Slashdot Mirror
Russian Agency Charges FBI Agent With Hacking
eNonymous Coward writes "An FBI agent who helped lure two Russian 'hackers' to the USA in 2000 so that they could be arrested is now being charged with hacking himself by the Russian FSB. You might remember that Gorshkov and Ivanov exploited an NT vulnerability to steal information from corporate networks, which was then used to extort money from the companies; they're also accused of being behind the CDUniverse and Western Union credit card database thefts. Last year a federal judge ruled that the FBI's action was legal, but the FSB disagrees."
Turnabout's fair play, eh?
"Einstein argued that [...] God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer." ~ Brooks
I say extradite this fed to Russia, and hand him over to Dmitry Sklyarov. I'll leave the rest for you to imagine.
Will we be exchanging programmers in the future?
I'm not an expert on Internation law, but I can't understand how a federal judge can have the sort of authority to declare the action legal when it doesn't appear to be a federal matter. By the same token, a russian judge could just as easily say the two hackers were not breaking the law, though I can't see that holding any bearing on the actions of the US/FBI. If that pans out unfavourably for the russian pov, then it's likely that future 'conflicts of interest' like this will be more difficult.
A crime, is a crime, is a crime, and should be solved officially. Stealing data is just a normal crime, also if it is done by FBI.
The judge noted that investigators obtained a search warrant before viewing the vast store of data -- nearly 250 gigabytes , according to court records. Wouldn't that take a 5H!T L04D 0F T1M3?
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
I believe the Russians have a very strong case here - the FBI invited them over to the USA and then asked them to hack a system, then bang them up for hacking. This is hardly fair - and the Russians are absolutely right: if the FBI were using keystroke-tracking software, they're the ones who were committing the offence.
It surprises me, though, that you have two very good hackers, and neither of them thought to err on the side of caution and check the computers they were working on for such things...
Like car accidents, most hardware problems are due to driver error.
Slow. The FSB is the domestic arm of the former KGB. Some of them have problems remembering that the KGB is now dead. I attended a seminar given by the FSB and introduced by a general for high-tech companies in Russia. I was impressed, if that is the state of internal presentations, I don't know how anyone got through training.
Hot the same answer I think it do not like that I don't allow cookies or it's because I use Mozilla.
Just saying it like it are.
Same here...wtf?
;)
Can ANYONE view this article and if so can they post the contents? I even went through the main msnbc page and eventually just got a blank page.
Guess they don't like Mozilla.
It surprises me, though, that you have two very good hackers, and neither of them thought to err on the side of caution and check the computers they were working on for such things...
Yeah I bet RMS could get them jobs at the FSF... no $pay$ albeit free doughnuts.
Aw, fuck it. Let's go bowling. - The Big Lebowski
"Finally, Coughenour rejected defense arguments that the FBI's actions "were unreasonable and illegal because they failed to comply with Russian law," saying that Russian law does not apply to the agents' actions."
This is what it all really comes to. Does US have the right to make it's agents untouchable to other countries laws? What if this had happened the other way around? (US criminals, Russia agents arrest them and hack to their computers.)
What I notice is the US Govt's case is based on: 1> the fourth amendment doesn't apply cuz it didn't happen here, and 2> Russian law doesn't apply cuz it didn't happen there.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
This was an interesting case. The description of how the agents lured the russian "hackers" to the US was beyond belief.
Michael was back at the office downloading data from their computers like mad while they took them to lunch.
The russians were very chatty, too chatty for their own good. IIRC they had something like 350 pages (an entire binder) of transcribed conversations with them. As is usual, the "hackers" were tooting their own horns.
I was called as a witness in the case to testify to data they had recovered and statements the russians had made. The russians had lied about the level of access they had. However, these people were very persistent, they spent a month or so just learning and tinkering trying to get a relatively small amount of data.
It's clear what their motives where though. They were stealing credit cards, setting up Ebay auctions and using proxy PayPal accounts to pay themselves for Ebay auctions they had setup themselves.
I got to learn how serious Paypal takes "hackers" and abuse. Both paypal and ebay (now the same) have dedicated professionals to tracking down "hackers" and fraud.
