"If you ask me, the problem is the entire H1-B Visa program."
I suggest rather that the problem is the system which allows corporate interests to buy and control lawmakers who arrange things such as the H1-B program.
Trump is a bully who's core support comes from disenfranchised xenophobes.
The only thing you're missing there is the "and he's an evil far-right-extremist..." then you could turn around and be best buddies with the governments of Europe(Germany, Norway, England, etc), who also shout the same garbage at the opposition because they're not listening to the public. And successfully drive more people to the opposition with their insane rhetoric.
Trump says what an uneducated idiot would say to his buddy in private company. He attacks detractors like a schoolyard bully with a foul mouth, and he is of zero substance.
In other words, he's saying stuff that people outside the beltway, those outside of the ivory hall of academia say, and what Bob and Doug are saying around the watercooler. And that resonates with people who aren't you, people that you think are "xenophobes" because their values are different, and they have different viewpoints. And instead of wondering why they have different viewpoints, and why what he says is resonating you resort to just another form of bullying.
“Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!”
- George Carlin
And some percentage of those people are going to resonate very well with Mr. Trump.
Yaay go France. I wish the UK had more balls. Alternatively maybe I can now "agree to pay" about 100th of my UK tax bill. and If not, why not?
Because you probably don't have a bunch of 'lords' or whoever it is that makes your laws and legal rulings with a vested interest in you making a nice profit for them to get a share of.
"Researchers analyzed data from nine previously published studies with a total of more than 430,000 participants and found that drinking two additional cups of coffee a day was linked to a 44% lower risk of developing liver cirrhosis."
Were the people who were drinking that extra two cuppas drinking less booze as well?
I would like to make three suggestions to the CEO of Yelp:
Compile a list of all the managers who approved those appallingly substandard wages.
Fire all of them with cause for creating an appallingly abusive work environment and damaging Yelp's corporate image.
Hire this girl to replace one of them.
You seem to be under some sort of impression that CEOs in general, and specifically the CEO of Yelp, are good people who care about their employees.
What in the world would have given you such an impression?
CEOs get where they are because they are sociopaths who are able to fuck over the people who work for them as much as possible in the search for 'shareholder value'.
She states in her original post that she lives far enough out in the East bay that her daily commute via public transit is $5+ each way. $10/day * 5 days a week * 4 weeks comes to at least $200 a month for transportation alone. Your rental search may have turned up a few $800/month apartments but generally those are either reserved for low income, or get you a small walk-in-closet sized bedroom in a house with 5+ roommates. Most listings on those sites are outdated and no longer available the day after they're posted and have 20-30 people fighting over them. Typical rent in Emeryville is about $1400 for a small studio, increasing by at least $100 annually. I just moved from there, precisely because it's that insane. It's pretty much impossible to find anything unless you're an exec or engineer making six figures. Another option is Oakland, but anywhere in Oakland you're looking at drug dealers and homeless heckling you as soon as you get near public transportation, and weekly shootings near your apartment. Bay area is hell on earth unless you're among the privileged six-figure crowd. #formerengineer
Subscriptions were a way for people to pay for phones monthly but such subscriptions are dead for most people (at least here in France where I pay 10 euros a month for 20G of 4G and unlimited calls/sms/mms) which means that Apple needs to find a new way to get people to be able to afford their phones.
In this way apple can continue to charge ridiculous prices by allowing people who can't afford the phone outright (or who go into brain freeze when presented with the full price) to spend more than they should on something that they don't actually need to spend so much on.
Sounds good. I do think that during that period corporations should be allowed to dissolve (but not go bankrupt). But how can you apply that to an international corporation? Especially not one incorporated within your legal bounds? Forbidding them to do business locally isn't quite the same thing. And what about rents due during that period on premises they occupy?
I think that this would require an entirely new set of laws to be written. Does making a river poisonous count as 1 week, 1 year, or one decade "in prison"? Does it depend on who uses the river for what? Whoo! The idea has merit, but implementation would be horrendous, with many questions that have no obvious answer, and you know who would be pushing for minimal punishment.
The problem isn't in being able to apply punishment to either companies or those behind the companies because the legal framework already exists for this.
The problem is that governments prefer to be bought off with large bribes (or penalties / fees if you prefer) and to get those bribes they have to agree not to penalize the company and those behind the company in any real way.
