Slashdot Mirror


Obama Authorizes Penalties For Foreign Cyber Attackers

An anonymous reader writes President Barack Obama has today signed an executive order extending the U.S. administration's power to respond to malicious cyberattacks and espionage campaigns. The order enforces financial sanctions on foreign hackers who action attacks against American businesses, institutions and citizens. It will enable the secretary of the Treasury, along with the attorney general and secretary of State, to inflict penalties on cyber criminals behind hacking attacks which "create a significant threat to U.S. national security, foreign policy or economic health or financial stability of the United States," Obama said. Sanctions could include freezing of assets or a total ban on commercial trade.

86 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. Hypocracy at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And what about the non-stop attacks from the US government against... everyone else?

    1. Re:Hypocracy at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US (us) is the good guys. The recipient (you) is the bad guys.

      So it's OK.

    2. Re:Hypocracy at its best by rioki · · Score: 1

      Remember, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. /s

    3. Re:Hypocracy at its best by zlives · · Score: 1

      you have seen the commercials, you know the truth.

      Merica, the global force for "Good"

  2. Please, no more! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm tired of these April Fool's articles!

    1. Re:Please, no more! by El_Oscuro · · Score: 2

      This is apparantely not a joke. I would never actually read the article but I did carefully hover over the link and it is from the whitehouse.gov website. If it had been from, whitehouse.com that would be an entirely different story...

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    2. Re:Please, no more! by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is apparantely not a joke ... it is from the whitehouse.gov website

      Well which is it?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Please, no more! by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      I'd mod you funny if I had mod points today but, burned some karma on the above troll, sorry.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    4. Re:Please, no more! by monkeyzoo · · Score: 1

      YAY! April Fool's on Slashdot is finally over.
      Something real to read.

    5. Re:Please, no more! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "I'm tired of these April Fool's articles!"

      And I know this one is not a movie reference, so what stupid video game is it from?

    6. Re:Please, no more! by rioki · · Score: 1

      Does the Whitehorse do April Fools? Mr. Putin, we are arming out nuclear missiles! Gotcha...

    7. Re:Please, no more! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Well not on April fools they did have a sense of humor at one point. Just remember the bombing begins in 5 minutes.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  3. How can foreigners be charged under US law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is ridiculous. Law is part of the agreement between citizens and their government. Citizens get certain benefits like public education and healthcare, and in return must pay the government taxes and obey their laws. If the citizen disagrees with this, he can resign his citizenship, but by doing so loses the benefits of citizenship as well.

    Foreigners, on the other hand, have no such agreement, and therefore it's ridiculous to charge them. What's next, Saudi Arabia charges me for having a beer tonight? North Korea charges me for criticizing their regime? Should I serious have to look up every single country's law before I do something, just to make sure I'm not breaking some obscure country's law?

    1. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

      Foreigners, on the other hand, have no such agreement, and therefore it's ridiculous to charge them. What's next, Saudi Arabia charges me for having a beer tonight? North Korea charges me for criticizing their regime? Should I serious have to look up every single country's law before I do something, just to make sure I'm not breaking some obscure country's law?

      North Korea may not be able to arrest you, but they sure as hell can block your IP and wire transfers into and out of North Korea.

    2. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Informative

      Should I serious have to look up every single country's law before I do something, just to make sure I'm not breaking some obscure country's law?

      Yeah, you should probably check a country's laws before you electronically infiltrate their corporations, banking system, or military computers. This isn't about citizens in other countries simply minding their own business. For those that are wondering how foreigners can be charged with US law, look up "extradition treaty". For those with whom we haven't signed such a treaty, look up "financial sanctions" or "asset forfeiture".

      How purposefully obtuse do you have to be not to get this?

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The US gov reaches out to the bank used. If that bank fails to act then any other bank interconnects to the bank a person of interest uses become interesting.
      The accounts are isolated. The bank used is isolated. Any other banks connecting to the bank with the account are isolated.
      With the use of ideas like Section 311 the USA Patriot Act account holders and their banks can be traced.
      The international financial system then has to select between that isolated bank or U.S. regulators.
      The other option is to entice a person of interest to a third country to face rendition.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is ridiculous. Law is part of the agreement between citizens and their government. Citizens get certain benefits like public education and healthcare, and in return must pay the government taxes and obey their laws. If the citizen disagrees with this, he can resign his citizenship, but by doing so loses the benefits of citizenship as well.

