Treating Terrorists as Pirates

Douglas R. Burgess Jr. wrote a great op-ed piece entitled "The Dread Pirate Bin Laden" over at Legal Affairs (an online magazine that I think I am going to have to add to my daily reading), arguing that terrorists should be treated, legally, as pirates: hostis humani generis, or "enemies of the human race".

Thanks, as always, to Bruce Schneier for highlighting this in his blog. Schmoliticans, if you aren't already, give his blog a look. It is about so much more than computer security.

Anyway, back to the terrorists as pirates issue. Here's a juicy bit to hook you in:

More than 2,000 years ago, Marcus Tullius Cicero defined pirates in Roman law as hostis humani generis, "enemies of the human race." From that day until now, pirates have held a unique status in the law as international criminals subject to universal jurisdiction—meaning that they may be captured wherever they are found, by any person who finds them. The ongoing war against pirates is the only known example of state vs. nonstate conflict until the advent of the war on terror, and its history is long and notable. More important, there are enormous potential benefits of applying this legal definition to contemporary terrorism.

[...]

President Bush and others persist in depicting this new form of state vs. nonstate warfare in traditional terms, as with the president's declaration of June 2, 2004, that "like the Second World War, our present conflict began with a ruthless surprise attack on the United States." He went on: "We will not forget that treachery and we will accept nothing less than victory over the enemy." What constitutes ultimate victory against an enemy that lacks territorial boundaries and governmental structures, in a war without fields of battle or codes of conduct? We can't capture the enemy's capital and hoist our flag in triumph. The possibility of perpetual embattlement looms before us.

If the war on terror becomes akin to war against the pirates, however, the situation would change. First, the crime of terrorism would be defined and proscribed internationally, and terrorists would be properly understood as enemies of all states. This legal status carries significant advantages, chief among them the possibility of universal jurisdiction. Terrorists, as hostis humani generis, could be captured wherever they were found, by anyone who found them. Pirates are currently the only form of criminals subject to this special jurisdiction.

The argument put forth in the article makes a lot of sense to me. Lawyers in the crowd, what do you think?

And my apologies for that tasteless picture--I just could not help myself.

Porn Culture

There's a series of articles (scroll down to "Feature: Porn Culture") in this month's Utne about "porn culture" and its effects, good and bad, on society. I found the perspectives fairly complelling and thought-provoking. Did anyone else?

Is porn, on the whole, good or bad for society? For individuals?

Ned Lamont, Progressive

I just finished reading this interview with Ned Lamont on truthdig.com, and I must say I am impressed with this young man from Vermont. Prior to reading the interview, while I certainly welcomed the alternative to Joe Lieberman, I was worried that Lamont might be yet another bored millionaire, buying his way into a race and using a polarising issue as a political tool.

But check out these gems from the interview:

• Lamont: The Senate should not be a sinecure for career politicians. Somebody who started up a business from scratch and someone who knows how hard it is to be a small businessman in this country, who works with employees over a period of years and knows the trials and tribulations of families, and how healthcare and pensions weigh on them--those are important experiences that are underrepresented in Congress. We have plenty of former attorneys general.


• truthdig: What should we do, right now, in Iraq?
  
  Lamont: Move our front-line troops out of harm's way. Start bringing the 130,000 troops who are stuck in the middle of that bloody civil war onto the periphery, and start bringing our combat troops home.
  
• truthdig: But can we maintain our reconstruction efforts without the cover that American forces at least try to maintain?
  
  Lamont: You've got 230,000 troops in the Iraqi army who are more or less trained, you've got a police force that is ridden with militias, obviously, but if the Iraqis can put together this unity government over the course of the next 30 days, anything is possible. Perhaps the Arab League, the Saudis, even the U.N. can help with some of the security functions, so reconstruction can start again.
  
  I think Americans should remain in the background, aiding in the construction--we can't desert the people of Iraq, but right now our front-line military presence is not making the situation better. It is stirring things up, making it worse.


• truthdig: Do you suspect Iran is making a nuclear bomb?
  
