Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, April 02, 2015
Cyber Sanctions?
Obama in Louisville, KY on April 2, 2015 at Indatus, a company that provides cloud based communication applications, hardware and infrastructure.
On Wednesday, President Obama signed a new executive order that "authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to impose sanctions on those individuals and entities that he determines to be responsible for or complicit in malicious cyber-enabled activities that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, economic health, or financial stability of the United States."
In other words, if you hack the US government and cause a threat to the security (financial or physical), the government can now freeze your bank account or impose a visa ban. These are similar impositions, the White House claims, to counter-terrorism orders.
The way that Obama authorized this Executive Order is the same way that past presidents have done for the 1933 banking crisis or the Korean War or even a 1971 response to inflation.
But further, this order "blocks property of those found to be responsible" for the attacks or it could freeze the assets of of any company that is in the US that has used stolen US intellectual property for a commercial advantage. As some journalists have pointed out, if taken to its logical conclusions, the law could lead to a visa ban on some foreign executives or even the seizure of data centers.
They hope to deter potential attackers by giving them something to consider when deciding to illegally hack the US. In addition, they “don’t want to just deter those with their fingers on the keyboard but those who are funding and enabling those groups to carry out their activity,” said Michael Daniel, special adviser to the president on cybersecurity.
However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Errata Security both expressed concern over the administrations ability to arbitrarily seize their assets or indite researchers or security consultants who hack to determine vulnerabilities.
What will be interesting in the coming years is how exactly this will be applied. Journalist, security advisers, and academics have been hard pressed to come up with examples. The Sony attack would not count. The denial of service attacks against banks might have counted. So what WILL count?
That remains to be seen.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Continued Drones Over Yemen?
With the U.S., U.K. and France pulling out of Yemen, what is the U.S.'s continued authorization for drone strikes in Yemen? If Yemen has no government, how does the U.S. have authorization from the government for drone strikes?
It is generally accepted that the drone strikes in Yemen are part of the CIA operated drone strikes rather than the military led ones (both are controversial). On March 25, 2010, Harold Koh, State Department Legal Advisor, stated that "it is the considered view of this Administration . . . that U.S. targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war." (1) This is based upon the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). That AUMF is not the one that Obama has recently asked to be repealed.
As of Friday Feb 6, 2015, the site The Long War Journal showed the following graph charting drone strikes in Yemen, charting 110 strikes since 2002.
The U.S. claims that they have the support of the Yemni government to help achieve their goal of eliminating Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in Yemen. However, with the recent change in power/coup, who has given them that authorization?
On Jan 22, the Houthis seized control of the presidential palace and placed the President under house arrest. The President and his Cabinet soon tendered their resignations. While the negotiation is on going, both sides have walked out on different parts. The government that resigned is stating that the Houthis are threatening them with force if they do not agree to their specific plan to re-form the government. The U.S. is continuing to use drone strikes in this power vacuum.
For more interactive information, I suggest you head over to International Security to take a look at when and where strikes occurs as well as who was targeted or killed.
Sources not linked above are listed here: (1) Milena Sterio, "The United States' Use of Drones in the War on Terror: The (Il)legality of Targeted Killings Under International Law," Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol 45, 2012, p 199
It is generally accepted that the drone strikes in Yemen are part of the CIA operated drone strikes rather than the military led ones (both are controversial). On March 25, 2010, Harold Koh, State Department Legal Advisor, stated that "it is the considered view of this Administration . . . that U.S. targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war." (1) This is based upon the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). That AUMF is not the one that Obama has recently asked to be repealed.
As of Friday Feb 6, 2015, the site The Long War Journal showed the following graph charting drone strikes in Yemen, charting 110 strikes since 2002.
The U.S. claims that they have the support of the Yemni government to help achieve their goal of eliminating Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in Yemen. However, with the recent change in power/coup, who has given them that authorization?
On Jan 22, the Houthis seized control of the presidential palace and placed the President under house arrest. The President and his Cabinet soon tendered their resignations. While the negotiation is on going, both sides have walked out on different parts. The government that resigned is stating that the Houthis are threatening them with force if they do not agree to their specific plan to re-form the government. The U.S. is continuing to use drone strikes in this power vacuum.
How is this applicable to the U.S.?
Well, as the U.S.'s current legal justification rests upon the consent of the now defunct government, is it business as usual until they are notified otherwise? How will they notify the U.S. if they no longer want the strikes to continue, if there are no U.S. personnel in the country?
CNN is reporting that the Houthis took all U.S. Embassy vehicles parked at the airport and wouldn't let departing marines take their weapons. However, in the next non sensational paragraph, they state "a senior U.S. military official told CNN the Marines disabled their weapons and gave them to a Yemeni security detail, which had escorted them to the airport, because the Marines were flying commercial."
Further in the CNN article, they state that U.S. officials had not yet engaged in talks with the Houthis as of last month. It is often difficult for the U.S. to "engage in talks" with opposition parties. The government often has problems with the U.S. talking with the "enemy" since the U.S. has a history of "regime change" in many of these countries.