      Foreigners, on the other hand, have no such agreement, and therefore it's ridiculous to charge them. What's next, Saudi Arabia charges me for having a beer tonight? North Korea charges me for criticizing their regime? Should I serious have to look up every single country's law before I do something, just to make sure I'm not breaking some obscure country's law?

      He's not charging them. He's not arresting them. He's got multiple sets of powers, and he isn't using the law enforcement one here because there is no actual statute passed by Congress to deal with the problem.

      He's using his military powers, which are incredibly broad because the Founders really did not want Congress and the Supreme Court to stop expeditions against Tecumseh-types on any basis whatsoever. He has an enemy that is partly military (China's cyber-ops unit is in the military), so he's probably good as long as he doesn't start abusing the law.

    5. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      They can arrest you. If you show up in North Korea proper. They also have a de facto right to kidnap you from the streets of your home country.

      It's true there are processes in place that prevent the vast majority of states from doing either without going through a lot of legal paperwork (ie: warrants, extradition), but the North Koreans are known for shit like kidnapping the dictator's favorite director from the South because he thought his domestic film industry sucked. And getting away with it.

    6. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, I'm aware that "asset forfeiture" is the catchall reason our government can use to steal private assets when it knows there is no law on its side, but trying to use this power internationally is going to elicit - I hope to hell, anyway - an armed response.

    7. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 2

      You seem to be confused there. If he's issuing "sanctions" (as per the announcement), then there is some kind of judicial or administrative procedure. If he's waging war, then he can use the War Powers Act. (BTW: Obama declaring this to be a "national emergency" doesn't make it one sufficient to engage that Act.) That Act doesn't authorize a president to do whatever-the-hell-he-wants.

    8. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by msobkow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Funny. The Russians seem to have your backs to the wall over the Ukraine...

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    9. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ever been in the military? Nothing involves more administrative procedures then military action. Even during our Civil War there were formal procedures to determine precisely what you were allowed to do to that dude on the gray coat.

      As for your claims about statutory basis, I fully understand that Americans have this broad-based-delusion that Congress has a significant say over what the military actually does beyond a) the budget, and b) officer promotions; but there is simply no Constitutional basis for that claim. There's statutory basis, but the basis is generally "Congress pitched a huge hissy fit when President Jefferson used his powers to unilaterally invade the Barbary Pirates so he went along with it when they proposed a retroactive statute to authorize the operation." Then you get case law based on the resulting hissy-fit statutes, but here's the key thing:
      Nobody ever claimed that anybody had the legal Power to Order the Fleet back into port after Jefferson sent them to Libya solely on his say-so. Nobody tried to make the legal case Nixon couldn't bomb Cambodia stand up in Court. The hissy-fit statutes like the War Powers Act are legitimate to the extent they are used by Congress to explain what, precisely, it intends to fund when it funds the military. They are clearly not legitimate to the extent that they could actually be used against a President in a Court of Law.

      What's going on in this case is simple: it's established that Commanders-in-Chief can freeze the bank accounts of enemies of the US. This did require a statute, the PATRIOT Act, because it would not have been in the toolbox of an 18th-century monarch or George Washington. But now that it's established, and it's widely considered to have been a useful military tool against Al Qaeda, the administration can use it against anyone it thinks is a military opponent. Congress will bitch, because they always bitch.

      But that doesn't mean PLA Col. Wu's attempt to get his bank account bank will actually work.

    10. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Informative

      I agree that asset forfeiture against citizens isn't warranted unless those assets are the direct gains of illegal activity. There are already punitive laws in place. This practice seemed to emerge with the "war on drugs", and continued with the war on terror.

      I think a case could be made for asset seizure against foreign criminals, as there's no other way to punish them for crimes committed. I don't see why an "armed response" would be warranted if there's criminal activity involved. Of course, the big gotcha in all of this is that it's incredibly difficult to actually *prove* who's behind a cyber attack unless you can seize the person's personal computer.

