Anti-Spam Lawfare

It sounds like some Computer Scientists…

A team of computer scientists at two University of California campuses has been looking deeply into the nature of spam, and they think found a ‘choke point’ [PDF] that could greatly reduce the flow of spam…If a handful of companies like these refused to authorize online credit card payments to the merchants, ‘you’d cut off the money that supports the entire spam enterprise,’ said one of the scientists. [Link]

…has caught up to my thinking…

Often much of the cost of an information security incident falls not onto the party that is responsible for providing the Security but onto third parties. While the enterprise/individual that has the incident may incur costs, much of the cost of this InfoSec externality is put onto others (organizations/individuals/taxpayers).

What is lacking is proper incentives. By incentives I do not mean government regulations or criminal statutes.

I mean money. Getting money is a good incentive. Avoiding loosing money is a good incentive. Not having your Balance Sheet, Income Statement, and Cash Flow Statement be effected by information security loss is a good incentive.

What is needed is Information Security Lawfare.

If an organization or individual deploys information technology in such a way that normal best practices are not followed (read: Duty of Care) and is subsequently used as part of an information security incident, those effected by that information Security incident should sue for a Tort Remedy.[link]

Why leave Lawfare just to the bad guys?

I Watch this and think…send in the National Guard…

…and clear out all of the grounds of the Leftists and throw in jail any who resist or do not comply.

 

 

Fucking Leftists. I am embarrassed for my home state of Wisconsin.

We shouldn’t pretend the Left and their activist vanguard and their willing public union dupes are just practicing democracy. They are at their very core anti-democratic. They are the problem.

Enough is enough.

Crush them.

Bust their Unions.

Sue their orgs and individuals for damages. Lawfare, fuck yeah. Bankrupt them.

Impeach the WI Dem Senators who have fled the state.

Recall any republican legislator who caves.

Fuck them.

Video Link HT

Interesting new-ish Lawfare/Security Blog: http://www.lawfareblog.com

Thanks to Eddie for the the link to http://www.lawfareblog.com.

“What is Lawfare?”

Here is a site on a topic that is of much interest to me – The Lawfare Project:

What is Lawfare?

Lawfare: The Use of the Law as a Weapon of War

Lawfare denotes the use of the law as a weapon of war, or more specifically, the abuse of the law and legal systems for strategic political or military ends.

The Lawfare Project’s concentration is on the negative manipulation of laws to achieve a purpose other than, or contrary to that for which those laws were originally enacted.

The scope of the Lawfare Project’s focus is on lawfare as it is used (via the Western legal system, nationally and internationally) to:

   1. Thwart free speech about issues of national security and public concern,
   2. De-legitimize the sovereignty of democratic states, and
   3. Frustrate the ability of democracies to defend themselves against terrorism.

The primary goals of the Lawfare Project are: (i) To raise awareness about the phenomenon (and specific instances) of lawfare assuring the subject matter receive the credibility and immediacy that it warrants, (ii) facilitate (legal and non-legal) responses to the perversion and misapplication of international & national human rights law, (iii) identify and mobilize human and institutional resources, and (iv) bring diverse and interested parties together in a common forum to discuss the threat.

Lawfare’s central issues:

    * What legal limits should be placed on those who fight the war against terrorism and what rights should be granted to the terrorists we are fighting?
    *What role, if any, does international law play in the determination of a sovereign state’s ability to act within and without its territory?
    *Where does the power of a state end and the power of an international court or tribunal begin?
    *What consists of incitement to immediate violence and what is legitimate criticism of religion? Should hate speech be outlawed?
    *When an international tribunal displays political or other bias in its deliberations, is the state’s sovereign control abrogated?
    *Does the Universal Jurisdiction trend go against our national security interests? If Universal Jurisdiction is a concept that should be retained, what limits should be applied?
    *From where do courts in Spain and the Netherlands derive the authority to unilaterally grant themselves universal jurisdiction and the power to adjudicate over other nation-states?
    *To what extent must classified material be released to protect the rights of terrorists that allege torture? Where should terrorists and unlawful combatants be tried and imprisoned and under what law? Must the “underwear bomber” be read his Miranda rights?
    *Should a United Nations voting bloc comprised largely of undemocratic member states dictate international human rights norms?
    *What is the source of the bias evident in many human rights reports and in certain tribunals?

Case examples of Lawfare:

    *Al Qaeda manuals that instruct captured militants to file claims of torture in order to reposition themselves as victims in the eyes of the law and media.
    *Attempts by terrorist entities such as Hamas to impede the free movement of democratic state officials and achieve legitimacy by hiring lawyers and instituting “human rights” litigation abroad.
    *Efforts at the United Nations to exclude attacks on civilians from any international definition of the crime of terrorism, so long as the civilians are citizens of what is termed an “occupying power.”
    *Predatory defamation and “hate speech” lawsuits filed against anyone who speaks publicly about radical Islam, terrorism and its sources of financing.
    *Unilateral determinations of local/national courts to exert universal jurisdiction over heads of states, charging war crimes, including efforts to charge Israeli and US government officials with war crimes in the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Spain.
    *The International Court of Justice’s ruling on the legality of Israel’s security barrier, which pointedly ignored the fact that the barrier contributed to a sharp decline in terrorism attacks, and when it was unclear whether the court had jurisdiction to consider the issue in the first place.
    *The lack of legal accountability demanded of theocratic states that recruit their own children as suicide bombers and child soldiers.
    * The resurgence of international and national blasphemy laws (at the United Nations and in Europe.)