I once unplugged my computer from internet, and removed all hard drives to be placed in safelocker, just so that my computer couldn't be hacked or my internet actions traced. Couldn't visit any webpages after that :( I quess this is some conspiracy with hardware manufacturers and advertisers to harrass me.
I do not think they want to arrest him - USA would not take it easy. The while thing would escalate to an high level international incident which they do not want.
But by publicising this they can give USA a hand slap and still get out ahead even if they actually has no chance of being able to apprehend the criminals.
This is part of a larger problem - criminals using computoers to comit crimes in another country - who shall determine the jurisdiction ?
And who shall determine what is the right way to try and catch those criminals ? Cliff Stolls book showned how hard it is to catch an international spy.
There is a need for an international treaty about jurisdiction and acceptable actionas by law enforcements.
Just saying it like it are.
You know what might be interesting? Both the Russian and American laws may be right.
Think about it: the "sting" was under US jurisdiction as far as the physical location of the agents and the operation, so peeking at the records might be allowed. However, the hoovered computer was in Russia, so Russian laws apply to those efforts as well.
The what might help is to visualise what the non-computer version would be. Say the data in the US is a perfect fax of the Russian originals: did the agents "break and enter" into a data warehouse with forged keys, or did they trick the warehouse into voluntarily sending the copies? If the method in which these copies were obtained is illegal in Russia, are they still admissible in the US as evidence?
It's way too complicated, and I have no idea how I should feel about it.
Playing an amateur psycologist here but.
Perhaps the people in Russia don't have the same image of the US govt the US citizens do. I am sure the russians have a healthy distrust of the russian govt but their image of the US may be skewed by watching too many episodes of I love genie or dallas. It's kind of ironic that the average american geek distrusts the US govt more then the average russian geek.
War is necrophilia.
Did you notice that the US courts accept the fact that data is just as much property as your car is (for the MPAA's sake), and the fact that it is clearly not (if it has been gathered as evidence)?
Did you also notice the fact Russian law does not apply the federal agents hacking Russian computers, but clearly US law applies to Russians hacking American computers?
This is disgusting...
-- Please put this in your sig if you think
What I notice is the US Govt's case is based on: 1> the fourth amendment doesn't apply cuz it didn't happen here, and 2> Russian law doesn't apply cuz it didn't happen there.
The FBI is using the courts' confusion over the internet to muddy the waters about where the crime took place and who should have jurisdiction. This twists the situation around so that Dmitriy is a US criminal for doing something in his own country that's entirely legal in his own country, and the FBI can do anything illegal in the US and not have to answer to US law.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
The alternative (the one the Russian FSB [Federal Security Bureau], formerly known as KGB [Committee for State Security]) and certain French censorship judges want is that you are somehow subject to all laws combined - which is a horrible mess. Is this post subject to UK law? (I'm in the UK ATM) Or US? (US server) Or Canadian (accessable from Canada) - in which case it should probably be translated into French as well?
This seems simple to me: when in country X, you are subject to the laws of country X. Everybody else should STFU: I will not accept French, Russian or for that matter Taleban laws as applicable in any way except on their own soil. Hell, if the former KGB considers the FBI's investigation illegal, imagine how illegal the CIA spying on the USSR is - or those spy satellites Boeing and Lockheed make?
What is interesting, is that those hacker had "no expectation of privacy" according to US judge. Does it implies that in US you have no expectation of privacy when using computer at work, public library or internet kiosk?
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
It's up to Russian courts to enforce Russian law. It's up to US Courts to enforce US Law.
It's better this way, really. Would you want Russian courts enforcing the US DMCA against Skylarov?
It was all legal. The FBI had reasons to believe that these Russian corporations were running Kazaa and sharing both The Decleration of Independence and the US Constitution. Also MP3s of the Star Spangled Banner.
The difference is that normally if FBI wants to do any operation in other country, it had to cooperate with that country officials. If they just come to another country, and do a search without obtaining search permit from that country's officials, that would be a crime.
As you rightfully mentioned, just becuase it involves computers and not drug traffiking/dealing does not make it much different - FBI performing illigal search in other country [Russia] and hacking computers in Russia without obtaining permit from Russian court was commiting a crime. Pretty straightforwrd, is not it?