      Honestly, I think this is mostly saber-rattling aimed at NK and China, telling them that the US is willing to impose some financial hardships on anyone who attacks any US interests via the internet.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    11. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow. I'm glad that you educated me. I had always thought that the Constitution granted the power to declare war to Congress alone.

      I always thought, too, that there were civilian administrative procedures. I'm sure glad you let me know that that lady working in the drivers license division was drawing military hazard pay. And judges and courts ... all part of the military machine, eh?

      ... and that mystical power of the President to command the executives of banks in foreign countries ... I had no idea about that either. If you tell me Bigfoot is real, I'll believe that too.

    12. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How purposefully obtuse do you have to be not to get this?

      No doubt the members of PLA Unit 61398 are terribly upset at the thought of having their American assets seized. Right.

    13. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      How can foreigners be charged under US law?

      They commit a crime that is punishable under US law, in a country that has an extradition treaty with the US. Think of the Kim dotcom situation, although he didn't get extradited, fortunately for him.

      If you think it's ridiculous, then convince your country to not have an extradition treaty with the US.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by ckatko · · Score: 1

      While I think your heart is in the right place... since they're attacking US citizens and companies, it still applies. Whether foreigners break into your house, shoot your wife, and rape your dog, and convince your children that Jesus is Lord, OR, steal your bank account information from your computer from Jupiter's moon of Europa, it doesn't really matter. They're still attacking you. It doesn't matter that they're not US citizens. Non-citizens can still break laws which allow the government to then protect its citizens.

      That's doesn't mean we're not treading into a very grey, confusing legal area... But let's stop assuming laws can't apply outside of a country, or to non-citizens. If a guy fires a gun from Canada-owned land, and kills you in your house near the border, the USA can and will seek justice. This is not some draconian system, this is pretty normal international law and politics.

      The USA does shady shit all the time. But let's focus on the depth of that actual shady shit they do instead of getting worked up about everything else they do.

    15. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      Law is part of the agreement between citizens and their government.

      I can't really say that I don't like your comment "per se", but ... when was the list time you were involved in negotiation of an "agreement between citizens and government"? Did someone come to you and asked what should be in the law?

    16. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They aren't foreign criminals.

      They broke no law in their country.

      They weren't in the USA.

      Just like your soldiers doing murder isn't criminal, what they do isn't criminal either, even though there's laws against both killing people and "computer trespass".

    17. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, IF they had invade the house, killed, stolen and assaulted people, they would be criminals in the USA because they were doing it in the USA.

      They aren't in the USA when they use the internet to connect to your computer, though.

      What do you do when the NSA is spying and breaking into computers of France, Germany, Italy, et al? Call them criminals and, since they are government employed, seize assets and sanction the US government interaction with all the banks of the world to get them punished extra-judicially?

      Or do you go "Hell, everyone does it, what are the CIA and NSA for, if not spying? What do you want us to do, be defenceless?"

      Oh, yeah, right, the latter. Because you're not bound by law, are you.

      Nor even rationality.

      China sues US government, seize assets of the USA and corporations in the USA and sanction them for their spying and illegal computer trespass. THEN you won't think it sensible or warranted. But you still won't see the hypocrisy.

    18. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      For those that are wondering how foreigners can be charged with US law, look up "extradition treaty". For those with whom we haven't signed such a treaty, look up "financial sanctions" or "asset forfeiture".

      Neither of those things involve charges. That's why they're effective - if they had to be backed by actual charges that went through an actual judicial system, the targets could win cases and get the sanctions dismissed. An arbitrary blacklist is a lot better from the viewpoint of the POTUS and his minions because what are you going to do about it? File an appeal?

      This isn't about citizens in other countries simply minding their own business

      Pretty staggeringly stupid position. Lots of countries have extradition treaties with the USA, including Germany. If you are OK with the head of the NSA being extradited, charged, found guilty of espionage and imprisoned in Europe or China then go right ahead and say such things ...

    19. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hope at last that the same rules will be applied to hacking from the US. Time to seize the assets of google and others American business.

    20. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by rioki · · Score: 1

      They also have a de facto right to kidnap you from the streets of your home country.

