Slashdot Mirror
Bush Orders Guidelines for Cyber-Warfare
Jeremiah writes "The pending Iraqi war promises to deliver quite the display of modern, smart technology well beyond what we saw in '91. President Bush recently ordered the development of rules for cyber engagement by the military. Beyond the numerous special forces on the ground like in Afganistan, the US will use soldiers in office chairs to disrupt Iraqi infrastructure."
...you have to stop the DDOS when you get the 'destination unreachable'
Is Kevin Mitnick getting one of those chairs ?
getSexySig();
"President Bush has signed a secret directive ordering the government to develop..."
Not so secret any more, is it?
Sigs are like bumper stickers.
Are these going to apply to United States citizens?
Are these going to apply to people operating in the US?
Are the info-soldiers within the US?
Are these going to be subject to constitutional limitations?
What's this Submit thingy do?
Civilian involvement? Letters of marque and reprisal have been banned by international treaty, but those traditionally apply to physical battle. Will the script kiddies rain on Iraq?
SIG: HUP
Please, don't give iraquis mail addresses to all spammers around the world, that will hurt them badly, but will be very cruel.
Why stop at just having the military conducting these attacks? I am sure there are vast numbers of us on the Internet that would be perfectly willing to sacrifice our time and bandwidth on DDoS attacks against every box in Iraq. There are certainly plenty of us that would be more than happy to hack into Saddam's computer networks. As Americans, we should all be allowed to do our part.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
that this "Elite Hacker Force" will be shut down after Bush is done with his war.
But somehow I can't believe that. After all it's quite a useful "tool" for making a point when talking with Ambassadors from foreign countries...
See my blog for my free opinions.
They have what, a dozen computers?
Unless we have to attack Microsoft (and the day is coming, I promise you!), this order isn't really all that useful.
Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
From todays SomethingAwful.com post... I take no credit, other than shameless cut and paste!
Operation: Winnuke
Operational Plan: One of the most vulnerable areas of Iraq is its weak technological infrastructure. Still largely in a state of disorder from the constant US and British bombing campaign against Iraqi communications centers, the Iraqi computer network is vulnerable to attack. One US plan calls for a multi-phase operation conducted largely within the framework of the recently unveiled International Community Messenger. This computer system allows world leaders to communicate one-on-one over the Internet. Phase one of the operation will involve a coordinated effort by George W. Bush to get all of the world leaders supporting a war against Iraq online at the same time. He will tell them all to start innocuous conversations with Iraq and that when they see the warning level of Iraq rising on their contact list they are to begin warning Iraq until the nation is logged out of the Messenger service. If executed properly phase one will prevent Iraq from rallying sympathetic nations to its cause after phase two has struck.
Phase two will begin with the United States beginning a conversation with Iraq over trivial things. At some point during the conversation the US will send Iraq a seemingly harmless video file that actually contains an annoying virus script that will deadlock the Iraqi computer system, making it both difficult and embarrassing to use. As mentioned, before Iraq can retaliate or request aid allies of the United States will warn Iraq until it is temporarily banned from the service. To help you better understand how this operation will go down we have modeled it using advanced computer technology called "Microsoft Notepad".
US_of_A[NATO] Hey d00d, what's up?
_+Iraq[AoE]+_ not 2 much fag
_+Iraq[AoE]+_ u got the UN resolution u want me to sign lol
US_of_A[NATO] yeah man, check this out 1st, it's a krad video of this crazy Koreen kids dancing
US_of_A[NATO] wants to send you the file Dance_Routine(Funny!).wmv.vbs.
_+Iraq[AoE]+_ ok its downloadin
US_of_A[NATO] cool when its done run it
_+Iraq[AoE]+_ ok
_+Iraq[AoE]+_ WTF its opening gay pron popups
US_of_A[NATO] pwned
You have warned the user US_of_A[NATO]
You have been warned by the user US_of_A[NATO] Warning Level is 10%
You have been warned by the user UK[NATO] Warning Level is 25%
You have been warned by the user Spizzain[NATO] Warning Level is 50%
You have been warned by the user iTaLy[NATO] Warning Level is 75%
You have been warned by the user Canada[420TreesHitter][NATO] Warning Level is 100%
***You are being temporarily logged out of International Community Messenger***
After this Iraq's computer and communication infrastructure will be isolated from the world community and Iraq will be vulnerable to further offensive operations.