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
Guess you ahve to be 0wned by MS in order to view the article.
How come that the FBI can have a US search warrant to look at russian data.
And then the judge tells us russian law does not apply? And the American Constitution does not apply?
What's going on. If I live in a foreign (non US) country, I wont have any rights. Not the rights of my country and not the rights of the US.
Do I still have my basic human rights?
Disclaimer: This opinion was created without the use of any facts
http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSTechNews0105/10_hackers2- ap.html
High-tech net snags hackers
By ALLISON LINN-- The Associated Press
SEATTLE (AP) -- Invita Security Corp. looked like a typical Internet company: It had offices, computers, employees and a secure computer system. The only thing missing was the customers.
Far from being a failed start-up, the aptly named Invita turned out to be a bogus company set up by the FBI to ensnare two young Russians accused of breaking into U.S. Internet companies' computers, stealing sensitive data and trying to extort money.
Authorities say Alexey Ivanov, 21, and Vasily Gorshkov, 25, both of Chelyabinsk, fell for the bait. They were arrested and jailed on charges including conspiracy and fraud and are set for trial May 29 in federal court in Seattle.
The FBI declined to comment. But in recently unsealed court documents that read like a spy novel, agents tell how they snagged the alleged thieves by creating the shell company and inviting Ivanov and Gorshkov to try to hack into it.
After Ivanov and Gorshkov succeeded from afar, FBI agents posing as Invita employees invited the two to Seattle to discuss a partnership and further display their hacking prowess.
As the Russians demonstrated their skills at the shell company, the FBI used a computer eavesdropping technique to reach across the Internet and break into the suspects' own computer system in Russia.
Internet security experts say the case illustrates well how the FBI's cybercrime-fighting abilities have evolved -- though the defense is questioning the legality of the agency's methods.
"What they did was phenomenal. It was exceptionally effective," says Kevin Mandia, who worked for the Air Force office of special investigations and taught FBI courses in hacker attacks before joining the Irvine, Calif., Internet security company Foundstone. "Five years ago they wouldn't be able to do that kind of thing."
Mandia says that the FBI, after being ridiculed as ill-equipped to fight computer crime, has made remarkable progress, including adding a program that has trained more than 1,000 agents in cybercrime.
The FBI believes the Russian suspects or their associates could have been involved in hundreds of crimes against U.S. companies, including Kirkland-based Lightrealm.com, an Internet access company, and Palo Alto, Calif.-based PayPal, an online payment business.
First, the FBI alleges, the hackers broke into computer systems. Then, authorities say, they sent e-mails to company officials demanding payment in exchange for not distributing or destroying sensitive documents including financial records.
After tracking down the suspects over the Internet, the FBI invited them to Seattle in November for the Invita gambit.
Court records show that while Gorshkov was using an Invita computer, the FBI secretly used a "sniffer" program that logs every keystroke a person types.
Using passwords recorded by the "sniffer," the FBI was then able to enter the computers in Russia where Gorshkov kept his data and download immense amounts of information.
In court documents, Gorshkov's lawyer, Kenneth E. Kanev, has challenged the FBI's right to use that material, claiming his client's privacy was invaded because he did not consent to have his computer usage recorded. Kanev contends the FBI should have obtained a search warrant before downloading the information.
The investigators say they were forced to follow this procedure because they needed to secure the incriminating information before the two suspects' Russian counterparts destroyed the data.
The Invita case could define how far U.S. law enforcement can go to catch non-citizens who break into American systems.
"This case is going to resolve a very thorny legal question," says Marc J. Zwillinger, a former Justice Department computer expert now in private practice in Washington.
The case could test the admissibility of evidence obtained through the covert recording of computer keystrokes, a technique the FBI also used in a case against an alleged mobster in New Jersey, Nicodemo S. Scarfo Jr., that is expected to go to trial later this year.
Today's most serious hacker threats come from outside the United States or go through computers abroad. Russian hackers, in particular, have been behind several of the biggest Internet theft cases.
US is now divided as the "Red" and "blue" states. Red States = communist countries. Coincidence? I think not
Does it implies that in US you have no expectation of privacy when using computer at work, public library or internet kiosk?