      They do not have the right; but that does not prevent them of doing it. Actors of the state penetrating into a different country and taking hostage citizens of said county (probably any other) is an act of war. Yes, technically most espionage is an act of war.

    21. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      it's established that Commanders-in-Chief can freeze the bank accounts of enemies of the US. This did require a statute, the PATRIOT Act, because it would not have been in the toolbox of an 18th-century monarch or George Washington. But now that it's established, and it's widely considered to have been a useful military tool against Al Qaeda, the administration can use it against anyone it thinks is a military opponent.

      The case for financial sanctions against Al Qaeda is not as clear cut as you might think. The cost of 9/11 was in the low tens of thousands of dollars.

      Regardless, the US sanctions list include many non-military targets, and the definition of "terrorist" is so flexible that it can be used to justify punitive non-judicial action against literally anyone. The US constitution specifically forbids laws of attainder, which are laws that specifically enumerate lists of victims. The PATRIOT Act doesn't include an actual list (though the Magnitsky act does), but a law that refers to a list maintained by a bureaucracy under direct command of the President is hardly different given the bans intent.

      Unless you intend any form of punishment at all to be OK against any "military target" i.e. anyone, then no, this sort of thing is not OK.

    22. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 2

      How can the power to declare war be relevant to how the US responds to attacks on military infrastructure by foreign military units? Assuming it actually applies to cyber-attacks, pirate raids, or any other number of military attacks that don't involve full scale national mobilization, the war was already started by them.

      I never said there weren't civilian administrative procedures. That's a strawman you're creating, apparently because the last time you actually thought about the President's military powers was the Sixth Grade. Every institution, civilian, military, educational, whatever has administrative procedures. The unique thing about military ones is that they start with the death sentence and go down, whereas civilian ones tend to start at nominal fines or being yelled at via paperwork and go up.

      As for his power to command foreign banks, yes under US Law he has the power to command anyone to do anything within US Law. They don't necessarily have to obey, and the question as to whether the Courts would allow him to sanction the Royal Bank of Scotland for not freezing Col. Wu's account would actually be fairly interesting and involve statutory law; but if your argument is Obama does not have the right to send a nasty letter to RBC asking them to freeze a bank account and threatening DOOM if they disobey you're sadly mistaken.

      US Banks are probably screwed. Just as Obama can enforce a quarantine via commander-in-chief in pretty much any way he wants (as long as he can convince the courts there's a commander-in-chief-style need for a quarantine), freezing Col. Wu's bank account is a perfectly reasonable to Colonel Wu fucking with Americans, so CitiBank better do that shit.

    23. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by rioki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Although I will concede that jurisdiction is a muddled concept with IT systems, but the following is true: They attack and/or penetrate IT systems that are located on US soil. Under international conventions, this is a crime. This is no different that when I throw a rock across the US/Canada border and damage your car, did the crime happen in the US or Canada? But even in China and North Korea there are laws against damaging IT systems and I am quite sure that they don't have exclusions for US IT systems. Now either they are private citizens and thus it is a criminal act and they are criminals or this is a government sanctioned act and they are soldiers and this is an act of war (i.e. not a crime).

    24. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by Livius · · Score: 1

      de facto right

      Contradiction in terms.

    25. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      USA's own intelligence services break those laws the detriment of their own populace, with no visible repercussions. Why would people from the outside expect any different?

    26. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      If the citizen disagrees with this, he can resign his citizenship

      I hear this is getting harder to do in the US.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    27. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      when was the list time you were involved in negotiation of an "agreement between citizens and government"?

      About 6 months ago. I was presented a number of choices to select from as was the rest of the voting population. Unfortunately most of the choices that were made previously made were made again and while most didn't not make a choice the vast majority of those who did made a different choice than I did.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    28. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Speaking on citizenship it would be interesting to see what benefits offered to "undocumented Americans" would be available to a former US citizen that renounced their citizenship.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    29. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      Foreigners, on the other hand, have no such agreement

      The problem is that crossing virtual borders should not be viewed any different than crossing real borders. The only difference here is that virtual borders aren't currently protected (in some countries they are). This is also why governments such as the Canadian government are starting to throw the idea of controlling in/outbound traffic. This is very bad for the internet and we can blame online criminals for this.