  Lamont: I suspect they are making a bomb, just like India and Pakistan have. It's a source of great nationalist pride. I think they're a little paranoid. They see Afghanistan on one side of them and Iraq on the other side of them, and a [U.S.] president who is talking about an Axis of Evil. Maybe they are worried.


• truthdig: Do you think it's inevitable that they'll get the bomb, and should the U.S. base its diplomacy on that assumption?
  
  Lamont: No, on the contrary, we should work diplomatically and aggressively to give them reasons why they don't need to build a bomb, to give them incentives.
  
• truthdig: How would that work?
  
  Lamont: We have to engage in very aggressive diplomacy. I'd like to bring in allies when we can. I'd like to use carrots as well as sticks--to see if we can change the nature of the debate.
  
  Iran has a large middle class; they're dependent on the sale of energy products to China; they want to engage more with Western Europe; they have a longstanding relationship with Russia, so there are levers we can use with people who have real leverage with Iran.
  
  We have so many different ways we can engage them, and all this saber rattling and "Axis of Evil" rhetoric is playing into the hands of the nationalists and the extremists in Iran.
  
  We can't take diplomacy off the table. But Lieberman is the one who keeps talking about keeping the military option on the table.


• Lamont: One of the crucial issues confronting our country is energy independence, and its corollary: global warming and the environment. I thought after 9/11 we had a real unique opportunity to deal with those twin issues in a serious way. Instead the president invited the lobbyists to Dick Cheney's office and we ended up with the energy bill that gave away tens of millions in subsidies to the oil producers, very little for energy conservation and efficiency--and Sen. Lieberman supported that bill.
  
• Lamont: We're a much stronger country when we work in concert with our neighbors and allies and deal with the rest of the world with respect. We're a much stronger country when we hold true to our values and our heritage, when our moral authority isn't compromised. I think there is a battle of ideas, and we have to be true to what we stand for.


• Lamont: The nation's war on drugs? As long as there's a demand, people are going to find a way to get drugs in this country. And sure, I could talk about tighter border controls, I could talk about interdiction, I could talk about dealing with it in Afghanistan, Bolivia, Colombia--wherever the sources are, but let's face it--the law of supply and demand: As long as there's an overwhelming demand here, drugs are going to find their way in.
  
  When it comes to drug use in this country, we've got to be very forthright with our kids and family and talk about it in a way we find constructive alternatives to drug use. That's our best hope.


• truthdig: What about on the state and federal level? Sending people to jail for nonviolent drug-related crimes?
  
  Lamont: I'm very skeptical about that. It doesn't act as a deterrent. And it congests our jails with folks who aren't a danger to society, and in many cases we have revolving doors--in which people who are a danger to society are let out. Where drug addiction is a disease, it should be treated as a disease. Where it's a crime, it should be treated as a crime.


• truthdig: Where are you on gay marriage?
  
  Lamont: There are some places where the government should butt out and leave people alone. And if two people are in love and want to get married, God bless 'em. I'm not advocating anything, but I am saying that the government should know when it's overstepped its bounds. All this stuff about a constitutional amendment outlawing the right of gay people to get married--that's wrong. It's wrongheaded. We don't need those kinds of restrictions. We're going to figure those things out as a society, and I'd just tell government to step back.


• truthdig: Do you prefer a more progressive tax policy than the one we have now?
  
  Lamont: Yes. We have an incredibly complicated tax code loaded with loopholes and exemptions, and billions of dollars that go uncollected each year due to the complexity of the laws. I would simplify the code, broaden the base, and I generally support a progressive tax structure.
  
• truthdig: So people like you should have to do more of the heavy lifting?
  
  Lamont: Sure. I think that's fair.


• truthdig: Are you ready to challenge Lieberman to a specific set of campaign caps or restrictions on how the campaign is financed or run?
  
  Lamont: I've tried to do it by example. I said that we're not taking any Washington lobbyist money. There's a quid pro quo there. Also, we've said publicly on a number of cases that we widely endorse the idea of a cap on spending. I think that is the key campaign finance reform.
  