;) They can call on the fourth amendment all they like, but frankly they were using a computer that belonged to someone else when they gave thoose passwords, and that is their downfall (in US courts at least).
In the U.S in general you have very little privacy in the workplace (which would seem to be the closest fit here). They are basically free to monitor your every keystroke really.
Taken from this overview...
Is my employer allowed to see what is on my terminal while I am working?
Generally, yes. Since the employer owns the computer network and the terminals, he or she is free to use them to monitor employees.
Employees are given some protection from computer and other forms of electronic monitoring under certain circumstances. Union contracts, for example, may limit the employer's right to monitor. Also, public sector employees may have some minimal rights under the United States Constitution, in particular the Fourth Amendment which safeguards against unreasonable search and seizure
I doubt the union part applies, ermm UFRH (united federation of russian hackers) is notorious for their poor contracts
Would be interesting to see how it would play out for the FBI agents in a foreign court, but ya can bet there is no chance they will ever see one. FBI would never allow em out of the country unless they knew the whole mess that was possible from it was over with, because of the publicity that would come of it
Easier said than done. You're also assuming keyloggers are software. Not many people pop their keyboards open before use to check for the presence of a surreptitiously-installed microcontroller and a serial EEPROM. [I can put a device no bigger than a nickel into a keyboard that watches for "su" and records the next 20 chars (or up to the next cr) and can do that hundreds of times with memory to spare for less than $20 - and I'm a rank amateur. You can bet the FBI's versions of hardware keyloggers are a lot spiffier - and probably smaller - than that.]
If they think you could be one o' them terrorist hackers, they won't even need a warrant to stick one in your machine when you're not looking.
Excuse me? Is there *any* legal basis for that? You only need apply for a search warrant after you've confiscated all the material you need if you think the bad guys might try to cover their tracks?
Incidentally, if the FBI agents knew all along that they wanted to access this data, why didn't they apply for the search warrant before starting the whole sting operation?
Let's hope that other nations will help reign in the US law enforcement and legal system, for the benefit of everybody in the world.
Oh, it sounds good to set up these little questions, but actually every single one is answered by well-defined law. Of course, in each case, it's only the former ("OK") category when the action complies with the existing law within the jurisdiction of the agent committing the act. Usually, in international affairs, there is no defining jurisdiction -- and therefore, the action is not "OK".
That's why the Bush administration's go-our-own-way, knee-jerk unilateralism is a Bad Thing. The United States has spent 50 years helping craft an international environment that handled many of the cases offered above -- and, overwhelmingly, handled them in a way favorable to both the narrow interests of the United States and, amazingly, to the cause of human dignity and freedom.
Now that we're the world's sole military superpower, and darn near the world's sole economic superpower, Bush & Co. think we can ride roughshod over the international agreements that form that framework. (And we're not talking Kyoto or ICC -- they've played pretty fast-and-loose with the Geneva Convention, too.) With no defining jurisdiction agreed between sovereign nations, each feels justified to do whatever it wants. Ironically, with no defining jurisdiction agreed between sovereign nations, none actually are justified.
When you undermine the idea of international law, you make everyone into vigilantes. As a die-hard American patriot, it pains me to see my country turning into a "rogue state".
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
looking at:
He also found that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to the computers, "because they are the property of a non-resident and located outside the United States," or to the data -- at least until it was transmitted to the United States.
and
Finally, Coughenour rejected defense arguments that the FBI's actions "were unreasonable and illegal because they failed to comply with Russian law," saying that Russian law does not apply to the agents' actions.
That sounds scarily close to saying "US Law doesn't apply to our actions" and "Russian Law doesn't apply to our actions" so we'll do whatever we damned like...
a grrl & her server
There are sometimes things on CSPAN which could be "put" on Gnutella (et. al.) like the Traficant speeches and etc...
I wish there was some sort of effort out there to actually "pirate" things which are in the public domain.