The other great part about this is... its because people are cheaping out on a repair for a $650+ device. People are idiots. Buy a cheap repair, you deserve your phone bricked for stupidity.
You are travelling and in some 3rd world location, it might be for your job. You might need your phone for survival (trust me, if you travel in out of the way places a smart phone really can be a survival accessory). The screen breaks. Shipping it to a certified Apple repair place might take months and cost rather a lot, what with secure shipping etc. So you get it repaired locally. It happens and its not 'cheaping out'.
Even moreso, if you pay 655+ for a device that device should be your own to get fixed where you want to get it fixed.
Pretty much. We looked at the cost and challenges for encrypting SIP communications on our local LAN, and it just wasn't worth the hassle. We will segregate the phones onto a separate VLAN, but the value is limited; SIP deployments really aren't focused on security yet.
We control the financial aspect by carrier-enforced rules which prevent toll calls. Much more effective. (We do have a way to make calling card calls through our Asterisk system that is sufficiently locked down and only has $100 or so at risk.)
The biggest risk for most implementations is toll theft so while encryption may not be necessary you should still be able to authenticate call setup and control.
"In a divided election year, encryption brings parties together — against technology."
Because the populace is oh so ter-terr-terrified of ter-terr-terrorists that there are shit tons of votes to be had by a politician who is for anything that can be marketed as being 'Against Terrorism' (tm).
Most Americans don't stop listening to MSM long enough to actually consider that the actual threat from terrorism is effectively zero.
Why is it that so much malware and online crime comes from Russia? The country simply refuses to police themselves, even when things are obviously illegal. The overall effects are pretty severe to other countries. I'd support sanctioning Putin directly to prevent him from entering the EU. Then I'd also effectively cut them off from the internet by terminating any wired links between them and the EU while dropping all connections coming from IPs assigned to entities in Russia. Cutting Russia off from the internet to the best of our ability is really the only way to stop the excessive crime from that country.
Just so that the debate here is a little more well-informed:
The government is not asking that Apple give out the user's password, or decrypt the phone, both of which they cannot just do (i.e. are incapable of performing). The request is that Apple produce a piece of iOS software or boot image (as I understand it), that would:
1) Disable the auto-erase feature
2) Allow the FBI to brute force submit password guesses to the phone, and
3) Disable or reduce the increasing-delay-between-guesses feature of the passcode lock.
I would be curious to know whether for this iPhone 5c (with iOS 9) this is even possible for Apple to do.
You can see why Apple wanted to get very far away from the business of being in a position to be asked constantly by law enforcement to help decrypt its phones, just for the sheer volume of requests that will be coming if they do....
One per software release?
Once they have the image that does 1,2 and 3 of your points they don't need to ask Apple to do anything on an individual phone basis.
" The unlock code itself is entangled with the device's UDID so that all attempts to decrypt the storage must be done on the device itself. You must have all 3 pieces present: The specific secure enclave, the specific processor of the iphone, and the flash memory that you are trying to decrypt. Basically, you can't pull the device apart to attack an individual piece of the encryption or get around parts of the encryption storage process. You can't run the decryption or brute forcing of the unlock code in an emulator. It requires that the actual hardware components are present and can only be done on the specific device itself."
Be careful of accepting marketing materials as proof.
Nothing stops Apple themselves from fabricating another phone with the same UDID. The flash and 'tamper resistant' secure enclave can probably be cold attacked and bit level duplicated and stored to allow brute forcing.
While a single duplicate phone wouldn't be of much use, anything physical can be simulated and Apple is capable of doing so for their own product, though their marketing materials won't say so and they certainly won't want to set a precedent for being able to do so.
Wasn't it already figured out that trying to blow nukes off on an asteroid surface would achieve approximately JACK SHIT?
So why, all of the sudden, are we digging up a bunch of brain-dead movie fodder that we already know won't work?
So that we can modernize our weapons to have something positioned against the late growth in military power of both Russia and China without seeming overly aggressive in the hope of not further escalating global tensions, perhaps?
Not sure why this is marked as a troll. It is 100% true: use pfSense, not Cisco. Use an Open Source solution that doesn't require a "support contract" to get fixes to THEIR software they sold you. The only reason to use Cisco Firewalls is to make Cisco rich.
