I think that he still made a valid point. Whether other countries are any better is debatable, but the USA has crossed several boundaries by holding people in Gitmo without due legal process of any kind. There is no justification for it at all. I do not think that the FBI are quite there yet but, from the outside, there doesn't seem to be much that will stop them if that is what they want to do. But the FBI are breaking the law - it is illegal to put software on someone else's computer without their permission - its just that you think that because they are the FBI then it should be OK. Is this done with a warrant? How do you know? Have the FBI ever exceeded their permitted boundaries? (Yes - only a few weeks ago there was a/. post about them having to apologise for other abuses). Has the USA ever detained people in transit through the USA? (Yes). So the GP was stating pretty accurately how the US actions are viewed, rightly or wrongly, by many around the world. Of course you will want to defend the US, but your response didn't convince me that that view is wrong. It simply looked as though it is true but you were a bit pissed about it.
To those who say that waiting until the system is abused will be too late, I would suggest that you do not trust your current government, either local or federal. Then change it now! Get someone in office that you trust. But believing that a system might be abused thus the technological advantage should not be employed seems to me to be back to front. The US has become a world leader by embracing technology, by inventing cost effective solutions to existing problems, and by overcoming obstacles often for no more reason than the challenge it presents (e.g. landing on the moon). To be frightened of the police using technology is wrong. Do you let the police use cars, computers, DNA analysis? Of course you do. It is not the technology that you fear - it is the abuse which might take place because you cannot trust those who protect you. That is where your problems lies and that is what needs to be addressed. But do not return to the stone age for fear of what technology might enable someone to do. After all, technology in the form of a firearm, is capable of killing many innocent people and it actually does so many times a year in your country. Why don't you ban firearms? Simple, its the people who are to blame, not the technology itself. You must find a way to make your police, local government and representatives at all levels accountable. If you say that it cannot be done then you are giving up without fighting the real problem, in which case you will lose more than your civil liberties, you will lose your pride in what you and your country supposedly stand for.
Its easy to track any cell phone. They know which is the nearest antenna to you at all times, they know which calls your number makes, and I would be very surprised if they could not attribute your number to you.
In which case I believe that you are a little bit paranoid. Do you use a credit card? They can trace your movements based on your expenses. Do you own property or pay taxes? Guess how much information those two facts give to the 'system'. Do you have a passport? Gosh, they could use that to track your movements across national boundaries. Don't tell me that you must have a cell phone, because you do realise they know where you are - or where your cell phone is - anyway, don't you? That's not much different from knowing where your car is. I assume, therefore, that you will destroy your passport, cell phone and driving licence, stop paying taxes, sell your belongings and begin to use cash immediately. You will enjoy returning to the stone age because you will be a completely anonymous.
The time to be up in arms is when the systems are abused. Then, you should take whatever action is appropriate to have the situation remedied and to prevent re-occurrence. If someone deserves to be punished, then so be it. But don't lie awake at night worrying about what might happen. There are enough real problems in the world today without making some up.
So, will the USA be dismantling its arsenal? No, I thought not. Both nuclear weapons and dynamite have a role to play. It is the use of such tools that causes you concern so make sure that your politicians and police are accountable. Have you written to the appropriate authorities explaining your concerns?
[Link down - so I cannot read the article] I take it by 'universe' he actually means the USA? If not then he should just butt out. The rest of the world didn't vote for him or the Government he is part of. We do not need, nor do we want, his interference in what we are allowed to do in those countries which are outside the small proportion of the world that he represents.
I can see what you are saying but I don't think that the implementation will be as simple as you suggest. There is no.xxx domain nor are all porn sites are flagged by any specific sign or indicator so the filters cannot simply be a case of stopping all porn sites. Therefore, the obvious solution will be to ban sites that don't originate from within a list of specified domains perhaps with some other flags in a addition (i.e No Korean sites are permissable but US sites are acceptable unless there is a flag indicating pornography, in which case the site is banned. The flag can take many forms e.g. blacklist, protected by some adult checking mechanism etc). In which case the filters will work geographically and not strictly based on content. Who gets to choose the acceptable countries? Would a US donor think that Russia, China or Japan should be banned? Would Iran think that the US or the UK are good countries for their children to conduct their online research? They all produce pornography on the internet so, to be safe, perhaps we had better ban such sites originating from there. This is a form of censorship by the back door. To me the only people who should say what should be filtered are those in the Government of the country in which the computers will be used. The donors and charity workers might be making their decisions based on purely altruistic reasons but they should not be allowed to insist on any filter system which meets their ideals in preference to the requirements of those who are receiving the computers. Checking that their money is spent wisely is one thing, dictating which sites may be accessed is quite another. If the filters are used and the donors are allowed to specify which sites are acceptable and which are not, then the donors ARE influencing the education of the children who are using the computers. It is not a bizarre conclusion - it is as plain as day.