      Should I serious have to look up every single country's law before I do something, just to make sure I'm not breaking some obscure country's law?

      I wouldn't consider a ban on hacking to be an obscure law. Theft or vandalisms is a crime in every country where law enforcement exists.

    30. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      You voted for a politician. That is miles away from voting on a law.

    31. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      de facto right

      Contradiction in terms.

      Only if you believe American Constitutional theory trumps common usage. Even in the US when the government does something that it might not supposed to do, the most common question isn't the American Constitutional Theory correct "Is a health care mandate within the Powers granted by Constitution, without unconstitutionally interfering with the rights enumerated in the Amendments?" it's the theoretically incorrect "Do they really have the right to make you buy healthcare?"

      Heck, we're both talking about North Koreans. Why would they give a fuck whether Thomas Jefferson thought a "de facto right" was self-contradictory?

    32. Re:How can foreigners be charged under US law? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Whether it's overblown or not isn't relevant to the question of whether most people (and particularly the ones who are Judges) think it was a good idea.

      As for your fears about being declared a terrorist, welcome to fucking America. The Commander-in-Chief clause is specifically designed so you do not have the right to prevent the President from oppressing you. If he thinks he has legitimate Commander-in-Chief reasons to lock you up then you get locked up. He doesn't need a statute, or a Court Order (altho he'd prefer both if he can get them). Your legal remedy is to challenge your detention in Court while you rot in prison. The only penalty you'll receive even if you turn out to be a non-terrorist is compensation, and that will probably take an Act of Congress because the Founders didn't see fit to include anything more automatic in their Constitution.

      The reason is that in 1789 a significant proportion of the population were still loyal to the British Crown. 4% of them actually fled to Canada, and form the basis of the Anglophone Canadian community. They did not want some guy with undying loyalty to the King and a keg of gunpowder to have Constitutional rights, therefore they specifically designed the Constitution so the President could circumvent his rights. The Checks are that a) Commander-in-Chief powers are ad hoc, so that after the threat is passed our gunpowder toting Tory gets free, and b) the Tory can appeal to the ordinary Courts claiming he's not evil and the Commander-in-Chief powers don't apply to him. Which is a completely different design principle then the rest of the Constitution.

  4. This only addresses half the problem. by Ichijo · · Score: 1

    The other half is companies that don't properly secure their information systems. And with a law like this in place, there's even less reason to.

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  5. Another puff of hot air from our Obama-in-chief by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Obama has no authority to impose sanctions on anybody for these acts, unless (1) Congress passes a law that says he does or (2) a foreign country says he does, creating jurisdiction. Neither has happened.

    Obama said "From now on, we have the power to freeze their assets, make it harder for them to do business with U.S. companies, and limit their ability to profit from their misdeeds" in the making (apparently) of an executive order. If the power existed, it existed prior to Mr. Obama's order because it was authorized by 1 or 2 above. Mr. Obama's declarations of power are worthy of the bottom of my birdcage.

    This idiot of a reporter at The Stack dot com thinks that an executive order is "legislation". Someone should inform her that legislation almost always appears in the U.S. Code, not in some press release on the White House Blog. I can't wait for this administration to try to enforce these sanctions: they're going to get tossed out of court on their rear ends if they try.

    1. Re:Another puff of hot air from our Obama-in-chief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's call media incompetence, don't blame Obama for their shoddy reporting, he could probably announce a war on stupidity and they'd ask which country was going to be invaded first.

      (The answer is Mississippi, BTW.)

    2. Re:Another puff of hot air from our Obama-in-chief by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Check out his cool picture, carefully examining the wall in the NOC. The president already does have broad leeway to enforce sanctions, though; and he can even invade a country if needed, although if it lasts too long he needs permission from congress.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Another puff of hot air from our Obama-in-chief by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      This is good stuff, though. The White House needs to cast their executive orders ever broader and wider. Soon nobody at all will believe the Executive should have any power to meddle outside the Constitutional mandate. It's a good trend. Keep it up, guys.

    4. Re:Another puff of hot air from our Obama-in-chief by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 1

      I can't wait for the news report of the Apaches dropping off the "enforcers" in places like China and North Korea. Good luck with that!