When you tell me that you can support 100 million concurrent sessions and 2Tbps of firewalling throughput across a pfsense firewall then I'll be able to go to my customers and say there is no longer a need to pay enormous amounts of money for a firewall. https://www.juniper.net/us/en/...
Granted Cisco doesn't have anything even remotely close to this Juniper box in performance but the overall point is that pfsense isn't a replacement for high end firewalls at this point in time.
Key points for me: a) Only 5% of gitmo detainees were actually captured by the US. 86% were handed in by' bounty hunters' during a dubious bounty program that offered the public a nice way to get rich while getting rid of anyone you really didn't like :
Get wealth and power beyond your dreams....You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces catch al-Qaida and Taliban murders. This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people.
b) Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
"Since then[9/11], the Justice Department's Inspector General found that the FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of national security letters, a majority against U.S. persons, and many without any connection to terrorism at all." https://www.aclu.org/top-ten-a...
Americans can be accused of terrorism, with no basis, and be thrown in a hole indefinitely with no right to legal defense or trail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So, for me...I'd rather say "Stop" to the government who I feel is out of control. You fight a war, you fight a war - you don't use it as a justification to take away constitutional protections of the citizens who put you in power.
As far as actual fear of terror...I am more afraid or (and statistically much more likely to actually die from) getting hit by a car crossing the street.
So yes, I want the government to obey the law and the constitution. I do not want the government to have more and more power over me because of media inspired fear of something that is not actually a real threat.
I don't have numbers to back it up but I suspect that I am more likely to be hurt by the government, in some way, than I am to be hurt by a terrorist.
Enemy combatants/POW's and Unlawful Combatants are NOT afforded constitutional rights by the military and never will. Even if you are a US citizen, if you are an enemy combatant in a zone where the military is conducting combat operations, guess what, you don't get to complain that they killed or detained you without due process.
Now if you don't think that's a good idea, or that this is somehow unethical and you think it should be changed, I ask you to carefully consider the implications and costs of what you are suggesting. The military simply MUST not be burdened with protecting the constitutional rights of combatants when conducting combat operations. They also must NOT be viewed as a law enforcement agency or be expected to operate under rules of engagement which pretend they are. The military is the military, it's for killing people and breaking stuff in the defense of the nation's interest, not for enforcing laws.
Point 1) Not everyone who is taken is actually an enemy combatant, other than by the word of those doing the capturing. Some will be, some will not be, having been caught up in a sweep - wrong place, wrong time or just delivering pizza. The problem is that you cannot know unless you were there. So unless you're ready to say "I don't give a shit if they're guilty or not we're going to torture them until they admit something" then this is not a reasonable solution.
Point 2) When these laws are used against US citizens, those US citizens should be protected by their constitutional rights. Period.
Enemy combatants are NOT afforded constitutional rights by the military, they can be killed, detained without charge and questioned without a lawyer present even after they request legal representation. PLEASE tell me you understand why this is and why you don't want to change it.... So, if you put them on trial, what do you suppose the FIRST motion their appointed lawyer is going to make?
Well that's the problem isn't it - some of the people in question may not actually be enemy combatants.
With regard to constitutional protection, I am referring to American citizens who have such protection to protect them (us) from the government. I do not believe that these rights should be thrown away out of convenience or fear of what the 'terrorists' might do.
You're more likely to be killed by furniture falling on you than by a terrorist attack so you really should get your capital letter hysterics under control. http://www.theatlantic.com/int...
Slashdot Mirror
If people will follow Trump, they'll follow just about anything.
Your Dad must have been a hell of a fighter !!
Yeah, might have phrased that badly.
He did wind up in the 2nd Parachute Regiment, and definitely killed German soldiers. That's something he had trouble living with.
Not easy, I'm sure. I think we can all agree that it would have been better all around if the Germans had stayed home to start with.
As I'm sure your Dad knew, sometimes we do what needs to be done because there is no reasonable choice.
"If you ask me, the problem is the entire H1-B Visa program."
I suggest rather that the problem is the system which allows corporate interests to buy and control lawmakers who arrange things such as the H1-B program.
Trump is a bully who's core support comes from disenfranchised xenophobes.