No, you are wrong. The summary is titled as you claim, but not the article to which it refers. This is about how the kernel has put too much effort into following enterprise requirements and not enough effort into meeting desktop needs. So, as you can now see, the/. summary is not quite accurate (well, that shouldn't surprise anyone) but the rest of us were discussing the article; the applications are, therefore, irrelevant.
Of course Vista is increasing its market share. It is starting from a zero and slowly increasing. I would be surprised if anything else happened. And the fact the the Mac isn't growing in usage is also not surprising. They cater for different users. The thing that is worth noting is that Vista is growing more slowly than predicted although it will get there eventually simply because it is on most computers that are being sold. Still, there is nothing here that should be news to a regular/.er.
I know my MEP. I have written to him to express my views on software patents. He replied agreeing with my point of view and voted against software patents. If you don't know the name of your MEP, whose fault do you think it is?
Donors have power and it is naive to believe otherwise.
Either the donors are donating as a charitable act or they are not. I am not being naive, I do not believe that charity should be tied to something in return.
Be careful not to let politics limit your interpretation of events.
This is nothing to do with politics, it is meant to be a charitable gesture to provide IT education those who otherwise would not have access to it. This is not the same as using plastic inserts in power sockets. Power sockets can kill - pornography (whatever that is) is unlikely to be fatal. But your idea of what constitutes pornography might differ significantly from another. Let the recipient decide what is acceptable, not the donor. I am not arguing against the Nigerian Government using filters, but I am arguing that it is not for anyone else to dictate that they should, or to define what content should be filtered. Censorship in any form has no place here. Charity that has a price tag, even if it is hidden, is not charity. If those that donate the funding believe that they have the right to dictate how other countries should behave then they are attempting to buy influence by their actions. That fits my understanding of a cynical act.
So OLPC is nothing about charity, is not about bringing IT to children who might otherwise not have access to it? - "Our goal: To provide children around the world with new opportunities to explore, experiment and express themselves." (http://laptop.org/vision/index.shtml). It is, in your view, an opportunity for whomever is funding OLPC to exert their views on children around the world, probably in the hope that it will win them favour in years to come when those children are adults. If we provide aid to poorer nations it shouldn't be at a price, it should be because we wish to help someone who needs help. Those that believe it is right to use charity to gain influence have, in my view, become cynical individuals.
I object to the inclusion of filters by the OLPC. What is required in this instance is that the children be educated as to what is expected of them, learning what is right and wrong, personal responsibility etc. Who decides what the filters should filter? The US? Does that mean that sites discussing evolution should now be denied to Nigerian children?. Or how about letting a strict Muslim nation choose? Then we can ban cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. Or how about Russia or China? I'm sure that they will always want the world to see only the good side of the West. The filters can be applied only, in this instance, by the Nigerian Government as they are best able to decide what should be permitted on computers used by their school children. But the choice should not rest with the OLPC aid group otherwise the computers could easily become nothing more than a convenient method of disseminating one country's specific viewpoint rather than letting children learn for themselves. By all means provide the computers but no-one should dictate to the recipients what web sites they may visit and which ones are banned. Assist other countries, but don't tell them what they should do. After all, we don't like being told what to do by someone else, why should they?
The XPS M2010 is built to entertain, bringing together 20.1-inches of widescreen viewing, built-in.
So how do you get a 20.1" screen to measure 24" or larger, or increase the limit over the 240GB hard drive capacity, or did you simply ignore the requirements to push a particular laptop?
