Unintentional Irony?

He teaches courses in constitutional law and creative writing ...

Here.

CyberWar - Some Discussion

On another blog which doesn't allow comments, Gary Warner from the "University of Alabama at Birmingham", posts some quite sensible stuff about cyberwar.

However, as usual, I have some nits to pick and, as he doesn't allow comments ... (I'd also note that I am basing my comments on a UK MoD understanding of the International Law of Armed Conflict, so US military law, their UCMJ, may vary.)

Civilian Infrastructure Attacks

Declaration: "A direct attack on a civilian infrastructure that caused damage, even loss of life of civilians, would, I think, be a war crime." - Professor Daniel Ryan, National Defense University

Response: Didn't the United States blow up electrical plants, television and radio stations, bridges, roads, runways, and water treatment plants during the two Iraq Wars? Were those war crimes, too? Professor Ryan? We have to use a consistent definition. If its not a war crime to attack civilian infrastructure kinetically, why is it a war crime to do so electronically

Attacks on some civilian infrastructure are automatically war crimes: nuclear plants, dams and "cultural property". Attacks on some others are illegal in most circumstances: hospitals and religious sites come under this category. Although, if you are attacked from them, you can retaliate.

Attacks on other civilian infrastructure are subject to the "proportionality test". What military benefit do you achieve? If the enemy are using the local mobile phone network to organise their operations, then you could definitely make a case for blowing it up. Despite the impact on civilians. Identical comments apply to his example under "Electrical Grid Targeting".

Ninety-Five Percent?

Declaration: "Computers don't always have signs over them that say, 'I'm a military target' [or] 'I'm a civilian target,' " says Harvard's Goldsmith. "Also, the two things are intermixed. Ninety to 95 percent of U.S. military and intelligence communications travel over private networks."

Response: The Department of Defense has more than 7 million computers. I don't know how Army works, but I know the Navy Marine Corps Internet was at one time the largest private Intranet on the entire planet. The US Army has maintained a stand-alone Intranet since at least 2001, and has repeatedly had headlines about it being the largest stand-alone network in the world. Soldiers don't call down an airstrike and then update their Facebook pages and do a little online banking as the implication seems to infer.

All I'd say is "you'd be surprised!" Okay, they'll not use the same systems (SIPRNet isn't internet connected, NIPRNet is and the terminals are separate devices, even if you might have both of them, and a Coalition network terminal, on your desk) but there is a surprising mixing of comms links etc. And the IP address assignments will probably all be in the DoD or RFC1918 address spaces ... Anecdata: I've been on Google chat, under mortar fire in Baghdad, and trying to convince Clydesdale Bank to transfer money via internet banking under rocket attack in Basra.

To the First Minister, a modest suggestion.

In response to Senator Lautenberg's pleading, I'd like to make the following wholly politically inappropriate suggestion to Wee Alec for his response:

"The decisions of the democratically elected government of Scotland are not subject to review by the legislative branch, or any other part, of the government of the United States of America. Regardless of any need for co-operation or conversations between our respective executives, a public show trial in Washington is a completely inappropriate mechanism for international political discourse.

Special pleading by Democratic Senators needing to bolster their colleagues' mid-term re-election chances does not materially alter any of these points.

Or, in brief, FOAD!"

Oh Noes! The 'R' Word

So, the great Peanut farmer has spoken - opposition to Obama's heathcare reform is racist.

Now, I don't doubt that there are people who do actually oppose President Obama on the grounds that he is black, as well as people who oppose him on the grounds that he is(n't) Kenyan and, I expect, black people who oppose him on the grounds (also racist) that he is mixed race. There are definitely black people who oppose him on the grounds that he is African not "African-American" and, not being the descendant of slaves (the sort carried to the colonies by evil white folks rather than the sort enslaved back home by evil black folks - 'cause there weren't any of the latter). I am sure, also, that on the fringes (at the very minimum) of any group opposing any Obama initiative, you will have some of the people who oppose him for more visceral reasons.

However ...

The last time a Democratic president tried for health care reform (something I, like most Europeans and even Daniel Hannan think the Yanks really need to have a go at), it didn't go down very well either. Why?

Well, clearly it was racism. I mean, wasn't Clinton (completely inaccurately) described as the "first black president"? Well, possibly not. It may be because Mrs Clinton was (and still is) the sort of do-gooding shrewish harpy that really gets the hairs on the skin next to your spine standing up - even if she is saying nothing more harmful than "Good Morning"? It may be because the Republican party are firmly in the pocket of big business and HMOs are very big business indeed. It may be because the tag "socialist" can be easily attached. It may even be because these are not desperately well thought out ideas (v.g. tick, standard government practice) and are going to cost a rather large fortune (ditto).

But opposing health care reform 'racist' - I really don't think, Jimbo, you've made the point.

Two snippets

Ashley Dupré - cute but not that^* cute:


Actually, I think Mrs Spitzer is hardly a moose:




German Army training doesn't quite get the point:

The hoods were briefly removed and the recruits had to lie down with a sergeant on their backs while a waterpipe was stuffed into their noses.

During a second exercise the recruits were sprayed with water as they stood with electrical cables from a field telephone attached to their necks, thighs and calves.

Now, we all know that going to war on the same side as the Americans may lead to 'friendly fire' but, really, it is unlikely to lead to 'friendly waterboarding'.

* $5k per hour, or whatever is being reported now.

Political Compass - Reprise

I occasionally retake the Political Compass test, if for no better reason than I keep deluding myself that I may get a result I agree with. So today is not too bad. Moderately to strongly libertarian and my divergent social and economic opinions keeping me close to the centreline on the x axis. Pretty much as before.
This shouldn't have surprised me, but it did, a bit:

No wonder liberal, in its true meaning (as opposed to high-tax statist) is such a bad word in the US of A.

In a zone of my own

After two via Clarkson, we have two via Dale.

Firstly, another poll - this one trying to align you with the US electoral candidates. Actually, this is a bad idea - you are not being aligned to the candidates, but to their platforms (and the difference between the two is obvious to those of us suffering under "Bottler Brown") and that they are, fairly obviously (and as required by their Constitution), Yanks. This means that they line up (as main party candidates) squarely on the traditional (il)liberal-leftist / conservative-government-minimalist lines (although US "liberals" do have a somewhat better claim to the name than the Lib-Dims). This clearly means I am not going to be that close. Once again, of course, I am slight embarrassed by where I plot - I consider myself further economically right than that - but then this is an American scale:



So, like Iain, I am closest to Ron Paul but am furthest from Fred Thompson (despite his excellent Iowa video). It would appear that I am roughly equally far from all of the Democrats, except, marginally, the two front runners. Oh well.