PBS could start sending out Divx files; considering we already paid for the programming, let us host it.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Go look up the fourth amendment. It doesn't say 'residents'. In fact, neither 'resident' nor 'citizen' occurs in the bill of rights - referred to instead are 'people'. This entire notion that the bill of rights doesn't apply to foreigners is sheer fabrication - but one we've seen a lot of recently and one I sadly predict we'll be seeing a lot more of before things get better...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
It'll be interesting to see if this gets used politically to increase US resistance to the International Criminal Court. It's not as if the administration really needs to make their position more popular in the states, but haveing a this come up at this time.... Well, the Bush administration probably sent Putin a nice muffin basket and with a lovely card.
And on lighter news did anyone else see this? 116 trillion dollars? Appearently, Scott Evil will be taking the LSAT! I mean, I feel for those people, and maybe agree with some of their reasoning in assigning blame, but combining comic book supervillain plots with actual lawsuits seems less than productive.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
The judge ruled the data legal in court in May of 2001... well before the Patriot Act
We'll stop subverting your computers, as soon as you stop poisoning and flouridating our natural bodily fluids!
I'm sorry, it must be all that pure grain alcohol and rain water getting to me.
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
As opposed to, say, holding numerous foreign citizens from diverse states hostage in a military installation, denying them any legal rights or access to representation, and refusing to acknowledge them as either prisoners of war or criminal suspects who should be legally tried?
Y'know, I only mention it because, well, that lot sounds entirely like the sort of behaviour that would get those responsible up before the ICC in short order, to be tried on whether or not their actions were reasonable. And it's not as though the entire rest of the world, from Arab states to the US' closest allies, is criticising the policy or anything.
What you want is one law for you, and one law for everyone else. That is hypocritical, pure and simple. Every argument that could be made to defend that position would apply equally to all the other states involved, yet they are agreed, at least on the major points, that the ICC is a good thing and they are prepared to stand before it if necessary. The US wants exemption so it can continue to perform with impunity acts that would otherwise be regarded as illegal by the international community (kidnapping, assassination, military acts without due declaration of war, etc). Hell, the US now votes with certain "terrorist-harbouring" nations in opposing anti-terrorism legislation supported universally by the rest of the western world.
You want one law for yourselves and one for everyone else, and you want your own courts to oversee it all. The rest of the world things that's unreasonable, for some reason. It really is that simple.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
pot... kettle... black...
... does this mean that if i put up a public computer somwhere. i could legaly sniff passwords and data because people using it could not expect privacy using my public computer?
ie. have we no expectation of privacy when using a computer on a network/ sending information over a computer network? knowing that a sysadmin could sniff the information? weak argument at best.
something is rotten in the state of denma.. no.. usa
Why would you have an expectation of privacy in non-private locations? You might have an expectation of privacy from home but even then, find a way to anonimize and encrypt your traffic. You should have very little expectations of privacy over "public" albeit corporate-controlled networks.
sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
So if You've got no expectation of privacy when using the internet, then those people who used their credit cards can have no expectation of privacy either, so the russians can't have been doing anything illegal by taking the public(according to the judge)credit card details.
Does it implies that in US you have no expectation of privacy when using computer at work, public library or internet kiosk?
Didn't you read the EULA taped to the monitor before you logged in?
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
FAPSI are the former communications and cryptography directorates of the KGB. They have a similar scale of imagination. However to use cryptography, you need a) a licence and b) to use FAPSI approved and provided software which essentially a symetrical only system. The software itself was quite cheap, but you had to send all your staff to a FAPSI licensed organisation to receive training (yes, KGB old-boys).
As the organisation that I was working with was related to the central bank, they could use other software (PGP) for authenticating information.
In general, I would say that both FAPSI and the FSB are over-legalistic, unimaginative and avaricious. They will create false dangers to promote their agendas and ignore real ones.
Not at all like the FBI and the NSA......
Only if they used the credit card on someone elses (their companies) computer while that person was paying them to do something else (a job). Yeah in that case I think you might have a point. At home you do have complete privacy, these guys were fools for hacking from someone elses computer. If they got a connection and used ssh from their own pc/laptop they wouldn't be in trouble right now.
I used to argue the other side of this but not anymore. If someone is paying you to work you shouldn't be logging into your criminal empire from their machine. I guess you lose your privacy for being such a moron.