Thank you, but this I know. That is not quite the same as saying Web2 pages do not work. Neither do Web1 pages if they rely on JavaScript. (http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/ 2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html). So this is simply a statement which means that 'if you switch of JavaScript then those pages that need JavaScript will not function correctly'. That's why I have been using NoScript for a long time - it prevents a web site running code on my computer.
Firefox having a vulnerability in the password manager does not make IE6 and IE7 'more secure' browsers. If it did, then this site (http://www.sans.org/top20/) would not be worth reading....
The article and TFS tell me that using NoScript (which I do) means that many Web2 sites no longer function properly. I cannot say that I have ever noticed this - has anybody? Perhaps it only affects the sort of web page that I would not wish to visit...?
..if the vehicle is in compliance with the law, then it stand to reason that from tracking the vehicle police gets a pretty good idea who is in the vehicle.No?
No. It could easily be my wife or one of my children, all of whom are legal drivers of my car. It could be my father-in-law who is also insured to drive the vehicle. I can let anyone drive my vehicle as long as I am content that they meet the necessary legal requirements. And you have missed an essential point. The system is not spewing out daily reports for each vehicle. Unless the vehicle is already flagged as being 'of interest' to the police the data is simply stored. That is no more intrusive than my neighbour observing me driving my car and remembering that fact (gosh, perhaps we ought to make sure that a neighbour never sees me in my vehicle?). The system can also be used to prove that someone wasn't in a certain place. For example, if my car is being used in place A and a similar car with the same number plate in used to commit a crime in place B, it is quite possible for the police to rule out my vehicle's involvement in the crime simply because it couldn't be in two places at once. I am assuming that you have bothered to read all of the previous posts and you are aware that I have discounted the paranoid belief that we are all being followed, tracked and spied upon.
But stolen cars are not a common occurrence in the society at large.
"Vehicle crime has dropped by 51% since 1997. However, there were some 1.7 million vehicle related thefts during 2005-06." (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reduci ng-crime/vehicle-crime/). I disagree with you and the Home Office statistics seem to prove you wrong. I have had my car stolen. It is not, unfortunately, a rare occurrence.
Then, in order to protect their identity, people should simply swap their cars, and not tell to the police? Would that be even legal?
No, it wouldn't be legal. You have to register ownership of a vehicle. But not registering a vehicle does not protect your identity. You are still who you were yesterday, and you will probably be the same person tomorrow. Your identity does not change. It would hinder the police's ability to 'track' you if they were trying to do such a thing, but they are not. It is a fantasy in your imagination. You are probably not that important unless you are guilty of some crime and you are trying to evade detection and subsequent punishment. In which case, I'm rather glad that the system exists because you might well be correct that, in your case, the police are watching your every move.
I'm not sure that I understand the relation of the first sentence and the second, but, anyhow, the question of the legal justification of such a system is indeed the good question.
Ah, perhaps you haven't been reading the previous posts, after all.... Simply put, there is no system that provides a list of the movements of each vehicle automatically. There is no legal justification for such a system. No such system has been approved. As you say, it is indeed a good question but, if the police actually asked for wider powers, their request was considered, it was decided that the police could not justify their request and so permission to do so was not granted. What has been approved is, if a vehicle that is already of interest to counter-terrorist police (and only counter-terrorist police) is noted in London then the they will be informed so that they are aware of that fact. They may then take whatever action they deem appropriate which might simply be to log the occurrence in the database (e.g. it's the correct car but it is being driven by the wife of a suspected terrorist who is known by the police to be going shopping).
What perversions I may have have nothing to do with people tracking me, or my vehicle. Please don't invite me to 'check out' your perversions - they are possibly even more unsavoury than my own.
Journalists use Tor to communicate more safely with whistleblowers and dissidents. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) use Tor to allow their workers to connect to their home website while they're in a foreign country, without notifying everybody nearby that they're working with that organization.
Groups such as Indymedia recommend Tor for safeguarding their members' online privacy and security. Activist groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are supporting Tor's development as a mechanism for maintaining civil liberties online. Corporations use Tor as a safe way to conduct competitive analysis, and to protect sensitive procurement patterns from eavesdroppers. They also use it to replace traditional VPNs, which reveal the exact amount and timing of communication. Which locations have employees working late? Which locations have employees consulting job-hunting websites? Which research divisions are communicating with the company's patent lawyers?