  Longer term, public financing is probably a place we have to end up. These incumbents don't really get challenged. There aren't many folks who come along and jump-start a campaign, like I've been able to do. But I think with the blogs, grass roots, net roots, I think you'll see more populous types of campaigns. I hope that's an example people can take from our case. Because that's going to mean you have more competition in the marketplace, and that's always good.
  
  Nicely put, Ned. You have my vote when you run for President in 2010! ;)

What the Terrorists Want

I know I link Bruce Schneier an awful lot on this blog, but his recent essay, entitled "What the Terrorists Want" is excellent. My favourite point that he makes (and it is something that I have been trying to say for a while now, but he states it perfectly) is this:

Imagine for a moment what would have happened if they had blown up 10 planes. There would be canceled flights, chaos at airports, bans on carry-on luggage, world leaders talking tough new security measures, political posturing and all sorts of false alarms as jittery people panicked. To a lesser degree, that's basically what's happening right now.

Our politicians help the terrorists every time they use fear as a campaign tactic. The press helps every time it writes scare stories about the plot and the threat. And if we're terrified, and we share that fear, we help. All of these actions intensify and repeat the terrorists' actions, and increase the effects of their terror.

Folks, there are three things that we must do to beat terrorism:

1. Good old fashioned police work. Not Orwellian mass surveillance, but careful investigation.


2. The public must refuse to be terrorised. Unless you live in Iraq, you are probably much more likely to be struck by lightning than die in or even be caught up in a terrorist attack. Think about how many people live in the world. 6.5 billion as of this writing, according to the US Census Bureau. Now how many people die each year in terrorist attacks? I dunno, but I am willing to bet it is less than a million. If my off-the-cuff numbers are even accurate within an order of magnitude, that would mean that worldwide, anyone's chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are 0.01%. Pretty unlikely, I would say. So treat terrorism like you treat the threat of being crushed by a falling anvil: not likely to occur, unless your name is Wile E. Coyote.


3. Countries like the United States and the United Kingdom need to undertake a deep re-examination of their foreign policy, asking important questions like: "Are our goals worth the cost of radicalising disenfranchised members of one of the world's major religions?", "Would alternative fuel research that has the potential to make oil less politically important be a good thing?", and "Can democracy be spread through the barrel of a gun?"

Oh yeah, and a forth item: we must, as voters, punish politicians who use terrorism as a political tool. Again from Schneier (albeit from a different post on his blog):

What pisses me off most is [that there was no imminent threat]. By arresting the conspirators early, the police squandered the chance to learn more about the network and arrest more of them -- and to present a less flimsy case. There have been many news reports detailing how the U.S. pressured the UK government to make the arrests sooner, possibly out of political motivations. (And then Scotland Yard got annoyed at the U.S. leaking plot details to the press, hampering their case.)

You can't fix stupid...

or, apparently, crazy. This woman chose our President in 2000 (with the help of 5 "strict constructionists")? We shoulda known...

Police Chief on Vacation During Crime Emergency

Fox 5 TV interviewed me on the street yesterday, as I was walking home from work. You have to watch most of the news clip because my pearls of wisdom don't get aired until the end.

How much of my 15 minutes is gone now?

Better Know a District

(The final 't' on "district" is silent.)

Dunno how many of my fellow Schmoliticians watch "The Colbert Report", so I may be preaching to the choir here (or at least reading the church bulletin's announcements section to the choir). Colbert's "Better Know a District" segment is usually pretty funny, but I think Thursday's highlight of California's 6th District, represented by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey was one of the best on record. Not only was Stephen hilarious, but Woolsey gave a good account of herself, handling his over-the-top assholery with style, humour, and a quick wit. You can watch the video by hitting this page and locating it (the official Comedy Central page, fully legal), or jumping straight to YouTube--not kosher, but I can link directly to it.