    5. Re:Another puff of hot air from our Obama-in-chief by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      So he's got the power to unilaterally rule a US Citizen in Yemen is an enemy of the US, and blow up said citizen with a drone (incidentally killing several others), but he can't freeze the US bank account of a Chinese military officer whose busily hacking Americans?

      When normal lawyers deal with the Commander-in-Chief clause, which has very few limits (the biggest is that it doesn't apply that often), they really get into trouble fast.

    6. Re:Another puff of hot air from our Obama-in-chief by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 2

      So he's got the power to unilaterally rule a US Citizen in Yemen is an enemy of the US, and blow up said citizen with a drone (incidentally killing several others), but he can't freeze the US bank account of a Chinese military officer whose busily hacking Americans?

      Until Congress changes it, yep. That's how it is, no matter how illogical it might seem.

      When normal lawyers deal with the Commander-in-Chief clause, which has very few limits (the biggest is that it doesn't apply that often), they really get into trouble fast.

      Nope. Look it up for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

    7. Re:Another puff of hot air from our Obama-in-chief by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Hmm. One would think an impeachment is a slam dunk if what you say is correct. Reps hold both houses. Where is it?

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    8. Re:Another puff of hot air from our Obama-in-chief by rossdee · · Score: 1

      >Apaches dropping off the "enforcers"

      The Apache is a gunship. It doesn't carry troops.
      Maybe you mean Blackhawks

    9. Re:Another puff of hot air from our Obama-in-chief by NicBenjamin · · Score: 4, Informative

      That is the least relevant statute on the books.

      Why?

      Because the Founders clearly didn't want Congress to have any say over day-to-day military operations. They explicitly designed the President's powers to totally pre-empt any Congressional claim to such control. Their reasoning was quite simple: in 1789 there was no telegraph, so a message to Congress asking for authorization to deal with a Spanish Governor who was trying to eat a little bit of Georgia would not be dealt with by Congress until everyone was already dead. The local garrison commander had to have the ability to order his forces into combat without Congressional authorization. Since he gets his legal authority from the President, that means the President also has to have the authority to authorize small-scale military operations without asking Congress.

      Congress's checks on the local Army commander's authority were the facts that a) Congress could eliminate his regiment in the next budget, which would fire him, and b) since all military officer-level jobs are Congressionally confirmed they could also refuse to let him have another job.

      The Declaration of War clause doesn't actually justify give Congress much power over anything but a Total War we start, and couldn't apply here because if the Chinese are attacking us we get to attack them back. They have started the War.

      The "Necessary and proper" clause, combined with the changes in technology that have made Congressional control possible, would a good enough rationalization for a sane Supreme Court. But we do not live in a world where the Supreme Court is sane. We live in a world where the Supreme Court is dominated by textual Federalists who think the solution to this problem is to go through the Amendment process.

    10. Re:Another puff of hot air from our Obama-in-chief by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 1

      Impeachment? Why would the Republicans do that? Obama is embarrassing the hell of of the Democrats on a daily basis with his pompous press releases. Oh, I assure you that the Republican members of Congress absolutely love Obama and want this to continue as long as possible. It assures their future re-elections...

    11. Re:Another puff of hot air from our Obama-in-chief by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected...

    12. Re:Another puff of hot air from our Obama-in-chief by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The Apache can carry up to four troops on its payload wings - its been done in several situations where troop carriers were way way too vulnerable, especially in combat rescue scenarios.

    13. Re:Another puff of hot air from our Obama-in-chief by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Obama has no authority to impose sanctions on anybody for these acts, unless (1) Congress passes a law that says he does

      They did. The PATRIOT Act allows the Treasury to sanction anyone at any time, for pretty much any reason.

    14. Re:Another puff of hot air from our Obama-in-chief by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Ha! Maybe you're right. I remember Dems were pretty gleeful towards the end of Shrub's tenure.

      So, to restate: It's acceptable for the president to break the Constitution, because it's politically expedient to allow him to embarass others.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  6. Re:This is the best by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 1

    April Fool's Day turned into the April Fool's decade...