The only thing you're missing there is the "and he's an evil far-right-extremist..." then you could turn around and be best buddies with the governments of Europe(Germany, Norway, England, etc), who also shout the same garbage at the opposition because they're not listening to the public. And successfully drive more people to the opposition with their insane rhetoric.
Trump says what an uneducated idiot would say to his buddy in private company. He attacks detractors like a schoolyard bully with a foul mouth, and he is of zero substance.
In other words, he's saying stuff that people outside the beltway, those outside of the ivory hall of academia say, and what Bob and Doug are saying around the watercooler. And that resonates with people who aren't you, people that you think are "xenophobes" because their values are different, and they have different viewpoints. And instead of wondering why they have different viewpoints, and why what he says is resonating you resort to just another form of bullying.
“Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!”
- George Carlin
And some percentage of those people are going to resonate very well with Mr. Trump.
Yaay go France. I wish the UK had more balls.
Alternatively maybe I can now "agree to pay" about 100th of my UK tax bill. and If not, why not?
Because you probably don't have a bunch of 'lords' or whoever it is that makes your laws and legal rulings with a vested interest in you making a nice profit for them to get a share of.
4.4% of $88 billion is $3.87 billion. So France wants to tax Google at a $1.76 / $3.87 = 45.5% tax rate.
Shouldn't forget interest and penalties. Penalties in France go up to 300% of the actual tax amount due.
"...my Dad probably would have been captured by the Germans, and the War might have been lost right there."
Your Dad must have been a hell of a fighter !!
"When I was a Marine"
You can stop being a Marine?
"Researchers analyzed data from nine previously published studies with a total of more than 430,000 participants and found that drinking two additional cups of coffee a day was linked to a 44% lower risk of developing liver cirrhosis."
Were the people who were drinking that extra two cuppas drinking less booze as well?
Causation, correlation, etc., etc...
I would like to make three suggestions to the CEO of Yelp:
Compile a list of all the managers who approved those appallingly substandard wages.
Fire all of them with cause for creating an appallingly abusive work environment and damaging Yelp's corporate image.
Hire this girl to replace one of them.
You seem to be under some sort of impression that CEOs in general, and specifically the CEO of Yelp, are good people who care about their employees.
What in the world would have given you such an impression?
CEOs get where they are because they are sociopaths who are able to fuck over the people who work for them as much as possible in the search for 'shareholder value'.
She states in her original post that she lives far enough out in the East bay that her daily commute via public transit is $5+ each way. $10/day * 5 days a week * 4 weeks comes to at least $200 a month for transportation alone. Your rental search may have turned up a few $800/month apartments but generally those are either reserved for low income, or get you a small walk-in-closet sized bedroom in a house with 5+ roommates. Most listings on those sites are outdated and no longer available the day after they're posted and have 20-30 people fighting over them. Typical rent in Emeryville is about $1400 for a small studio, increasing by at least $100 annually. I just moved from there, precisely because it's that insane. It's pretty much impossible to find anything unless you're an exec or engineer making six figures. Another option is Oakland, but anywhere in Oakland you're looking at drug dealers and homeless heckling you as soon as you get near public transportation, and weekly shootings near your apartment. Bay area is hell on earth unless you're among the privileged six-figure crowd. #formerengineer
I have to wonder how much of the increase is due to the AirBNB effect.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/air...
I think this affects any major city now reducing the supply of apartments for rent / purchase and thus driving up rental and purchasing rates.
Subscriptions were a way for people to pay for phones monthly but such subscriptions are dead for most people (at least here in France where I pay 10 euros a month for 20G of 4G and unlimited calls/sms/mms) which means that Apple needs to find a new way to get people to be able to afford their phones.
In this way apple can continue to charge ridiculous prices by allowing people who can't afford the phone outright (or who go into brain freeze when presented with the full price) to spend more than they should on something that they don't actually need to spend so much on.
Sounds good. I do think that during that period corporations should be allowed to dissolve (but not go bankrupt). But how can you apply that to an international corporation? Especially not one incorporated within your legal bounds? Forbidding them to do business locally isn't quite the same thing. And what about rents due during that period on premises they occupy?
I think that this would require an entirely new set of laws to be written. Does making a river poisonous count as 1 week, 1 year, or one decade "in prison"? Does it depend on who uses the river for what? Whoo! The idea has merit, but implementation would be horrendous, with many questions that have no obvious answer, and you know who would be pushing for minimal punishment.