Possible Threats: North Korea is constantly online and attempting to send the United States viruses through ICM. Technical specialists are usually able to persuade to the president not to open "Sexyjapaneselass_Vs_Playboy.scr". However, President Bush has already infected some 400 government computers with various e-mail and ICM viruses, and if alone may do so again. In the right North Korean hands this could compromise the security of the entire operation.
Estimated Casualties: Pretty much everyone in Iraq's tech-sector is expected to be summarily executed by Saddam if this plan works. Other than that no casualties are expected.
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
... they're prepared to engage in one mother of an immoral battle, and have said their prayers, kissed their girls, and balanced their books. War in Iraq is *not* going to be pretty for you guys.
...
The US is now what Germany was in the 30's... off to fight its merry war with 'justifiable cause'.
Don't you Americans realize that the UN was *made* to prevent countries like yours from abusing their power?
That this war is now being trivialized into some sort of 'happy meme' worthy of idle discussion by tech nerds in the context of some sci-fi-turned-reality 'cyberwar' is really disturbing.
If globalization, McDonalds, Britney and all the other wonderful machinations of The American Way didn't turn me off your crappy country, then the robotic nature of its citizens kowtowing to the propaganda machine being operated by King George Bush II definitely is
I don't care if there are guidelines for 'cyberwar against Iraq' being published... This war is NONSENSE!!
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
The only countries this will work against are those that are like the US, and sorry, but despite our ethnocentric view of the world, most countries are not us except Canada and the UK (didn't turning on one's allies work for Hitler?).
This idea is not new. When the military staged a wargame where they tried this very same thing, they got their arse handed to them in a brown paper sack:
Yeah, right.
---
Not trolling, just worried.
Iraq is running Linux!
how is Taco going to feel when he reads about a Chinook full of young Americans that got shot down from a SAM battery that could not be hacked and disabled because Achmed reads Slashdot,
Right. The Iraq government can afford to run a net connection to every SAM battery, and is stupid enough to leave it open to the Internet. Even societies that can afford to network their military, don't connect the Internet to internal systems - it's just stupid. The most secure connection is none at all, and everyone knows that.
I'm sure it's an unpopular view amongst the freedom of IP at all costs crowd that's common here, but maybe for the duration of the Iraqi conflict, we can stop posting exploit and bug notifications, at least until the US has installed a nascent capitalist, western ideologued democracy in Iraq.
I didn't realize we were planning on slaughtering all the Iraqs and colonizing the country. That, of course, is about the only way we're going to get a "western ideologued" society in Iraq. What do you think the odds are that we can even get some sort of stable democracy going - historically, "our son of a bitch" governments have been common - and it's questionable whether you can just stick a democracy in a country that has no concept of one and have it thrive.
In the last Gulf War the air defenses were networked, including key elements of their radar network.
That was, reportedly, reduced by allowing a contraban printer to "slip through" blockades on goods to Iraq. The printer had a virus that spread through the air defense network.
IIRC this happened in the last days before the bombing campaign began.
It was widely reported after the war, on Nightline and I think Bob Woodward mentioned it in hos book "The Commaders" too. I have not heard if it has been verified beyond that since.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
I'm sure it's an unpopular view amongst the freedom of IP at all costs crowd that's common here, but maybe for the duration of the Iraqi conflict, we can stop posting exploit and bug notifications, at least until the US has installed a nascent capitalist, western ideologued democracy in Iraq.
Flip the issue around and see if your suggestion makes any sense:
For the duration of the war, let's refrain from posting notices of vulnerabilities and exploits so that sysadmins in places other than Iraq can't keep their systems properly defended from cyber-terrorists who are sympathetic to the Iraqi cause (or are simply anti-American).
Makes no sense, right? Withholding vulnerability information is far more likely to adversely affect civilian and public service networks in the US and supporting nations than the Iraqi military/industrial complex.
Overheard in the Oval Office:
Bush: Hey, I've just had a great idea! Why don't we attack Iraq over the Inter-net!
Advisor: I'm not sure what you mean, Mr President.