A branch of the U.S. Navy uses Tor for open source intelligence gathering, and one of its teams used Tor while deployed in the Middle East recently. Law enforcement uses Tor for visiting or surveilling web sites without leaving government IP addresses in their web logs, and for security during sting operations. From the Tor site.
A genuine question or two from a non-American. Is it a correct analysis to say, therefore, that US law can be based upon an emergency in any other country, anywhere in the world, regardless of the effect of that 'emergency' upon the US itself? Is the Iraq War an 'emergency' in the US? If so, why?
Slashdot Mirror
I think that he still made a valid point. Whether other countries are any better is debatable, but the USA has crossed several boundaries by holding people in Gitmo without due legal process of any kind. There is no justification for it at all. I do not think that the FBI are quite there yet but, from the outside, there doesn't seem to be much that will stop them if that is what they want to do. But the FBI are breaking the law - it is illegal to put software on someone else's computer without their permission - its just that you think that because they are the FBI then it should be OK. Is this done with a warrant? How do you know? Have the FBI ever exceeded their permitted boundaries? (Yes - only a few weeks ago there was a /. post about them having to apologise for other abuses). Has the USA ever detained people in transit through the USA? (Yes). So the GP was stating pretty accurately how the US actions are viewed, rightly or wrongly, by many around the world. Of course you will want to defend the US, but your response didn't convince me that that view is wrong. It simply looked as though it is true but you were a bit pissed about it.
To those who say that waiting until the system is abused will be too late, I would suggest that you do not trust your current government, either local or federal. Then change it now! Get someone in office that you trust. But believing that a system might be abused thus the technological advantage should not be employed seems to me to be back to front. The US has become a world leader by embracing technology, by inventing cost effective solutions to existing problems, and by overcoming obstacles often for no more reason than the challenge it presents (e.g. landing on the moon). To be frightened of the police using technology is wrong. Do you let the police use cars, computers, DNA analysis? Of course you do. It is not the technology that you fear - it is the abuse which might take place because you cannot trust those who protect you. That is where your problems lies and that is what needs to be addressed. But do not return to the stone age for fear of what technology might enable someone to do. After all, technology in the form of a firearm, is capable of killing many innocent people and it actually does so many times a year in your country. Why don't you ban firearms? Simple, its the people who are to blame, not the technology itself. You must find a way to make your police, local government and representatives at all levels accountable. If you say that it cannot be done then you are giving up without fighting the real problem, in which case you will lose more than your civil liberties, you will lose your pride in what you and your country supposedly stand for.
Its easy to track any cell phone. They know which is the nearest antenna to you at all times, they know which calls your number makes, and I would be very surprised if they could not attribute your number to you.
In which case I believe that you are a little bit paranoid. Do you use a credit card? They can trace your movements based on your expenses. Do you own property or pay taxes? Guess how much information those two facts give to the 'system'. Do you have a passport? Gosh, they could use that to track your movements across national boundaries. Don't tell me that you must have a cell phone, because you do realise they know where you are - or where your cell phone is - anyway, don't you? That's not much different from knowing where your car is. I assume, therefore, that you will destroy your passport, cell phone and driving licence, stop paying taxes, sell your belongings and begin to use cash immediately. You will enjoy returning to the stone age because you will be a completely anonymous.
The time to be up in arms is when the systems are abused. Then, you should take whatever action is appropriate to have the situation remedied and to prevent re-occurrence. If someone deserves to be punished, then so be it. But don't lie awake at night worrying about what might happen. There are enough real problems in the world today without making some up.
So, will the USA be dismantling its arsenal? No, I thought not. Both nuclear weapons and dynamite have a role to play. It is the use of such tools that causes you concern so make sure that your politicians and police are accountable. Have you written to the appropriate authorities explaining your concerns?
If he's behind one other person, doesn't that make him number 2?
s/proportion/portion/ - and I previewed! I should try to stay awake....
[Link down - so I cannot read the article] I take it by 'universe' he actually means the USA? If not then he should just butt out. The rest of the world didn't vote for him or the Government he is part of. We do not need, nor do we want, his interference in what we are allowed to do in those countries which are outside the small proportion of the world that he represents.
