Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fifth Cable Cut To Middle East

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the now-wait-a-minute dept.

You may have noticed a number of stories recently about undersea cables getting cut around the world. Apparently the total is now up to 5, but the scariest part of this is that Iran is now offline. You can also read Schneier's comments on this coincidence. Update: 02/06 17:42 GMT by Z : As a commenter notes, though the country of Iran is obviously experiencing some networking difficulties, it is not offline.

39 of 676 comments (clear)

  1. Goldfinger meets Pogo by JesseL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action."
    -Auric Goldfinger

    But who is the enemy?

    --
    "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    1. Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo by SailorSpork · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why can I picture George Dubbya Bush in a scuba suit, holding a giant pair of sheers and screaming "I'll cut off the terrorist's interweb tubes!"

    2. Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I doubt it. If anything, we would want Iran to have 100% free and uncensored access for all citizens.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    3. Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo by gnick · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not necessarily related, but IMHO interesting:
      The US Navy has had to deal with fishing boats intentionally dragging their lines across cables many times. Around their Japanese bases, the US had a couple of data lines strewn along the ocean floor. If the lines were cut, the Navy would have to fix them. To do that, they had to keep fishing boats out of the area when they were working, so they would compensate the fishermen.

      Obvious Japanese fisherman's solution:
      1) Drag anchor across US data line.
      2) Skip work and receive generous compensation.
      3) $ Profit $

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Our government doesn't want that for us so why would they want it for others?

    5. Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo by necro81 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd like to believe the US isn't behind it for any number of reasons. One of those many reasons that occurs to me is the precedent it sets: if we declare that cutting cables is a valid way of pursuing foreign policy, what implications does that have for the US, who has more cables than anyone, relies on their cables more than anyone, and has the most $$$ invested in those cables? Put simply, if cables become fair game, the US has more to lose than anyone else. The powers-that-be couldn't be that stupid, could they? Sure, they're stupid enough to start a senseless war that's quagmired our foreign policy and military, but to do something stupid enough to threaten our livelihood (and pr0n)? (this is a half-sarcastic, half-pleading comment. I know that they really could be that stupid.)

      Keep in mind, too, that these cables aren't, for the most part, state owned assets like radar stations or bridges - they are the private assets of companies and conglomerates, who have invested many billions in their installation. Those conglomerates are able to pursue the US for damages much more effectively than, say, Iran.

    6. Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo by Bruiser80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because an informed populace promotes change, especially when grave injustices are being done and the local government is shielding its populace from it. Elected US officials don't want an informed populace because they would be putting their own political lives on the line. That and infrastructure is expensive.

      --
      Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in the mud. After a while, you realize the engineer enjoys it.
    7. Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo by William-Ely · · Score: 5, Funny

      The plot is much more sinister than we think. Step 1: Cut cables Step 2: Post story on Slashdot Step 3: Have everyone ping Iranian servers to death to prove story wrong Step 4: ??? Step 5: PROFIT!

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    8. Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo by PitaBred · · Score: 5, Informative

      The word you were searching for is "intact". It's one word, not two.

      And I'm sure that it is. They are also not offline, as my buddy with a plain home connection is still chatting with me, so they obviously aren't feeling too hurt by it.

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
    9. Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo by moosesocks · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I doubt it. If anything, we would want Iran to have 100% free and uncensored access for all citizens.


      A responsible citizen, yes, would want the Iranian people to take matters into their own hands, and make sure that their government leaders are accountable and responsible.

      On the other hand, if you're an American politician trying to sell a war, Fear Uncertainty, and Doubt play very well to your cause on both sides of the table.

      As it stands, I don't believe that the Iranian people are all too upset at their government. Although their approach to civil rights is a bit backwards from the Western perspective, it's been that way for several generations (and is largely the fault of previous American and European intervention in the region). Likewise, the Iranian government doesn't strike me as being all that secretive.

      I hate to defend the current Iranian regime, but I don't believe for a moment that it's remotely as bad as Bush makes it out to be.
      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    10. Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo by randyest · · Score: 5, Funny

      Intact.

      Unless you meant that the network is inside a small nail.

      (Also their but I've just about given up on that one.)

      --
      everything in moderation
    11. Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo by jc42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      ... Step 3: Have everyone ping Iranian servers to death to prove story wrong ...

      Heh. I read that while having a few traceroutes running in other windows, testing times to a few sites in Iran. All of them do pretty well from here (Boston) as far as the sites in New York, Amsterdam, and Turkey, with ping times mostly under 200 ms. Then the packets go to numbered machines without DNS addresses, and the ping times jump to over 500 ms. I'd thought that this was probably a sign of satellite hops, but now I wonder. Maybe it's just that we've slashdotted all the routers. Ya think?