Bush: Well, couldn't we infect Saddam with one of those Inter-net viruses, for example? We could use our prowess in genetical engineering and nanu-technology to genetically infect Saddam with a deadly Inter-net virus! Whaddya think?
Advisor: Erm... I'm speechless, Sir.
Bush: Write some guidelines around those ideas, will ya?
Advisor: Very well sir. Do you mind if I make some minor modifications, sir?
Bush: Do whatever you think is necessary. We make a great team don't we?
Bush: Erm, yes sir. Isn't it about time for your nap now Mr President?
So... the first step in our war is to send the Geek Corps to Iraq to teach everyone how to use computers. Then we sick SUN on them to convince them to upgrade to mission-critical workstations and servers. While we do that, we use old equipment to get individuals and businesses stuck on the .doc format. Finally, we convince Saddam to consolidate his technological resources under XP, .NET, and Office.
At which point, why do we have to invade at all? Microsoft can just run their government like they do ours.
The ______ Agenda
However, there are other questions this brings up:
Food for thought.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
So can we now expect accidental hacking of the Chinese embassy, Canadian soldiers, and the occasional civilian wedding to occur in conjunction with the more traditional (but increasingly obsolete) accidental smart bombing?
Do you guys want to defeat Sadam in CounterStrike or what?
I can just see the latest edition of "Soldier of Fortune" with advertisements in the back for "733t h4Xor5" to DDOS the 8 servers that comprise the Iraqi Ministry of Disinformation.
They'll probably have a lurid cover photo showing "actual damage done" to such a server.
"Eeewww - look at the smoking wires just hanging out of the CD drive bay!"
"Provided by the management for your protection."
right after the Iraqis invaded kuwait in 90, the US got a french company that was supplying printers to Iraq to put a chip in that we supplied. The chip had a receiver that basically allowed us to remotely take out their networks using the printers attached to it.
Just have Gates send the Iraqis a complementary set of licenses for MS products... within a couple of days, the problem will solve itself...
"Of course I'm wrong... That's how I get to 'right'." - Gil Grissom
Most countries have electronic switching systems and microwave links for the phone service. Those were targets that NATO hit in Serbia several years ago, and in Iraq in 1991. Even Afghanistan had some. Russia uses microwave links. China also. Actually, it's probably only countries like Somalia, which have almost no communications infrastructure, that wouldn't be vulnerable.
Best Slashdot Co
Is it just me, or does anyone else see a pattern in US strategic thinking along the lines of "We have bigger and better technology/supply lines/bombs, and that will make final victory inevitable." I don't intend to argue that logistics are not an essential part of military planning, nor that technological advantages don't give an edge. But there seems to be a wide spread feeling in the US government that because they are the biggest guy on the block, they will inevitably win.
With the greatest respect, cod's wallop!
The American high command seems to be infected with this attitude as well. It seems to me that much (if not most or all) of the talk from the US about how the US will win is posited on the massive technological/logistical superiority of America. But far more important is strategy and tactics. (See Wellington's Peninsular campaign to see an example of how superior strategy and tactics can defeat a much larger army.)
There is some evidence that much of the US military is still unwilling to be flexible in its tactical/strategic thinking. See this article in The Guardian for a insightful analysis of a recent, huge US military exercis - in which the American side *lost* and the "Red" (read Iraqi) side won.
I'm a Canadian and the reek of hubris from across the 49th parallel is stunning!
1. We (the Bush administration) can do anything we want to anyone else.
2. Noone can not do anything at all to us (the Bush administration).
3. Americans, including American companies, can do anything they want to any foreign country, company or person.
4. No foreign country, company or person can do anything to any american person or company.
There, that sounds about right.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
"The pending Iraqi war promises to deliver quite the display of modern, smart technology well beyond what we saw in '91." ... "the US will use soldiers in office chairs to disrupt Iraqi infrastructure."
Will give a great footage on CNN:
As you see on this graph, this was the traffic to their webservers in the last month. Now check this peak when we started to probe it and after that the constant block of traffic towards it.
And check the BGP statistics, since three days their routing-entries have disappeared!
ps. http://www.mavetju.org/~edwin/bomb-iraq.html
bash$
The primary one being that cyberwar automatically equals, and is limited to, the internet. Many systems are networked, and/or acessible from outside, without being on the internet.