I can see what you are saying but I don't think that the implementation will be as simple as you suggest. There is no .xxx domain nor are all porn sites are flagged by any specific sign or indicator so the filters cannot simply be a case of stopping all porn sites. Therefore, the obvious solution will be to ban sites that don't originate from within a list of specified domains perhaps with some other flags in a addition (i.e No Korean sites are permissable but US sites are acceptable unless there is a flag indicating pornography, in which case the site is banned. The flag can take many forms e.g. blacklist, protected by some adult checking mechanism etc). In which case the filters will work geographically and not strictly based on content. Who gets to choose the acceptable countries? Would a US donor think that Russia, China or Japan should be banned? Would Iran think that the US or the UK are good countries for their children to conduct their online research? They all produce pornography on the internet so, to be safe, perhaps we had better ban such sites originating from there. This is a form of censorship by the back door. To me the only people who should say what should be filtered are those in the Government of the country in which the computers will be used. The donors and charity workers might be making their decisions based on purely altruistic reasons but they should not be allowed to insist on any filter system which meets their ideals in preference to the requirements of those who are receiving the computers. Checking that their money is spent wisely is one thing, dictating which sites may be accessed is quite another. If the filters are used and the donors are allowed to specify which sites are acceptable and which are not, then the donors ARE influencing the education of the children who are using the computers. It is not a bizarre conclusion - it is as plain as day.
No, you are wrong. The summary is titled as you claim, but not the article to which it refers. This is about how the kernel has put too much effort into following enterprise requirements and not enough effort into meeting desktop needs. So, as you can now see, the /. summary is not quite accurate (well, that shouldn't surprise anyone) but the rest of us were discussing the article; the applications are, therefore, irrelevant.
Of course Vista is increasing its market share. It is starting from a zero and slowly increasing. I would be surprised if anything else happened. And the fact the the Mac isn't growing in usage is also not surprising. They cater for different users. The thing that is worth noting is that Vista is growing more slowly than predicted although it will get there eventually simply because it is on most computers that are being sold. Still, there is nothing here that should be news to a regular /.er.
I know my MEP. I have written to him to express my views on software patents. He replied agreeing with my point of view and voted against software patents. If you don't know the name of your MEP, whose fault do you think it is?
Either the donors are donating as a charitable act or they are not. I am not being naive, I do not believe that charity should be tied to something in return.
Be careful not to let politics limit your interpretation of events.This is nothing to do with politics, it is meant to be a charitable gesture to provide IT education those who otherwise would not have access to it. This is not the same as using plastic inserts in power sockets. Power sockets can kill - pornography (whatever that is) is unlikely to be fatal. But your idea of what constitutes pornography might differ significantly from another. Let the recipient decide what is acceptable, not the donor. I am not arguing against the Nigerian Government using filters, but I am arguing that it is not for anyone else to dictate that they should, or to define what content should be filtered. Censorship in any form has no place here. Charity that has a price tag, even if it is hidden, is not charity. If those that donate the funding believe that they have the right to dictate how other countries should behave then they are attempting to buy influence by their actions. That fits my understanding of a cynical act.
So OLPC is nothing about charity, is not about bringing IT to children who might otherwise not have access to it? - "Our goal: To provide children around the world with new opportunities to explore, experiment and express themselves." (http://laptop.org/vision/index.shtml). It is, in your view, an opportunity for whomever is funding OLPC to exert their views on children around the world, probably in the hope that it will win them favour in years to come when those children are adults. If we provide aid to poorer nations it shouldn't be at a price, it should be because we wish to help someone who needs help. Those that believe it is right to use charity to gain influence have, in my view, become cynical individuals.
I object to the inclusion of filters by the OLPC. What is required in this instance is that the children be educated as to what is expected of them, learning what is right and wrong, personal responsibility etc. Who decides what the filters should filter? The US? Does that mean that sites discussing evolution should now be denied to Nigerian children?. Or how about letting a strict Muslim nation choose? Then we can ban cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. Or how about Russia or China? I'm sure that they will always want the world to see only the good side of the West. The filters can be applied only, in this instance, by the Nigerian Government as they are best able to decide what should be permitted on computers used by their school children. But the choice should not rest with the OLPC aid group otherwise the computers could easily become nothing more than a convenient method of disseminating one country's specific viewpoint rather than letting children learn for themselves. By all means provide the computers but no-one should dictate to the recipients what web sites they may visit and which ones are banned. Assist other countries, but don't tell them what they should do. After all, we don't like being told what to do by someone else, why should they?