      The government site at www.iran.ir doesn't repond to pings, but it does respond on port 80 in the usual manner. It is sorta slow, but firefox doesn't time it out.

      I don't read Farsi, so I can't tell much about what it says. There are some familiar faces at the upper left, though. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    12. Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sure they meant that Iran's internal net infrastructure is turning into the wind.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    13. Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo by spidercoz · · Score: 5, Funny

      Never give up! The illiterati must be destroyed, or at least beaten with a dictionary.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    14. Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo by kestasjk · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I think you've got a few things totally backwards here, I'll try and explain the Iranian situation in a (full-post-sized) nutshell.

      A responsible citizen, yes, would want the Iranian people to take matters into their own hands, and make sure that their government leaders are accountable and responsible.

      On the other hand, if you're an American politician trying to sell a war, Fear Uncertainty, and Doubt play very well to your cause on both sides of the table.
      First off America is pretty war weary (to put it lightly), I really doubt trying to push another war though is a great political move.
      Secondly; Bush doesn't have to please to general public, he's on his last legs whether whether or not he kindles some favor.

      As it stands, I don't believe that the Iranian people are all too upset at their government.
      It's a lot more complicated than that. Mahmoud came in promising wealth for the poor, and has delivered in many cases, but failed elsewhere. At the moment the Iranian economy isn't going well (e.g. inflation at 25%, according to non-government sources), and there has even been gas rationing (in a country with massive gas reserves!) which really didn't go down too well.
      Then you have the Islamic reforms, with headscarfs being more strictly enforced and a suppression of the clothing young Iranians want to wear. This is popular with some but not others. There's also suppression of government criticism in the media, and media also needs to be very tame (think FCC-on-steriods). (Young) Iranians aren't ignorant (as I understand Iranian education stands out from other Middle-Eastern countries by a long way); they are often pro-West and pro-reform, and they don't like the media oppression or Mahmoud jailing the students which lead protests.

      The nuclear program is an interesting one. It seems that, like Chavez, Mahmoud likes to be seen as a crusader for the little guy, even if it doesn't parallel what goes on in Iran. What's ironic is that you say Bush is stirring this up to gain some political favor, when in fact the opposite is true; Mahmoud milks the Iran vs the evil empire angle for all it's worth.
      When they reach a new threshold with uranium enrichment, or manage to launch a satellite, cue the government media's patriotic music and euphoria. (I feel I need to point out that this is actual government media, not to be confused with the tin-foil Fox-is-controlled-by-the-government "government media")

      Iran getting powerful weapons, launching satellites, and capturing British soldiers in defiance of the West is great for Mahmoud, and ever since a US report came out last year saying that they aren't pursuing nuclear weapons to the extent previously thought Mahmoud has become less and less popular.
      I've read that in Iran they joke that Mahmoud wouldn't bother with his nuclear program if the US wasn't opposed to it.

      Not only have his lesser government members begun to criticize his policy, but he recently got snubbed by the Supreme Leader of Iran himself, something which is a big political blow for him. (It's like a member of the Vatican getting chided by the Pope for something he said; it's not supposed to happen)

      Likewise, the Iranian government doesn't strike me as being all that secretive.
      Read up about Natanz and Iran's dealings with the IAEA. Even Russia, who has supported and assisted with Iran's civilian nuclear program, is now saying they are concerned about Iran's recent satellite launch.

      One thing for sure is that Iran is not Iraq 2. There aren't many parallels between them, and the biggest and most important difference in my opinion is this: In Iran Mahmoud is subject to checks and balances, he isn't a dictator and he has to watch where he treads. Economic sanctions and internal political pressure will definitely be enough, I would be astonished if it came to war.
      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    15. Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo by Xtravar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't believe that the Iranian people are all too upset at their government. Actually, they are. It's just that our actions keep bringing them together, whereas if we left them alone they'd change drastically.

      I went to an Iran speech by Gary Sick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Sick (former Carter adviser & author of October Surprise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy) where he argued that Iranian politics is somewhat similar to American politics.

      For example, we aren't too happy with George W Bush, our current leader, yet when a tragedy happens or we are threatened, we seem to rally behind the current leader.

      The only ones who benefit from international saber-rattling are the "establishment" who would otherwise be kicked out of power. There is actually a lot of discontent with the current leadership of Iran, but by threatening Iran we only strengthen them.
      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    16. Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo by somersault · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Our government claims it wants democracy and freedom for others, but doesn't seem to value that too much here at home either."

