for assistance, the contents of the request and its supporting documents, and the granting of such assistance be kept confidential". Such a request has been made to the United States by the Requesting State.
3. ...the United States would show that the sealed documents pertain to an ongoing criminal terrorism investigation. The unsealing of the documents on file in this matter would seriously jeopardize the investigation. The non-disclosure is necessitated by a compelling government interest. |
This work is in the public domain. |
|
Re: Government Responds to Motion to Lift Veil of Secrecy Concerning Indymedia Server Seizure. |
by Atticus
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Nov 2004
|
VI Ammendment! Law of the land! Ha! What classic Orwellian bullshit. The Bush regime blows off every international law in the book when ever it pleases, then turns around and invokes the VI Ammendment and an international treaty in its effort to suppress the very Constitution it claims to honor.
Freedom of the press is protected by the First Ammendment the last time i looked. |
|
Re: Government Responds to Motion to Lift Veil of Secrecy Concerning Indymedia Server Seizure. |
by thorn
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Nov 2004
|
|
What now? How do we go about climbing this (new/latest) wall? |
|
Re: Government Responds to Motion to Lift Veil of Secrecy Concerning Indymedia Server Seizure. |
by so much for accountability
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Nov 2004
|
So they're saying that people who have their stuff seized have no grounds for trying to find out why and how and so on? Huh! That's pretty twisted.
Are they saying then that _someone_ would have "standing" but not indymedia and not the person who dealt with the servers. If so it seems that they are saying the only people who could have standing would be rackspace. That's screwed!
Then they firmly pass the buck anyway saying that the requesting country has requested confidentiality under I assume this MLAT thing. So that's Italy (or switzerland I guess) - hmmm.
All very messed up.
This whole thing has much more at stake than just Indymedia. Who will be next? |
|
Re: Government Responds to Motion to Lift Veil of Secrecy Concerning Indymedia Server Seizure. |
by Mel
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Nov 2004
|
|
It's all because of that wretched Patriot Act thing. A terrorist has such a broad definition now. And now, because of this stupid act, they can search and seize with impunity. What has happened to our beautiful country? |
|
The 6th Amendment |
by Faith Swords
faith (nospam) ucimc.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Nov 2004
|
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
from: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html |
|
Re: Government Responds to Motion to Lift Veil of Secrecy Concerning Indymedia Server Seizure. |
by oznog
radlib (nospam) ucimc.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
12 Nov 2004
|
|
There's a good article about this in The Register. I wonder why there's no American media coverage on this issue (he says with a sarcastic grin ;-) ) |
|
Secret Laws: UnAmerican, Immoral and Unconstitutional |
by via Secrecy News
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Nov 2004
|
THE ARRIVAL OF SECRET LAW
Last month, Helen Chenoweth-Hage attempted to board a United
Airlines flight from Boise to Reno when she was pulled aside by
airline personnel for additional screening, including a pat-down
search for weapons or unauthorized materials.
Chenoweth-Hage, an ultra-conservative former Congresswoman (R-ID),
requested a copy of the regulation that authorizes such pat-downs.
"She said she wanted to see the regulation that required the
additional procedure for secondary screening and she was told that
she couldn't see it," local TSA security director Julian Gonzales
told the Idaho Statesman (10/10/04).
"She refused to go through additional screening [without seeing the
regulation], and she was not allowed to fly," he said. "It's
pretty simple."
Chenoweth-Hage wasn't seeking disclosure of the internal criteria
used for screening passengers, only the legal authorization for
passenger pat-downs. Why couldn't they at least let her see that?
asked Statesman commentator Dan Popkey.
"Because we don't have to," Mr. Gonzales replied crisply.
"That is called 'sensitive security information.' She's not
allowed to see it, nor is anyone else," he said.
Thus, in a qualitatively new development in U.S. governance,
Americans can now be obligated to comply with legally-binding
regulations that are unknown to them, and that indeed they are
forbidden to know.
This is not some dismal Eastern European allegory. It is part of a
continuing transformation of American government that is leaving
it less open, less accountable and less susceptible to rational
deliberation as a vehicle for change.
Harold C. Relyea once wrote an article entitled "The Coming of
Secret Law" (Government Information Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 2,
1988) that electrified readers (or at least one reader) with its
warning about increased executive branch reliance on secret
presidential directives and related instruments.
Back in the 1980s when that article was written, secret law was
still on the way. Now it is here.
A new report from the Congressional Research Service describes with
welcome clarity how, by altering a few words in the Homeland
Security Act, Congress "significantly broadened" the government's
authority to generate "sensitive security information," including
an entire system of "security directives" that are beyond public
scrutiny, like the one former Rep. Chenoweth-Hage sought to
examine.
The CRS report provides one analyst's perspective on how the secret
regulations comport or fail to comport with constitutional rights,
such as the right to travel and the right to due process. CRS
does not make its reports directly available to the public, but a
copy was obtained by Secrecy News.
See "Interstate Travel: Constitutional Challenges to the
Identification Requirement and Other Transportation Security
Regulations," Congressional Research Service, November 4, 2004:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL32664.pdf
Much of the CRS discussion revolves around the case of software
designer and philanthropist John Gilmore, who was prevented from
boarding an airline flight when he refused to present a photo ID.
(A related case involving no-fly lists has been brought by the
ACLU.)
"I will not show government-issued identity papers to travel in my
own country," Mr. Gilmore said.
Mr. Gilmore's insistence on his right to preserve anonymity while
traveling on commercial aircraft is naturally debatable -- but the
government will not debate it. Instead, citing the statute on
"sensitive security information," the Bush Administration says the
case cannot be argued in open court.
Further information on Gilmore v. Ashcroft, which is pending on
appeal, may be found here:
http://papersplease.org/gilmore/
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.
To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
secrecy_news-request (at) lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message. |