Best Slashdot Co
Here's how Powell should have produced his evidence:
"We're absolutely sure Saddam has weapons of mass destruction because WE SOLD THEM TO HIM! And I have the receipts RIGHT HERE!" (Powell holds up receipts)
That would remove all doubt, wouldn't it. But I guess we'll never see that.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
If you attend US military conferences, you know that they're quite proud of their CND (computer network defence) ability, but refuse to comment on their CNA (computer network attack) capability. That's partly because they had no RoE.
In fact, some other industrialized nations are pushing for CNA to be considered a weapon of mass destruction, since the effects of most viruses and DDoSes can't be predicted until they're launched (your attack on a power plant takes out a hospital...and another...and another).
As for Iraq's dependence on the 'net, don't think about SAM batteries with IP addresses. Think about Info Ops. Think Wag the Dog. Think about pro-Iraqi websites suddenly "reporting" US victories. Or US sites suddenly being "attacked", giving the FBI justification to round up those Iraqi-Americans on its watch list.
Far-fetched? Right about the time that the latest Osama video was being "authenticated", a senior US officer was bragging to me about how advanced their video morphing technology was getting.
Let me remind you of the origins of the atom bomb, and of Einstein's later remark that he wished he had cut off the hand that signed a letter to Roosevelt endorsing it. The scientists who knocked themselves out to build it were working to stop Hitler, but once the knowledge was out there, it was beyond their control.
A government-sponsored development of hacking has enormously destructive potential for all of us who use the internet. Today Iraq is the target. Tomorrow, the target could be domestic dissent. Isn't Ann Coulter already calling the Democrats who didn't cheer Bush's SOU traitors?
Bad, bad, bad idea
Making trouble today for a better tomorrow...
US cyber-warfare units will attempt a DDoS attack on the Iraqi infrastructure through Iraq's remaining 56 kbaud AOL dialup connection. That will surely be successful.
What are the cyber-warfare plans of OTHER countries? Is America in the lead on getting organized on this?
I just happened to spend time last week at a talk given by an Army Intelligence officer (keep in mind that the Army does about the least amount of high-tech crap of any of the armed forces).
Basically, there's only one country with major cyberwarfare plans, and it's China. China maintains a standing segment of its army trained specifically in cyberwarfare, and actively conducts research in it. We have far fewer resources in this than China does.
May we never see th
The pending Iraqi war promises to deliver quite the display of modern, smart technology well beyond what we saw in '91.
Smart enough to know the difference between enemy soldiers and a wedding party?
-= This is a self-referential sig =-
The pending Iraqi war promises to deliver...quite a display
It seem to have escaped you that there are humans getting killed by this "firework". They have family, brothers, sisters, friends. Ever wondered, how one becomes a terrorist?
"It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in." --General Colin Powell [When asked about the number of Iraqi people who were slaughtered by Americans in the 1991 "Desert Storm" terror campaign (200,000 people!)]
They can fix problems quickly. They will not rely on the software of the country attacking them.
I'm going after the admin of the Iraq (.iq) TLD!. No, wait.
Me too, and for pretty much the same points as you, though I'll put a lot of other similar motivations in on the Bush side.
As for Hussein, IMHO he's a thug - a fairly bright thug, but still a thug. He's nowhere near a Hitler-Class Evil Genius.
Also IMHO, we now have a case of two wrongs, and it's almost impossible to figure out how to do the right thing. It's entirely possible that war with Iraq is necessary, but there has been so doggone much smoke cast about by now that it's impossible to see clearly. The pro-war camp may well be right, but I suspect for the wrong reasons. The anti-war camp probably has the right reasons, but I suspect that they're probably wrong.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
HTML "programmers": enlisted privates
RedHat certified: USArmy officer
ten years Unix sysadmin: noncommissioned sargeant
open source project leads: USArmy captain through colonel
Linux kernel maintainers: USArmy four star general
Cisco cert: USMC
FreeBSD sysadmins: Delta Force
OpenBSD sysadmins: Airborne Rangers
Oracle DBA's: Navy captains
MCSE: cannon fodder
MCSE who didn't patch SQLServer: dishonorable discharge
Hell, if I get to spend time on the firing range with some MCSE's, sign me up. See real USArmy rank hierarchy here.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
Bush seems to have an "at all costs" attitude which even includes freedom.