Whoosh. Sorry, I wasn't being serious.
Isn't that the entire basis for wikipedia?
So how do you get a 20.1" screen to measure 24" or larger, or increase the limit over the 240GB hard drive capacity, or did you simply ignore the requirements to push a particular laptop?
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=253047&cid= 19927577
Thank you, but this I know. That is not quite the same as saying Web2 pages do not work. Neither do Web1 pages if they rely on JavaScript. (http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/ 2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html). So this is simply a statement which means that 'if you switch of JavaScript then those pages that need JavaScript will not function correctly'. That's why I have been using NoScript for a long time - it prevents a web site running code on my computer.
Firefox having a vulnerability in the password manager does not make IE6 and IE7 'more secure' browsers. If it did, then this site (http://www.sans.org/top20/) would not be worth reading....
The article and TFS tell me that using NoScript (which I do) means that many Web2 sites no longer function properly. I cannot say that I have ever noticed this - has anybody? Perhaps it only affects the sort of web page that I would not wish to visit...?
No. It could easily be my wife or one of my children, all of whom are legal drivers of my car. It could be my father-in-law who is also insured to drive the vehicle. I can let anyone drive my vehicle as long as I am content that they meet the necessary legal requirements. And you have missed an essential point. The system is not spewing out daily reports for each vehicle. Unless the vehicle is already flagged as being 'of interest' to the police the data is simply stored. That is no more intrusive than my neighbour observing me driving my car and remembering that fact (gosh, perhaps we ought to make sure that a neighbour never sees me in my vehicle?). The system can also be used to prove that someone wasn't in a certain place. For example, if my car is being used in place A and a similar car with the same number plate in used to commit a crime in place B, it is quite possible for the police to rule out my vehicle's involvement in the crime simply because it couldn't be in two places at once. I am assuming that you have bothered to read all of the previous posts and you are aware that I have discounted the paranoid belief that we are all being followed, tracked and spied upon.
But stolen cars are not a common occurrence in the society at large."Vehicle crime has dropped by 51% since 1997. However, there were some 1.7 million vehicle related thefts during 2005-06." (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reduci ng-crime/vehicle-crime/). I disagree with you and the Home Office statistics seem to prove you wrong. I have had my car stolen. It is not, unfortunately, a rare occurrence.
Then, in order to protect their identity, people should simply swap their cars, and not tell to the police? Would that be even legal?No, it wouldn't be legal. You have to register ownership of a vehicle. But not registering a vehicle does not protect your identity. You are still who you were yesterday, and you will probably be the same person tomorrow. Your identity does not change. It would hinder the police's ability to 'track' you if they were trying to do such a thing, but they are not. It is a fantasy in your imagination. You are probably not that important unless you are guilty of some crime and you are trying to evade detection and subsequent punishment. In which case, I'm rather glad that the system exists because you might well be correct that, in your case, the police are watching your every move.
I'm not sure that I understand the relation of the first sentence and the second, but, anyhow, the question of the legal justification of such a system is indeed the good question.Ah, perhaps you haven't been reading the previous posts, after all.... Simply put, there is no system that provides a list of the movements of each vehicle automatically. There is no legal justification for such a system. No such system has been approved. As you say, it is indeed a good question but, if the police actually asked for wider powers, their request was considered, it was decided that the police could not justify their request and so permission to do so was not granted. What has been approved is, if a vehicle that is already of interest to counter-terrorist police (and only counter-terrorist police) is noted in London then the they will be informed so that they are aware of that fact. They may then take whatever action they deem appropriate which might simply be to log the occurrence in the database (e.g. it's the correct car but it is being driven by the wife of a suspected terrorist who is known by the police to be going shopping).
What perversions I may have have nothing to do with people tracking me, or my vehicle. Please don't invite me to 'check out' your perversions - they are possibly even more unsavoury than my own.
A genuine question or two from a non-American. Is it a correct analysis to say, therefore, that US law can be based upon an emergency in any other country, anywhere in the world, regardless of the effect of that 'emergency' upon the US itself? Is the Iraq War an 'emergency' in the US? If so, why?