As I wrote this article, The Washington Post published an article about the closure of the U.S. Embassy effecting the CIA operatives in the country (who often are stationed at U.S. Embassies and under diplomatic cover). Further, "a former senior U.S. official said that the embassy had served as the primary base in Yemen for U.S. intelligence operations."
So not only is the lack of clear legal authority an issue, this closure will now effect the targeting of militants.
Future of Cooperation?
While one member of the Houhis' political bureau has called U.S. drone strikes as a violation of Yemeni sovereignty, the Houthis do NOT like AQAP. In fact, they might hate AQAP than they dislike the U.S. This could work in the U.S.'s favor as eliminating a possible political threat to their new "all inclusive government" would coincide with the U.S.'s goal of eliminating AQAP.
However, until a new government is formed, and an official statement released or communicated to the proper U.S. authorities, these questions will remained unanswered.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Unicorns, Fairies and a World Without Nuclear Weapons
OK, I’ll say it. This whole “world without nuclear weapons” thing is ludicrous.
To be fair, Obama is not the first American president to call for this, nor will he be the last. But the idea is a bad one.
First of all, I’ll reveal my cynicism by saying it’s not possible. It’s like uninventing electricity. Or maybe there’s a better analogy. Has anyone heard of that gossip parable, with the woman and the bag of feathers? Well, now imagine that the feathers can reproduce asexually and take on the form of non-feathery things. That’s how difficult it would be to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world.
Here’s why. The scientific know-how exists, and it can’t unexist. Building on this fact, I’ll approach this thing logically.
What do nuclear weapons provide? Well, they’re cheaper than building and maintaining a massive conventional army able to compete with the United States. They’re also extremely effective deterrents. A country can increase its standing in the world, and force greater powers to listen to it, by possessing nuclear weapons. And some countries that possess nuclear weapons or possess the capabilities of creating nuclear weapons are not moved by President Obama’s idealistic rhetoric.
The way they see it, no one would like to see a nuke-free world more than the United States. That’s because the United States has, by far, the largest and most capable conventional military force in the world. What would be an incentive for countries like, say, Russia or North Korea, to give up their nuclear weapons? Or for that matter, how about Israel, which has a very capable military but is surrounded by adversaries? Not only would it require the elimination of enmity, hate, and all those things that we’d like to get rid of in the world. It would also require the elimination of the concept of self-interest, or the self-protection of the state.
In the highly unlikely case that the United States and Russia got rid of all of their nuclear weapons, would smaller countries get rid of their nukes? No. They would see them as just as valuable as a deterrent against the huge military forces—a means of fighting asymmetrical warfare, if necessary. This also also means that terrorist groups, whose budgets are growing and who certainly don’t have qualms about looking bad in the eyes of the international community, would continue to seek nuclear weapons. Sure, that’s not going to happen anytime soon given the difficulty of creating nuclear weapons and using them effectively, but it could happen in the time it would take for the great powers to rid themselves of their entire nuclear arsenals.
Not to go all right-wing gun-nut on you, but there’s also the old 2nd amendment adage—if you outlaw all the nukes, only the outlaws will have nukes.
On a related note, Obama said that the recent satellite launch by North Korea only illustrates “the need for action … to prevent the spread of these weapons.” I like the way E. Thomas McClanahan from the Kansas City Star puts it:
Wrong: Instead, the launch showed the fecklessness of pretending that international agreements and displays of good intentions can change the behavior of countries bent on going nuclear in defiance of world opinion.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was hardly effective in constraining North Korea, which signed it and then simply violated its terms and withdrew. Both Iran and North Korea have been subjected to sanctions and years of diplomatic pressure. Little has worked.
As long as there are states, and even powerful, militant non-state actors, there will be a desire for nuclear weapons. And where there’s a will, eventually, there’s probably a way. It’s one thing to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in military strategy, to reduce the outrageous amount of nuclear weapons we now possess, and to try as hard as we can to prevent nuclear proliferation. It’s entirely another to propose that the world disarm themselves of nuclear weapons entirely. The former are concepts I can get behind. The latter is not.
To be fair, Obama is not the first American president to call for this, nor will he be the last. But the idea is a bad one.
First of all, I’ll reveal my cynicism by saying it’s not possible. It’s like uninventing electricity. Or maybe there’s a better analogy. Has anyone heard of that gossip parable, with the woman and the bag of feathers? Well, now imagine that the feathers can reproduce asexually and take on the form of non-feathery things. That’s how difficult it would be to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world.
Here’s why. The scientific know-how exists, and it can’t unexist. Building on this fact, I’ll approach this thing logically.
What do nuclear weapons provide? Well, they’re cheaper than building and maintaining a massive conventional army able to compete with the United States. They’re also extremely effective deterrents. A country can increase its standing in the world, and force greater powers to listen to it, by possessing nuclear weapons. And some countries that possess nuclear weapons or possess the capabilities of creating nuclear weapons are not moved by President Obama’s idealistic rhetoric.
The way they see it, no one would like to see a nuke-free world more than the United States. That’s because the United States has, by far, the largest and most capable conventional military force in the world. What would be an incentive for countries like, say, Russia or North Korea, to give up their nuclear weapons? Or for that matter, how about Israel, which has a very capable military but is surrounded by adversaries? Not only would it require the elimination of enmity, hate, and all those things that we’d like to get rid of in the world. It would also require the elimination of the concept of self-interest, or the self-protection of the state.