#> disable power.output !hospitals
telnet radar
#> redirect to root@army.mil
telnet allbiologicalweapons
#> detonate
I'm sure these things will just be conventiently plugged in to the internet.
Saddam is _not_ going to disarm peacefully.
Agreed. That's not my question. My question is: So what? Why is this a reason to start a war?
Some claim that if an "appropriate authority" have made a "solid legal demand" for information and action, and that demand is ignored or rebuffed, then it is an appropriate excuse to "immediately remove by force" the person who failed to obey orders (with "UN", "Disarm Iraq" and "War" being the three example fillers). I happen to believe that there should be some more levels of negotiation in between failure to comply and ALL OUT WAR. However, if you like that attitude, how about if we reword that with "appropriate authority" being "US Congress" and "solid legal demand" being a request for VP DC to turn over information about his energy policy meetings, and HE OUTRIGHT REFUSED! Is that a sufficient reason to "immediately remove by force" Mr. DC? Apparently not. Hypocracy is so ugly.
Bush talks like Iraq is ready to jump out and take over the world unless we stop him. Go look at what really happened. Iraq attacked in 1990. UN responded. Iraq Defeated. Iraq withdraws. Iraq hasn't peeped outside their borders since 1991. CIA rates Iraq as non-threat unless attacked first. So what does Bush do? He makes a lot of noise. He claims Iraq is about to attack everyone. He says he's going to attack them first. He CREATES the threat situation where there was none before. Sure, Iraq wasn't disarming, but they weren't trying to start a war either. Of all the tin-pot dictators in the world, Saddam knows from personal experience exactly what will happen to him if he does. He may be a mad man, but he isn't stupid. He wants weapons to maintain power inside Iraq, not outside.
Now because of Bush's "Heroic, No non-since, Take control, Total domination threats", we have North Korea, a REAL international threat, breathing down our necks. What is "our hero" George doing about them? NOTHING! I guess he wanted an easy target for his "Pet Project" war, not a "real enemy" that he might actually have to negotiate with. You can't look all powerfull and right if you have to negotiate. Bad for the "Hero" image.
I can't say what the appropriate action is from now forward. Maybe war is the only out. Bush is claiming he can't back down now. It would look weak. But I think it was REALLY BAD to intentionally put us into this situation in the first place. WAR KILLS PEOPLE. The best way to save American lives is NOT TO GO TO WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE. Why was Bush so desperate to start one where it wasn't necessary? Obviously not to save lives. Probably it was to distract us from all the bad economic news, or maybe to avenge Daddy's image. Great idea. Economy in a slump, severe deficit. So lets make it worse by inventing an expensive war, runnin up the deficit even more and strangling the economy to death.
Forking Stupid Arrogant Idiot.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
All these .WAR files I work with....makes me wonder. Web-ARchive they say, yeah right!
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
I don't know who else has heard this but the Department of Defense recently contracted United Devices to work on smallpox reasearch, also called the patriot grid. Since there are about 2 million machines running the UD client, this would put a massive amount of machines at the DOD's disposal.
The UD client is closed source so there's no way of knowing if the software the the DOD wrote is totaly dedicated to testing smallpox drugs or launching a cyber attack.
Massive DDOS attack anyone?
Blaze a trail to the New World
We'll be able to shut down their 2 ATMs and reboot all of those illegally imported PS2s....that should crush them.
Not my intention to be troll here, but i quote:
"the Pentagon has stepped up development of cyber-weapons, envisioning a day when electrons might substitute for bombs and allow for more rapid and less bloody attacks on enemy targets."
Hacking to shut down radars and power from thousands of miles away can have no other cause than to support an aerial assault, and aerial assaults are never bloodless. They just want to cripple people so they cannot strike back. Maybe we should redefine the terms "blood" and "human beings" to fit the United States wardance more correctly. Schools and hospitals without power can only turn people more against US.
Fighting for peace is like fuxxing for virginity.
You cant fight in here, its a war room!
...he pissed off Gore in the last election... he could use some input from the inventor of the internet.
Snooze and you lose your sushi.