  7. OMG April Fool's LOL! by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

    Making rules against cyberattacks against US computers? LOL!!! Foreigners should just be able to hack away with no repercussions! This HAS to be an April Fools! LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  8. Re:so... no trial... no proof... no justice. by TheReaperD · · Score: 2

    Plus, you have the problem such as the hacking command center in Canada, ran by the US NSA, that launches attacks on the US with the intent on pointing the finger at other countries. How can anybody be sure it isn't a false flag attack as long as the NSA runs something like this?

    Oh, and I'm pretty sure an order very similar to this would have happened if we had President Romney too. I'm not forgiving Obama for it but, the name in office matters very little any more nor does the party affiliation. The same corporations pull the strings. All the party hate serves is that people are watching Republicans or Democrats when they should be watching Northrop Grumman, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Monsanto, etc.

    --
    "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  9. Back to our regularly scheduled conspiracies by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    This sounds more like the usual slashdot front page material. Someone forgot to mention that it also gives him the right to eat your firstborn - regardless of their age - but it is nonetheless much closer to what we usually see here now. It isn't funny, but neither were any of the April Fool's articles.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  10. screw sanctions by csumpi · · Score: 1

    just hit them hackers with drones.

  11. It's the IRS by tsotha · · Score: 1

    I knew they would get serious when people started stealing money from the government by filing false tax returns. The USG won't bestir itself for hackers stealing military secrets, but if you affect the flow of tax dollars you're in trouble.

  12. This is hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    given what the NSA does, how it attacks, breaches, and infiltrates foreign networks and systems.

  13. Germany, Swiss, Farance and UN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So the Germans, Swiss, French and the UN can reciprocate and bill USA for having a par tay?

  14. Re:This is the best by pspahn · · Score: 1

    You know, if you keep doing ridiculous shit long enough (and getting away with it), eventually you can do something super ridiculous and send out the PR release on April 1. Everyone will think it's a joke.

    --
    Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
  15. Russians by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    Funny. The Russians seem to have your backs to the wall over the Ukraine...

    Not really. We're willing to go to war over some things and not others. Ukraine was serious in the diplomatic community but its ties to the US population are relatively small. Striking a NATO country or certain NATO allies would get the Americans involved in a hurry.

    There have been times in the past when America has not gone in, when we know from evidence that came out after the fact that Russia would have backed down if we had. Going into the western part might well have worked here, might have started a major war, or might have gotten us stuck there for ten years while our budget is not in the greatest shape to begin with--it could have severely impacted our readiness to carry on other wars if they become necessary. With Iraq and Afghanistan fresh in our minds, somebody made a call they didn't want to get mired in it. The Russian attack into Ukraine sucks, but it's not a line in the sand for us.

    Invade Germany or Poland and you'll see a much bigger response, from the United States and Europe.

    1. Re:Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Good grief people know so little of history I'd be amazed if you knew who your granddad really was! The US has never been involved in war for altruistic purposes. It has been about power and money grabs since the mid to late 1800s. Stop believing everything you are told and actually study for once in your pathetic life. Look at the big picture instead of what someone told you, because more often than not you have been told WRONG! If you want an eye opener which summarizes US war for profit start with Carol Quigley's Tragedy and Hope. Unfortunately this is not, and never has been, about US people making the US some great wealthy country. This is about a small select group of people that happen to hold well over 98% of the worlds wealth today (up from about 90% in the 1970s).

      Good Lord man, go read about how much money the Bush family made funding Hitler as a starter. Yeah, THAT Bush family. Oh I know, we have had over 100 years of bumbling idiots in Federal offices and nothing has ever been planned either. Conspiracy is restricted to the poor and middle class, a rich guy would never think to do something like that.

    2. Re:Russians by rioki · · Score: 1

      In the case of the Ukraine, the US could probably care less. Neither the populace, note the leading casts cared about it. There is little to gain for the US, no use to squabble about one military port in the Black Sea. (Big deal to the Russians.) But the Europeans saw the situation differently and pressured the US to put their wight behind it. The primary reason for Russia's actions was Ukraine's move closer to the EU and NATO, which directly threatened their precious Black Sea port. (No use to "own" a port that will be overrun/destroyed within the first minutes of fighting.)