      There, fixed that for you..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    17. Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo by iocat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Although their approach to civil rights is a bit backwards from the Western perspective

      All the executed homosexuals and women beaten for not maintaining the appropriate veil angle on the street say "hi."

      Oh, so do the journalists killed in detention by the regime.

      So do the children being kids being executed by the regime.

      So does Amnesty International , while we're at it...

      Oh, and so do the local Christians, Zoroastrians, Bahai, and Jews, who are routinely persecuted by the regime (you can do the search yourself, I'm getting nauseated looking at these links).

      Look, I understand people don't like GWB, but to insinuate that the US is somehow responsible for human rights violations in Iran, or has a somehow comprable record on human rights is insane.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    18. Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I love /. Anytime I need to be reminded that I am surrounded by obsessive, moderately autistic, anal-retentive nerds I only have to misspell a word or make even the most basic grammatical mistake. It's like baiting a field for virgin hunting.

      I love /. Anytime I need to be reminded that I am surrounded by a self-styled "intellectual elite" that is functionally illiterate, I only have to read a few posts. And I don't even have to bait, since most of them do it naturally.

      Why do people insist on believing that being semi-literate is a sign of their inherent superiority?

      Oh, and "there", "their", and "they're" are three different words, with significantly different meanings. Learn to tell them apart, and people won't have to believe that the American Public School System (as if there were such a thing) has failed in its (purported) design purpose.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    19. Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo by metamatic · · Score: 5, Informative

      Get back to me when we start using extraordinary rendition against domestic political opponents.

      José Padilla. Glad to be of service.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  2. What they are thinking. by suso · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hmmm, let me see. Is this one it? No that's Syria. Is this it? No that's Saudi Arabia. Ah, here we go, Iran.

  3. Iran has NOT "offline" by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...and has NOT lost net connectivity.

    One router in Iran -- the one that happens to be used by Internet Traffic Report -- is unreachable. As are dozens of single points on the internet in many states in the region.

    A quick perusal of, e.g., newspaper web sites in Iran finds every one I have tried working fine, including all state-run media. As is the web site of the Government of Iran and numerous other government and press web sites physically located in Iran. See for yourself. (And yes, I am aware that simply ending in .ir does not mean the site is necessarily physically in Iran, but you can easily verify that nearly all of them are.)

    I know all of you are just itching to believe it's a US information operation (I love some of the articles..."a secret Pentagon strategy called 'information warfare'" -- uh, guys, I hate to break this to you, but it's not a secret) to cut Iran off from the internet in advance of the secret Iran invasion that Bush -- er, Cheney -- is oh-so-obviously planning.

    No one ever said that one ship damaged all the cables. What was said was that a single ship probably cut two cables in a particular area off Egypt. But that has been called into doubt in that location. Unfortunately, it isn't clear exactly where some of the cables have been damaged, so simply because one area didn't have a ship doesn't mean it wasn't possible for it to be damaged elsewhere.

    Even if someone is cutting the cables, as telecom and undersea cable experts believe is unlikely, it would be better to actually consider the facts of the situation, instead of feeing the conspiracy mill with garbage like "Iran is offline" when it clearly isn't? How about waiting until the cables are raised to see what kind of damage has been caused?

    But if you want to believe one guy's blog post that "Iran is offline", which ends with:

    this author actually dug a bit deeper and found a trail that leads from the owners of most of these internet cables all the way back to some very, very large companies in the U.S. and in the U.K. Which companies you ask? Who is behind this?

    Well, that's the topic for my next post. You'll have to subscribe to my RSS feed and stay tuned for my findings. Don't worry, the wait will be short.
    ...then be my guest. How convenient! If we want to learn "which" big evil companies are behind what is obviously a US operation to cut Iran off from the internet, all we have to do is subscribe to his ad-laden blog!

    Or, we could perhaps consider that "[m]ost telecommunications experts and cable operators say that sabotage seems unlikely."

    Or, we could perhaps believe the facts, which is that Iran is not "offline", as I have illustrated above.

    It seems that the premise to this story -- namely, that Iran is "offline" -- is patently incorrect. So, since that is untrue, what are the motivations of people who want to believe this is a prelude to war?

    That lying about it somehow serves a greater purpose?

    Oh, and by the way, for all you pushers of the Information Warfare theory, keep in mind that it runs both ways. I wouldn't be surprised before Iran picks up on the conspiracy stories and starts promoting that itself. What a great way to detract attention from its continuing defiance of the world community -- no, not just the US -- on its nuclear processing.
    1. Re:Iran has NOT "offline" by unbug · · Score: 5, Funny

      A quick perusal of, e.g., newspaper web sites in Iran finds every one I have tried working fine, including all state-run media. As is the web site of the Government of Iran and numerous other government and press web sites physically located in Iran. See for yourself. Jeez, if this goes on Iran will be offline - it will be slashdotted. But maybe that was the plan all along...
    2. Re:Iran has NOT "offline" by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...and has NOT lost net connectivity.