This article says "an administration official ... declined to confirm or deny whether such planning was underway," possibly because planning is done and the attack has already begun? Think about it - if they want to overcome these fail safes, what's the best way to do it? Break into the systems that initiate/run them and disable them before the physical attacks even begin. So that would make such electronic attacks part of the preperation and planning for physical attacks.
If they plan on attacking physically in under six months (and I think Bush does, or at least would like to), then they would probably be breaking into the systems right now...
All circuits busy.
I never cease to be amazed at how people in US firmly believe in the propaganda from official media outlets. They don't have immunity for it and they will learn it in the hard way as we did. Anyway.
Forget human rights crap. US never cared about them when it was against their interests.
Proven amounts of oil are shrinking everywhere in the world except Iraq and Saudi and these countries will account for 50% of world oil reserves during nearest decades. It's well-known fact, but you ignore obvious facts.
- First, US worked hard to lure Iraq into attacking Kuwait. Note that everything started when Kuwait started draining neighbor Iraq fields and US signalled that Iraq can handle that situation (they were loosing serious money) with military force. The rest is known, but note that previously independed Kuwait is now US colony after war. If you want to force them to do something, you can order US troops who can swiftly deal with stubborn official and his loyal forces. Today we ignore that fact that US occupied Kuwait, turned it into the colony that can't have its own will and now Kuwait is under almost direct US rule. If things get tough Kuwaits oil will go directly to US at no cost except troops upkeep.
- But at that time it was impossible to invade Iraq because UN won't allow it. Now they are used to US driving its forces arond the globe, kurds are prepared for rebellion and US can split Iraq, taking oil fields and leave everything else to afghan-like chaos.
- Then comes Saudi. Remember that most terrorists at 9/11 were Saudis? It will take some heavy propaganda, but their country will be invaded by US soon -- may be 10 or 20 years.
- Then... as oil production becomes too energy consuming to be profitable humanity will have to find alternative energy source. The only one alternative viable power source is nuclear and US can't allow other countries rely on it because once it becomes common energy source you won't be able to control ALL reactors and other countries will start getting nuclear arms and thus immune to things that are going in Iraq (some lousy rockets without much brains but with simple nuclear charges will wipe all your carriers and bases and no sane neighbor country will allow you to build bases anymore on their territory and let carriers visit their waters). Thus whole world crisis is needed where other countries will suffer enough to be unable to build nuclear plants. Remaining plants could be bombed as Israeli did with Iraq plant, that's why such huge money are dumped into stealth bombers.
- When oil supply start going down humanity will have "methane pause", there are a lot of methane available (but not much), and currently about 93% of methane fields are in Russia. That's why I will go and vote even for communists or facists if they support upkeeping serious amounts of nuclear weapons able to wipe US. It's the only way to keep US at the bay, because as soon as they feel able to shoot down most our missiles and withstand nuclear blasts from these who come through new missle shield they WILL attack. Eh? You start saying something about human rights? Well, when Khasavurt accord established slavery regime in Chechnya with US help HALF OF MILLION russians were expelled, many thousands were killed. This fact got ZERO attention in US. Compare that with chechen refugees who got featured everywhere. Compare that with expelled Albanians (most of whom were in Kosovo because they sneaked there some decades before) -- they were useful. That's why I will support government that cares about MY nation and not abstract "human rights" which get bent at US will.
We as human race have to assemble and disarm US before they bring down civilisation.Well, I exaggregated a little. But this is where real interests lie. Governments may be different, be it "democracy", dictatorship, republic or something else, but geopolitical interests remains the same, no matter who acts as face of the country. It even doesn't matter what he says. Look who gets the profit.
Treaties are never intended to be "until all time," even if that is what the wording says. A country enters into a treaty because it sees a benefit to doing so. If the treaty stops being a benefit, or worse, causes a harm, that country has an OBLIGATION to withdraw from it. Remember a government is only accountable to its own citizens, not the rest of the world. That might sound unfair, but gunboat diplomacy usually works.
Another side note: if Congress empowers the President to do this, we have ALREADY backed out of that treaty. Reference the Supreme Court "Cherokee Tabacco Case". The Supreme Court ruled that laws passed by Congress supercede any previous treaties.
Ha! So I guess that T-shirts with penguins on the front of them will soon become U.S Government Issue along with the combat boots.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.