The problem isn't in being able to apply punishment to either companies or those behind the companies because the legal framework already exists for this.
The problem is that governments prefer to be bought off with large bribes (or penalties / fees if you prefer) and to get those bribes they have to agree not to penalize the company and those behind the company in any real way.
The other great part about this is ... its because people are cheaping out on a repair for a $650+ device. People are idiots. Buy a cheap repair, you deserve your phone bricked for stupidity.
You are travelling and in some 3rd world location, it might be for your job. You might need your phone for survival (trust me, if you travel in out of the way places a smart phone really can be a survival accessory). The screen breaks. Shipping it to a certified Apple repair place might take months and cost rather a lot, what with secure shipping etc. So you get it repaired locally. It happens and its not 'cheaping out'.
Even moreso, if you pay 655+ for a device that device should be your own to get fixed where you want to get it fixed.
Pretty much. We looked at the cost and challenges for encrypting SIP communications on our local LAN, and it just wasn't worth the hassle. We will segregate the phones onto a separate VLAN, but the value is limited; SIP deployments really aren't focused on security yet.
We control the financial aspect by carrier-enforced rules which prevent toll calls. Much more effective. (We do have a way to make calling card calls through our Asterisk system that is sufficiently locked down and only has $100 or so at risk.)
What system are you using that doesn't inherently support SIP authentication?
http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/...
The biggest risk for most implementations is toll theft so while encryption may not be necessary you should still be able to authenticate call setup and control.
"In a divided election year, encryption brings parties together — against technology."
Because the populace is oh so ter-terr-terrified of ter-terr-terrorists that there are shit tons of votes to be had by a politician who is for anything that can be marketed as being 'Against Terrorism' (tm).
Most Americans don't stop listening to MSM long enough to actually consider that the actual threat from terrorism is effectively zero.
Why is it that so much malware and online crime comes from Russia? The country simply refuses to police themselves, even when things are obviously illegal. The overall effects are pretty severe to other countries. I'd support sanctioning Putin directly to prevent him from entering the EU. Then I'd also effectively cut them off from the internet by terminating any wired links between them and the EU while dropping all connections coming from IPs assigned to entities in Russia. Cutting Russia off from the internet to the best of our ability is really the only way to stop the excessive crime from that country.
According to these sources, America was the leading source of attacks in 2015:
http://www.statista.com/statis...
http://www.enigmasoftware.com/...
So be careful what you ask for :-)
Just so that the debate here is a little more well-informed:
The government is not asking that Apple give out the user's password, or decrypt the phone, both of which they cannot just do (i.e. are incapable of performing). The request is that Apple produce a piece of iOS software or boot image (as I understand it), that would:
1) Disable the auto-erase feature
2) Allow the FBI to brute force submit password guesses to the phone, and
3) Disable or reduce the increasing-delay-between-guesses feature of the passcode lock.
I would be curious to know whether for this iPhone 5c (with iOS 9) this is even possible for Apple to do.
You can see why Apple wanted to get very far away from the business of being in a position to be asked constantly by law enforcement to help decrypt its phones, just for the sheer volume of requests that will be coming if they do....
One per software release?
Once they have the image that does 1,2 and 3 of your points they don't need to ask Apple to do anything on an individual phone basis.
" The unlock code itself is entangled with the device's UDID so that all attempts to decrypt the storage must be done on the device itself. You must have all 3 pieces present: The specific secure enclave, the specific processor of the iphone, and the flash memory that you are trying to decrypt. Basically, you can't pull the device apart to attack an individual piece of the encryption or get around parts of the encryption storage process. You can't run the decryption or brute forcing of the unlock code in an emulator. It requires that the actual hardware components are present and can only be done on the specific device itself."
Be careful of accepting marketing materials as proof.
Nothing stops Apple themselves from fabricating another phone with the same UDID. The flash and 'tamper resistant' secure enclave can probably be cold attacked and bit level duplicated and stored to allow brute forcing.
While a single duplicate phone wouldn't be of much use, anything physical can be simulated and Apple is capable of doing so for their own product, though their marketing materials won't say so and they certainly won't want to set a precedent for being able to do so.