In the highly unlikely case that the United States and Russia got rid of all of their nuclear weapons, would smaller countries get rid of their nukes? No. They would see them as just as valuable as a deterrent against the huge military forces—a means of fighting asymmetrical warfare, if necessary. This also also means that terrorist groups, whose budgets are growing and who certainly don’t have qualms about looking bad in the eyes of the international community, would continue to seek nuclear weapons. Sure, that’s not going to happen anytime soon given the difficulty of creating nuclear weapons and using them effectively, but it could happen in the time it would take for the great powers to rid themselves of their entire nuclear arsenals.
Not to go all right-wing gun-nut on you, but there’s also the old 2nd amendment adage—if you outlaw all the nukes, only the outlaws will have nukes.
On a related note, Obama said that the recent satellite launch by North Korea only illustrates “the need for action … to prevent the spread of these weapons.” I like the way E. Thomas McClanahan from the Kansas City Star puts it:
Wrong: Instead, the launch showed the fecklessness of pretending that international agreements and displays of good intentions can change the behavior of countries bent on going nuclear in defiance of world opinion.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was hardly effective in constraining North Korea, which signed it and then simply violated its terms and withdrew. Both Iran and North Korea have been subjected to sanctions and years of diplomatic pressure. Little has worked.
As long as there are states, and even powerful, militant non-state actors, there will be a desire for nuclear weapons. And where there’s a will, eventually, there’s probably a way. It’s one thing to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in military strategy, to reduce the outrageous amount of nuclear weapons we now possess, and to try as hard as we can to prevent nuclear proliferation. It’s entirely another to propose that the world disarm themselves of nuclear weapons entirely. The former are concepts I can get behind. The latter is not.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The People's Mafia Strikes Again (this time against Americans)
Let's be honest: The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is better understood as a criminal racket. Its 'diplomats' are drug runners. Its intelligence officers are thugs, sent to kidnap and murder for money. Its elites allow Kim Jung-Il to continue extorting the population only because the each profit greatly from it. They live in luxury, acquiring Western goods they ban their own people from possessing. And best of all, it's all in the family: With the youngest Kim son being appointed as heir, North Korea has become a monarchy.
The most recent glaring example of the North's criminal behavior has been with its customs officials and border guards. The long border North Korea shares with China is accessible to many curious tourists. Some are Chinese, but many are Western. Never at a shortage for new ways to steal money, the border guards have made their border irresistible for naive tourists. They lure them close, and then kidnap them. They are released when ransom is paid. These allegations have come from South Korean groups that work with refugees from the North (i.e. Chun Ki Won). Other times, the North Korean border guards will shoot tourists for no reason. Well, you have to keep your street cred up or else others won't take you seriously.
Which brings us to this. Two American citizens, reporting on North Korean refugees close to the Chinese/NK border have been detained in the North. And as far as we can tell, they happen to work for Current TV, ran by former Vice President Al Gore. Oops. Joe Pesci found out the hardway in Goodfellas that keeping the tough guy image up can sometimes lead you to harm the wrong people. My guess is the border guards didn't really know the reporters were connected like that.
Even for a country that routinely goes to 11, the rhetoric emanating from the North has shown signs of desperation. With a sattelite/would-be missile launch rumored for April, Kim Jung-il's questionable health, the severing of the military hot-line between the North and South, one wonders if North Korea is desperate for leverage and want a 'read' on President Obama
South East Asia is heating up, and the Obama administration needs smart coherent policies to deal with it. All sensible options inevitably lead to China - and unforunately they're busy reading Obama as well.
The most recent glaring example of the North's criminal behavior has been with its customs officials and border guards. The long border North Korea shares with China is accessible to many curious tourists. Some are Chinese, but many are Western. Never at a shortage for new ways to steal money, the border guards have made their border irresistible for naive tourists. They lure them close, and then kidnap them. They are released when ransom is paid. These allegations have come from South Korean groups that work with refugees from the North (i.e. Chun Ki Won). Other times, the North Korean border guards will shoot tourists for no reason. Well, you have to keep your street cred up or else others won't take you seriously.
Which brings us to this. Two American citizens, reporting on North Korean refugees close to the Chinese/NK border have been detained in the North. And as far as we can tell, they happen to work for Current TV, ran by former Vice President Al Gore. Oops. Joe Pesci found out the hardway in Goodfellas that keeping the tough guy image up can sometimes lead you to harm the wrong people. My guess is the border guards didn't really know the reporters were connected like that.
Even for a country that routinely goes to 11, the rhetoric emanating from the North has shown signs of desperation. With a sattelite/would-be missile launch rumored for April, Kim Jung-il's questionable health, the severing of the military hot-line between the North and South, one wonders if North Korea is desperate for leverage and want a 'read' on President Obama
South East Asia is heating up, and the Obama administration needs smart coherent policies to deal with it. All sensible options inevitably lead to China - and unforunately they're busy reading Obama as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