Whilst you are in the district-knowing mood, also check out Stephen's interview with DC's own "non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives", Eleanor Holmes Norton. Again, hit the official Comedy Central page or click this YouTube link. Mrs. Norton frankly comes across as not a very nice person at all. True, Colbert is trolling like a pro, but she falls for it hard.

As a US citizen in exile, "The Colbert Report" and "The Daily Show" are like a lifeline to the America that I miss.

Daily WTF?! Taliban Democrats

I don't quite understand the metaphor... WTF is a Taliban Democrat? Aren't the Taliban actually right-wing religious fundamentalists?

Faulty metaphors aside, I really don't like to see this kind of bullshit. Neither do I like to see people compare Bush to Hitler, in case you were wondering. I really don't see how this rhetorical blowhardism accomplishes anything except making the left and the right hate each other more than they already do.

So WTF?

Doping in Sports

WARNING: Non-Politics Related Topic

Although I don't think many of you follow professional cycling, I'm sure by now you've heard of the controversy surrounding Tour de France winner Floyd Landis and his failed drug test. (For the record, his test showed a high ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone--Floyd's was 11:1, the highest allowed ratio is 4:1--as well as traces of synthetic testosterone.) This comes on the heals of news that US sprinter, Olympic gold medalist, and world record holder (100m) Justin Gatlin has also tested positive for a banned substance. Throw into the mix the whole BALCO scandal and rumors that players in the NFL, NHL, and MLB are habitual juicers and you start to wonder if there are any clean athletes out there. Which begs the question: does it really matter either way? What's the difference between an athlete using a performance-enhancing drug and using technologically advanced equipment to better their performance? Both give the athletes an advantage over their competition (whether it's fair or unfair is up for debate.) Why not make drugs legal and level the playing field? You can regulate how much of an advantage you can take--for example, in cycling you can use high-tech materials to make your bike lighter up to a certain point. Of course, you have to be concerned for the health of the athlete. But, those of you who would argue against mandatory seat belt law would most likely agree that it's up to the individual to decide if they want to potentially ruin their bodies in the name of increased performance on the sports field. There are also issues of fairness, purity of the game, etc. But, one could argue that people cheat because they know it gives them an unfair/unequaled advantage over their opponents. So, if everyone had equal access to performance-enhancing drugs, maybe fewer people would actually use them since their advantage would be considerably lessened and perhaps the health risks would begin to outweigh the benefits. Personally, I'm disgusted by 'dopers.' Not that I'm a world-class athlete, but I've put in the hard work, sweat, tears, and blood to complete a few running and cycling races, and I can't help but feel that these cheaters somehow diminish the accomplishments of casual athletes like you and me. Not to mention the feeling of betrayal you get when you find out your favorite athlete is a cheater. Of course, I've never been placed in a situation where I would have to make this choice, so it's easy for me to pass judgement... what say you?

Invitation for Democrat Opinion

I'm interested in knowing how our Democrat Schmoliticians feel about the Lieberman-Lamont Senate race, especially in light of yesterday's primary results.

Special consideration will be given to D's who've actually lived in Connecticut.

In an odd turn of events, a quick visit to Joe Lieberman's website revealed that his campaign site has been hacked.

Ned Lamont's site is OK.

Any predictions on if Lieberman can pull off a victory in November running in opposition to the DNC machine? Would D's want him to? John McCain might....

It's a cornucopia of data breaches

Data breaches are absolutely rampant these days. I mean, it's obvious to me because it's what I do professionally (fix breaches, not cause them...) but it's literally all over the news, all the time. To wit, in Virginia, in one single afternoon:

• A City of Hampton database with more than 100,000 tax records about boat, car and real estate taxpayers was freely accessible on the Internet for weeks more
• Virginia's Bureau of Insurance is advising all insurance agents in the state that their social security number may have been accessible on the bureau's website for a six-week period of time. more

I have to believe we're at the top of an arc here, and that breaches will decrease over time. But, to be honest, listings like this make we wonder if we're seeing the tip of an iceberg. Security is getting worse, or at the very least, the public is just now being notified of how often sensitive data is lost, stolen, and otherwise compromised.