Wasn't it already figured out that trying to blow nukes off on an asteroid surface would achieve approximately JACK SHIT?
So why, all of the sudden, are we digging up a bunch of brain-dead movie fodder that we already know won't work?
So that we can modernize our weapons to have something positioned against the late growth in military power of both Russia and China without seeming overly aggressive in the hope of not further escalating global tensions, perhaps?
Matt Damon
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Taylor Kitsch
Send Trump and let him build a wall around it.
Not sure why this is marked as a troll. It is 100% true: use pfSense, not Cisco. Use an Open Source solution that doesn't require a "support contract" to get fixes to THEIR software they sold you. The only reason to use Cisco Firewalls is to make Cisco rich.
When you tell me that you can support 100 million concurrent sessions and 2Tbps of firewalling throughput across a pfsense firewall then I'll be able to go to my customers and say there is no longer a need to pay enormous amounts of money for a firewall.
https://www.juniper.net/us/en/...
Granted Cisco doesn't have anything even remotely close to this Juniper box in performance but the overall point is that pfsense isn't a replacement for high end firewalls at this point in time.
1) Have a look at http://law.shu.edu/publication...
Key points for me:
a) Only 5% of gitmo detainees were actually captured by the US. 86% were handed in by' bounty hunters' during a dubious bounty program that offered the public a nice way to get rich while getting rid of anyone you really didn't like :
Get wealth and power beyond your dreams....You can receive millions of
dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces catch al-Qaida and Taliban murders.
This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for
the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and school books and
housing for all your people.
b) Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
2) Terror laws are being used against US citizens...on US soil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Since then[9/11], the Justice Department's Inspector General found that the FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of national security letters, a majority against U.S. persons, and many without any connection to terrorism at all."
https://www.aclu.org/top-ten-a...
Americans can be accused of terrorism, with no basis, and be thrown in a hole indefinitely with no right to legal defense or trail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So, for me...I'd rather say "Stop" to the government who I feel is out of control. You fight a war, you fight a war - you don't use it as a justification to take away constitutional protections of the citizens who put you in power.
As far as actual fear of terror...I am more afraid or (and statistically much more likely to actually die from) getting hit by a car crossing the street.
So yes, I want the government to obey the law and the constitution. I do not want the government to have more and more power over me because of media inspired fear of something that is not actually a real threat.
I don't have numbers to back it up but I suspect that I am more likely to be hurt by the government, in some way, than I am to be hurt by a terrorist.
Enemy combatants/POW's and Unlawful Combatants are NOT afforded constitutional rights by the military and never will. Even if you are a US citizen, if you are an enemy combatant in a zone where the military is conducting combat operations, guess what, you don't get to complain that they killed or detained you without due process.
Now if you don't think that's a good idea, or that this is somehow unethical and you think it should be changed, I ask you to carefully consider the implications and costs of what you are suggesting. The military simply MUST not be burdened with protecting the constitutional rights of combatants when conducting combat operations. They also must NOT be viewed as a law enforcement agency or be expected to operate under rules of engagement which pretend they are. The military is the military, it's for killing people and breaking stuff in the defense of the nation's interest, not for enforcing laws.
Point 1) Not everyone who is taken is actually an enemy combatant, other than by the word of those doing the capturing. Some will be, some will not be, having been caught up in a sweep - wrong place, wrong time or just delivering pizza. The problem is that you cannot know unless you were there. So unless you're ready to say "I don't give a shit if they're guilty or not we're going to torture them until they admit something" then this is not a reasonable solution.
Point 2) When these laws are used against US citizens, those US citizens should be protected by their constitutional rights. Period.
Enemy combatants are NOT afforded constitutional rights by the military, they can be killed, detained without charge and questioned without a lawyer present even after they request legal representation. PLEASE tell me you understand why this is and why you don't want to change it.... So, if you put them on trial, what do you suppose the FIRST motion their appointed lawyer is going to make?
Well that's the problem isn't it - some of the people in question may not actually be enemy combatants.
With regard to constitutional protection, I am referring to American citizens who have such protection to protect them (us) from the government. I do not believe that these rights should be thrown away out of convenience or fear of what the 'terrorists' might do.
You're more likely to be killed by furniture falling on you than by a terrorist attack so you really should get your capital letter hysterics under control.
http://www.theatlantic.com/int...