The point here isn't that the FBI logged the passwords it is that they used them to hack their computers and steal evidence. This is the same blackmail these guys were using against companies. The FBI became a criminal to catch one which I think is very wrong.
"The only reason we haven't had to ditch the Constitution is that the language is sufficiently ambiguous that a court in any particular era can interpret it to mean whatever happens to be acceptable and practical to the country at that time."
You know there is a mechanism to extend and change the consitution.
As unpopular as this idea might be with some people, there are some areas that would benefit from a goverment with worldwide, legitimate jurisdiction.
science is a religion
The whole point behind the Carnivore system is that the data is captured but not examined until you have a search warrant.
Schroeder's cat: If I have a copy of data I can't access, at what point is the data actually "seized"? When it is a copy of bits, or when it is examined and found to be data?
Never confuse volume with power.
This isn't entrapment because they are being charged with hacking *other* systems (at least that's what the article implied). They aren't being charged for the demonstration they did for the FBI. The FBI just used the demonstration to gather information they needed to prosecute them for the other offense. As to whether the FBI violated other laws (US or Russian) I'm in over my head but I suspect that they didn't violate US law. I believe there are circumstances where you don't need a search warant (reasonably suspicion? Any lawyers around to comment?) to conduct a search. If that's true, that probably would apply here - the people were wanted for hacking, it is reasonable to assume that they had evidence of this on their personal computers.
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
Wrong number of arguments or invalid property assignment: 'instr'
No article.. ;(
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
and I did not speak out -- because I was not a cracker.
Then they came for the white hats
and I did not speak out -- because I was not a white hat.
Then they came for the file swappers
and I did not speak out -- because I was not a file swapper.
Then they came for me -- and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.
With apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller
I agree, when someone doesn't lock their front door, you still don't have the right to just come in and steal the furniture. I don't see why the FBI would have the right to enter their computer systems without consent. That cannot be legal even in the US (without a warrant), can it?
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
The rulings make legal sense to me. However, it does raise computer security issues for any sort of remote access.
:)
Teaches me to be even more paranoid (not that I have anything to hide, but if the FBI can do it, the same technique could be used for fraud, etc.) Imagine if someone in a corporation were to do something like this to steal employee's credit card numbers.
The solution it this is to set up a way whereby you use a passphraseless public key for ssh authentication and then delete it from the allowed keys list when you are ready to logout. That way, no password
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
And the US has also passed a number of privacy-invading laws recently. So what good did the constitution do there?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Of course, in those days immigration wasn't so regulated and limited. Now we have quotas of legal immigrants, which originated after the Great War. Its interesting that you attribute the liberation of the colonies to a Nationalistic view, given that at the time they were not a nation. I suspect the bigger cause was fear of being brought to trial afterwards for some reason. After the Declaration there was no going back. While the English people may have seen the Revolutionary war similar to how we saw the Vietnam war, those in charge of the British Empire were not happy.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
People explicity refers to the US citizenry which was in existance - 1792 as opposed to 1777, we had won our independance and had been functioning as a confederation.
It could just as easily refer to residents of the US.
like the current E.U., which was not working.
If it was "like the EU" they certainly wouldn't be US citizens, they'd be citizens of the original 13 states.
In short, despite the fact that these folks are illegal combatants who could be summarily executed according to the Geneva Convention,
These people's only "crime" is that they lost an uneven war. Hopefully Iraq will remember to pull the same stunt with any US prisoners.
What's more troubling to me is that the selectively apply The Consitution to these people.
All U.S. laws stem from The Constitution, hence charging someone under U.S. law means they are charged under that document. To then turn around and state that those people can't use the same body of laws they are charged under to defend themselves is utterly and completely rediculous.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Right. So are you at war, or aren't you? Your president and government are claiming all sorts of powers that they're only allowed to use at war time, yet there has been no declaration of war, with all the disadvantages that would have.
If you're not at war, you have committed an act of war against the nation of every prisoner you're holding by keeping them against their will and without due process. Your government is also committing various minor transgressions such as totally disregarding various parts of your Constitution "in the interests of national security", blah blah.