      Meanwhile, at the NWO headquarters:

      Underling: "President Bush, Iran still isn't offline!"
      Bush: "Dammit, Osama, what the fuck am I paying you for?"
      Bin Laden: "Sorry Sir, I'll get right on it"
      Elvis: "And get it right this time!"

      --
      Summation 2
    3. Re:Iran has NOT "offline" by Farhood · · Score: 5, Funny

      just called some family (in Iran)...asked them if their 'net was up. they said yea...asked me if mine was up. I said no...damn comcast.

  4. Traffic Intercept by RichMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Cut all the alternate paths until the traffic you desire to capture comes through your surveillance hub.

    not-so-thick-tinfoil

  5. Is it really offline this time? by eln · · Score: 5, Informative

    I remember last time a cable cut was reported they said Iran was offline that time as well. I'm not so sure Iran is really offline now either. I have been clicking into the websites of various Iranian universities and all of the ones I've checked so far are up, although some are kind of slow. While I guess it's possible some of them are hosting their main websites offshore, I doubt all of them are. Unfortunately, the routers here block outgoing traceroute for some dumb reason, so I can't verify for sure, but it seems like Iran is not as offline as we might think.

  6. How many? by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Funny

    Didn't they say Iran was completely offline when the third cable was cut? Then I hear a fourth cable was and they were "now they're offline"! Now there's a fifth cable cut and the news is saying "Now they're REALLY REALLY offline!". And yet it still appears that they are still not offline.

    So, how many fscking cables do they have and can they please tell us exactly how many have to go down before I can't ping a single thing in Iran? I don't wanna go through this on the next 12 cables . . .

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    1. Re:How many? by gingerTabs · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, how many fscking cables do they have and can they please tell us exactly how many have to go down before I can't ping a single thing in Iran? I don't wanna go through this on the next 12 cables . . . Surely your military advisers would give you a better answer than /. George...
  7. Except that Iran has NOT gone "offline" by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oops.

    So when the basic, sole premise and of the story is wrong, and by extension the clear implication, where do we go from there?

    1. Re:Except that Iran has NOT gone "offline" by stonecypher · · Score: 5, Funny

      So when the basic, sole premise and of the story is wrong, and by extension the clear implication, where do we go from there?
      I'm not sure. Traditionally someone says something about Katz or Piquapille, but it's not so easy here.
      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  8. riiight. by apodyopsis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    from TFA "However, this author actually dug a bit deeper and found a trail that leads from the owners of most of these internet cables all the way back to some very, very large companies in the U.S. and in the U.K. Which companies you ask? Who is behind this?"

    what. the. fuck?

    the author clearly has his tinfoil underpants and armadillo hat on. I mean come on, whilst I realize that almost everything can be turned into a conspiracy theory this is too much. Accidents happen all the time and I remember reading that some of this outage is due to routing maintenance. Occams Razor, to me the facts as reported seem simpler then some ulterior motive and cable cutting gear.

  9. Obivously by Joe+U · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obivously, it's to stop them from downloading Truecrypt 5.

  10. Egypt Loses Its Wireless Connectivity by briggsb · · Score: 5, Funny

    The conspiracy theorists just got more fodder. A low-flying plane cut Egypt's wireless Internet connectivity.

  11. Iran not "off internet" but strange routes taken by cohomology · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Iran Institute of Science and Technology ( http://www.iust.ac.ir/ ) is online, and their servers are physically in Iran, but a traceroute from Roadrunner in New York, NY shows traffic going the wrong way around the world.

    Tracing route to www.iust.ac.ir [194.225.228.25]

    over a maximum of 30 hops:

        1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 194.225.228.25
        2 8 ms 9 ms 11 ms 10.39.192.1
        3 12 ms 8 ms 7 ms gig-4-3-nycmnyg-rtr1.nyc.rr.com [24.29.98.109]
        4 8 ms 9 ms 8 ms pos-3-2-nycmnya-rtr1.nyc.rr.com [24.29.130.129]
        5 10 ms 9 ms 10 ms tenge-3-0-0-nwrknjmd-rtr.nyc.rr.com [24.29.119.106]
        6 10 ms 9 ms 10 ms 4.79.188.37
        7 23 ms 18 ms 17 ms ae-32-54.ebr2.Newark1.Level3.net [4.68.99.126]
        8 29 ms 18 ms 14 ms ae-4.ebr2.Washington1.Level3.net [4.69.132.101]
        9 20 ms 16 ms 19 ms ae-92-92.csw4.Washington1.Level3.net [4.69.134.158]
      10 14 ms 18 ms 13 ms ae-94-94.ebr4.Washington1.Level3.net [4.69.134.189]
      11 89 ms 91 ms 89 ms ae-4.ebr3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.132.81]
      12 84 ms * 84 ms ae-93-93.csw4.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.137.46]
      13 84 ms 81 ms 86 ms ae-4-99.edge3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.68.20.201]
      14 84 ms 85 ms 83 ms SINGAPORE-T.edge3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.78.195.202]
      15 118 ms 84 ms 83 ms ge-7-1-0-0.laxow-cr2.ix.singtel.com [203.208.183.81]
      16 85 ms 274 ms 84 ms ge-4-1-0-0.laxow-cr2.ix.singtel.com [203.208.183.90]
      17 276 ms 265 ms 282 ms so-3-0-1-0.sngc3-cr2.ix.singtel.com [203.208.149.185]
      18 338 ms 253 ms 269 ms ge-0-0-0-0.sngtp-dr1.ix.singtel.com [203.208.149.78]
      19 254 ms 272 ms 264 ms GigabitEthernet1-1-1.sngtp-ar4.ix.singtel.com [203.208.183.114]
      20 284 ms 287 ms 303 ms 203.208.192.226
      21 298 ms 286 ms 290 ms 217.218.155.201
      22 301 ms 299 ms 292 ms 217.218.163.252
      23 328 ms 319 ms 292 ms 194.225.239.254
      24 298 ms 294 ms 303 ms 194.225.228.25

    Trace complete.

    --
    Don't mess with The Phone Company. Piss them off and you'll be using two tin cans and a piece of string.
  12. I need some reference please by CambodiaSam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does anyone know how often undersea cables normally have issues? Sure, 5 cuts in an area *seems* high to me, but then again, I don't have any frame of reference.

    So, what is the statistical probability of an undersea cable having a minor, major, or catastrophic issue? If it's once a week, then perhaps we have an anomoly of location, not an anomoly of frequency.

    I remember seeing some Discovery Channel show on how they end up fixing those cables, and it was rather interesting. I also have some fuzzy memory of how there are multiple boats designed to do this kind of repair work, and they are usually busy out at sea fixing *something*. I get the feeling (this is where my plea for verification comes in), that 5 cuts may not actually be TOO unusual.

  13. 1953, operation Ajax by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think Iran is actually a democratic country so the people there have just as much opportunity to vote their leaders out of power when they don't agree with their actions as the US does.


    Iran is an Islamic Republic, meaning its government is half democratic and half unelected asshats.

    Iran WAS a democracy, until the CIA and the British military intelligence organized a coup and replaced their democracy with a subservient monarchy.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  14. Yes, the US is responsible by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 5, Informative

    Iran had a perfectly fine, democratically elected leader in the person of Mohamed Mossadegh in 1953.
    He had the outrecuidance to nationalize the oil industry, so the CIA fomented a coup against him and put the Shah in charge. The US then supported this asshole for close to 30 years, until iranians revolted in 1979.
    The revolution didn't end so swell, the mullahs took the helm eventually. But the country wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the sick US meddling. Sure, that was back in 1953, but the pattern continued in other countries over the world in the 55 years that followed. So yeah, the US is responsible, and the dumbass in chief you still have for 11 more months is apparently hell-bent on meddling still some more with Iran.

  15. Who will there be left to speak for you? by MisterSquid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're missing the point, which is that Padilla was illegally jailed for over two years and his rightful request for habeas corpus was denied. SCOTUS refused to clarify whether holding Padilla was legal, thus making his case a clear cut example of the illegal detainment and torture of an American citizen. Furthermore, what you're saying is that because Padilla was suspected of terrorism, jailing him illegally was OK.

    My point is not that Padilla was innocent. My point is that terrorism is carte blanche for the executive to illegally detain Americans, to fabricate charges against them, and to increase penalties upon conviction. In the meantime, people like you will look at Padilla and see someone they don't quite like and decide that it's all OK.

    In my opinion, it will only be a matter of time before someone finds themselves on the wrong end of what you call "normal, peaceful political channels," as did many in their peaceful protest of the 2004 Republican National Convention. Your thinking implies that rule of law is a privilege to be extended only to American citizens who behave in the proper manner, people who look a particular way and who have a particular kind of past.

    I believe that rule of law should apply not only to all American citizens, but that it should also be extended to all people detained by the United States.

    --
    blog