    3. Re:Russians by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I saw no mention of altruism in GPP. I also see no content in your post unless you mean to claim that some countries do go to war for altruistic reasons, in which case I'd like to see some examples. The US is about as altruistic in war as the other democracies I'm aware of.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:Russians by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      We'd be happy to get our own government to do anything - well anything useful.

    5. Re:Russians by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There is a "we": the US. While US policy is disproportionately controlled by the rich, there's limits as to how much war can be sold to the 99%. The Vietnam War went way over those limits, and caused large political upheavals.

      The statement "We're willing to go to war over some things and not others" has nothing to do with altruism. The fact is that the US (both its decision makers and its people) are unwilling to go to war over Ukraine. That's all.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  16. The USA government can never be wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Don't you ever bad-mouth the US government or their dogs will be after you for the rest of your pathetic life

    Look at what happened to Gaddafi of Libya of Saddam of Iraq and you will understand that you can *NEVER* say anything bad about the government of the United States of America

    When (and if) the USA attacks you, it is YOU who must be bad, as USA is the de-facto "good guy" in the whole goddamn world

    1. Re:The USA government can never be wrong by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Well, compared to Gaddafi we are the good guys. Frankly, I'm hard pressed to name a major nation that is better. Sure, there are a couple of smaller ones that are nice, Finland for example, but of major powers I'm drawing a blank.

  17. Hmmm ... how's that work? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    So, the US has decided they will apply penalties/punishment for people who break into their computers.

    But the US has decided they can break into any and all computers.

    On behalf of the part of the world who thinks you shouldn't have access to our communications ... what the hell gives you the right to penalize someone for things you openly do? Why are attacks against you special?

    Why does American foreign policy boil down to "we are special because we're Americans", and why the hell should the rest of the world agree to this bullshit?

    If America has decreed they can break into any system legally for any reasons of their choosing .. America needs to accept the fact that is true of any country (or possibly individual) in the world.

    Unless somehow it's magically different, because 'Murica.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Hmmm ... how's that work? by spauldo · · Score: 1

      Government does what it wants. The US just has more leverage, so they can actually pull it off. Most people wouldn't be deterred by pissing off, say, Albania.

      There is a key difference here, and it's targeted toward non-goverment types. If some guy in Whogivesastan breaks into a bank and wires himself a lot of cash, there's not much the government can do about it other than what they're saying here.

      If the Whogivesastan government breaks into a bank and wire themselves a lot of cash, it's a diplomatic incident. It won't be handled the same way.

      The US isn't going to protect a script kiddie who breaks into a company in another country. If we have an extradition treaty, the US would most likely be happy to hand the little schmuck over. If we don't, they wouldn't care if said country did any asset seizure they could from where they are.

      That's the key difference; they're saying it's OK for the government to do this stuff, but not individuals or non-government entities. If another government does this, they'll respond through diplomatic channels.

      Not saying it's right, but it's not hypocritical.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
  18. We'll show them! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    The penalty is being flooded with bad April Fool's jokes.

  19. Ok, spin it around by Rainwulf · · Score: 1

    Does the same apply for other countries who are being attacked by america's cyber soldiers? *cough* NSA?

  20. Re:GNAA - NIGGER OBAMA IS NOT OF GNAA by _merlin · · Score: 1

    You know, I liked the GNAA back when they had press releases relating to recent event, and up-to-the-minute trolling for news stories. But now it's all stale copy-pasta. You aren't the GNAA, you're just lame imitators.

  21. Swatting just got an upgrade! by ramriot · · Score: 1

    Yay, swatting just got an upgrade.

    Since internet based crime is already hard to track down to individuals or groups who are only making reasonable efforts to hide their identities I envision a new from of cyber-attack, DOFBA attack or Denial Of Funds By America attack. All that is needed is to commit a 'cyber' attack on the US or its citizens in a way that upon investigation tracks back to some group that you wish to punish. Though come to think of it, this may have already happened see the timeline of the Sony Hack.

  22. How do you say "Scary" sarcastically in Russian? by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    I'm sure that the Russian and Chinese hackers are absolutely terrified of Obama's penalties.

  23. Re:GNAA - NIGGER OBAMA IS NOT OF GNAA by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    Ah the days of GNAA and TripMasterMonkey!

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!