OTOH, maybe you really are at war. In that case, against whom are you fighting? Under what circumstances will the war be over, and will the powers be relinquished? When will you acknowledge the basic rights due to various parties involved -- not just those in custody at Gitmo -- and behave in an acceptable manner for a nation state at war? When will you declare war, and thus force all the normal international agreements about war to come into force (starting with all countries stating their allegiance, or declaring neutrality and ceasing trade with either side, for example)?
Oh, please. You guys trained Osama bin Laden FFS. And right about now, you'd do well to remember that we're about the closest ally you've got (not that that's saying much these days).
Yep, I realise that. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the fact that half the Arab world is prepared to commit suicide in order to kill thousands of your people, or the fact that not one single nation has shown support for your plans about Iraq, might in some way be due to the fact that you have this isolationist, superior attitude?
Riiiight. But it's OK for you to go toppling the odd government here and there (Iraq, say) because you don't happen to like their leader, and you claim he is developing WMDs to use on you? What about their national sovereignty? Just reverse that argument for a second. While they are claimed (by some, not all) to be in that position, you are definitely a nation state with WMDs that is planning to attack Iraq. With the overt preparations you are making for that attack, Iraq would now be quite justified in throwing every single WMD they have at you in a preemptive strike, and it would be self defence.
Before you flame that, just stop and think about it, OK?
You might recall that WW2 effectively started with a declaration of war on Germany by our Prime Minister. Some of us were prepared to stand up for the rights of our neighbours. You guys needed a surprise attack on Pearl Harbour before you even lifted a finger. I'm sorry, but you guys have absolutely no right to go taking the moral high ground in any discussion on the ethics of nation states, their behaviour toward other states and their conduct during war time.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I think perhaps I'm not being clear here. I have nothing whatsoever against the average US citizen; indeed, several of the nicest people I've ever met come from the US, and I'm proud to call them friends. Nor do I have anything against legitimate military action, such as going after al Qaeda, and I certainly do not support terrorism. Nor do I have anything against ripping the testicles off anyone who supports the September 11 acts slowly and letting them bleed to death over as long and painful a period as possible. Let me be quite clear on these things, because I don't want you to think that I'm against any of them. Nor do I believe that everyone supports their government 100% on everything, though we have to recognise that the rest of the world mostly sees the actions of those governments (and in this case, the vast majority of US citizens in every poll since September 11 have supported just about everything the US government is proposing).
There is a point where actions cease to be reasonable. To me, that point comes when you start ignoring the very values you claim to be defending. The US is holding prisoners, using political rhetoric to justify their actions. You never answered my questions about whether you're really at war, and if so, with whom and until when, so it's hard to argue that holding those people without due process is unreasonable in a logical way. However, either way you answer, I think that argument can be made.
You yourselves are currently in the very same position you claim Saddam is in. You are a belligerent nation, equipped with WMDs, planning to wage war against another state who has done nothing recent to attack you. The symmetry of the situation is staggering; the only certain difference is that you claim they are getting ready to attack you, but everyone knows for a fact that you are getting ready to attack them. There is simply no ethical stance that justifies your position. Any argument that supports your action against Iraq applies even more so to them attacking you first.
And by the way, I don't know what you're seeing on the news in the US, but over here, we are seeing UN weapons inspectors and senior military staff coming out against attacking Iraq with the information currently available. If they are a genuine threat, you certainly have a right to defend themselves, but as of right now, I have seen absolutely no evidence beyond the say-so of Bush and his cronies that there is a problem. Not a single thing has been produced that objectively supports their position. The more cynical amongst us might start to think that, y'know, he was just using the "war on terrorism" to cover up trying to finish daddy's job, in a politically motivated effort to distract US citizens from the state of affairs at home, particularly your economy. But that would be cynical, I'm sure.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
At best the accused's status as law enforcement will count for nothing, at worst it will encourage them to prosecute more strongly, so as to send the message that law enforcement is expected to obey the law.
I say at best they will be encouraged to prosecute more strongly.
It's kind of odd huh? Russia at one time held it's "authorities" above everyone and the law. What they said was law - and we are taught about how many Stalin killed for those who opposed his rule and laws. Now they are ones who (seem to) realize that if the people in charge aren't kept in check the people will suffer more than if crime ran rampant.
Get your Unix fortune now!