Hacking without a specific motive such as shutting down the electric grid or some other form of damage is not something that can be tried under "Anti-Terror" laws.
I do see the value of an argument that proposes that any attack on a military system can be construed as any attack on a military target would be; as an act of war. Of course this requires the server banners to advertise that they are indeed military assets otherwise how do you know you are attacking military assets?
The whole premise of this story is based on a lawyers statement. One that is obviously designed to create the largest amount of publicity for his client. I applaud the lawyer as he is doing what he was hired to do. I laugh at those who consider the lawyers statement to have any basis in fact.
The story even states that the man is to be tried in a US Federal court. Which means no Military tribunal, thus no Gitmo.
The whole Gitmo question has to do with the new nature of the conflict that the US and the western world is involved in. The old rules not only do not apply, they can be used against the west.
I am not proposing that Gitmo is the right choice and I 100% do NOT condone torture. I am simply stating that gitmo is a poor first attempt at solving a new problem. What does one do with captives from an undeclared war that does not have a single nationality to focus on?
If the US was any other country in the world we would use the absolute rules of war and what is the allowable punishment for spies? Which is what most terrorists would be classified under the rules of war.
The US and the West have a long way to go before an acceptable solution is found. I would be interested in hearing constructive ideas on what that solution might be.
Slashdot Mirror
Hacking without a specific motive such as shutting down the electric grid or some other form of damage is not something that can be tried under "Anti-Terror" laws. I do see the value of an argument that proposes that any attack on a military system can be construed as any attack on a military target would be; as an act of war. Of course this requires the server banners to advertise that they are indeed military assets otherwise how do you know you are attacking military assets?
The whole premise of this story is based on a lawyers statement. One that is obviously designed to create the largest amount of publicity for his client. I applaud the lawyer as he is doing what he was hired to do. I laugh at those who consider the lawyers statement to have any basis in fact.
The story even states that the man is to be tried in a US Federal court. Which means no Military tribunal, thus no Gitmo.
The whole Gitmo question has to do with the new nature of the conflict that the US and the western world is involved in. The old rules not only do not apply, they can be used against the west.
I am not proposing that Gitmo is the right choice and I 100% do NOT condone torture. I am simply stating that gitmo is a poor first attempt at solving a new problem. What does one do with captives from an undeclared war that does not have a single nationality to focus on?
If the US was any other country in the world we would use the absolute rules of war and what is the allowable punishment for spies? Which is what most terrorists would be classified under the rules of war.
The US and the West have a long way to go before an acceptable solution is found. I would be interested in hearing constructive ideas on what that solution might be.