Check it out.

About the DOJ hiring former terrorist lawyers to be DOJ Lawyers

I have read with disgust the last few days about President Obama’s Justice Department  having hired quite a few attorneys that had represented Gitmo detainees directly or had submitted friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the detainees.

The justification of this seems to be well that is what defense attorneys do, they defend bad guys, so this is no big deal….move along…nothing to see here.

That’s crap though.

How many former attorney who had clients involved with organized crime have been hired by the DOJ or appointed as US Attorneys over the years? I would assume 0.

This is because once an attorney becomes an attorney for Organized Crime practitioners they become fundamentally corrupted and can no longer be trusted to represent the interest of the US public. These OC Lawyers can still practice law, they just can not be prosecutors EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE COMMITTED NO CRIMES THEMSELVES.

It is the same thing with lawyers for terrorists.

By having volunteered to become advocates for the interest of terrorists – the interests of enemies of the American Nation – those attorneys can no longer be trusted to represent the interest of the US public.

It is pretty simple. Those lawyers are tainted. I am not saying their law licenses should be pulled, but they should not be DOJ lawyers.

Interesting Policing Idea (with COIN implications): “The interesting twist is that the authorities are asking the courts to seize the IP of the biker club — specifically, their trademarked name “Mongols”

Found on SlashDot:

…a Federal raid on a California-based motorcycle club, the Mongols, on charges “ranging from murder and robbery to extortion, money laundering, gun trafficking and drug dealing.” The interesting twist is that the authorities are asking the courts to seize the IP of the biker club — specifically, their trademarked name “Mongols.” “Federal agents and police in seven states arrested more than 60 members of the Mongols motorcycle gang on Tuesday in a sweep that also targeted for the first time an outlaw group’s ‘intellectual property,’ prosecutors said. The arrests cap a three-year undercover investigation in which US agents posed as gang members and their girlfriends to infiltrate the group, even submitting to polygraph tests administered by the bikers … [T]he name ‘Mongols,’ which appears on the gang’s arm patch insignia, was trademarked by the group. The indictment seeks a court order outlawing further use of the name, which would allow any police officer ‘who sees a Mongol wearing this patch … to stop that gang member and literally take the jacket right off his back‘ …”

This is an interesting twist on getting Lawfare-y for Domestic COIN/4GW.

Attention Congress: Impeach Judge Ricardo Urbina Now and finally Declare War on Al-Quada

From Hot Air:

A federal judge has ordered the release of 17 Chinese Uighers detained at Guantanamo Bay, and specifically into the US. Judge Ricardo Urbina demanded that the federal government produce them in his courtroom by Friday, and refused to stay his order for an appeal.
[…]
He said he would then release them into the custody of 17 Uighur families living in the Washington area.
[…]
The seventeen men were captured in Pakistan after fleeing Afghanistan during the 2001-2 campaign to topple the Taliban and fight al-Qaeda. The judge said that the government had unreliable evidence to show them as a threat to the United States. If living in terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan doesn’t provide prima facie evidence of just that kind of threat, it’s difficult to know what Urbina needs.
[…]
This is what we can expect when the judiciary decides to usurp the role of the executive branch in waging war. Urbina ruled that the detention of the Uighers violates the Constitution with their indefinite detention, but that doesn’t apply to unlawful combatants of any war, and never has. We would be within our rights to hold prisoners of war until an end to hostilities, and Urbina has now given these terrorists a better deal than POWs get.

There are US Citizens who are completely okay with the destruction of the US. Judge Urbina is one of them.

Congress needs to do three things right now:

1) Begin impeachment hearings on Urbina. Boot his ass from the bench.

2) Pass a resolution removing or moving jurisdiction away from Urbina on this case (I am pretty sure this can be done)

3) Pass a resolution declaring that a state of war has existed between the United States and Al-Quada (and its affiliates) since 9/11/2001. This needs to be done to help combat the Lawfare being practiced against the US.

With a real Declaration of War against Al-Quada and its affiliates, the Executive branch can extend POW status to those unlawful combatants captured on the battlefield since it now appears that domestic anti-American elements have been successful in granting the unlawful combatants rights and privileges above and beyond that of POWs.

Update: HotAir now reports the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an injunction blocking the release.

The 4th Amendment, The meaning of “Unreasonable” and the so-called Civil Libertarian Left

On Tech Dirt, I saw this – “FBI Asks Congress To Ignore The Whole ‘Probable Cause’ Part Of The 4th Amendment” :

So, in case you haven’t been paying attention, the text of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Pretty straightforward and reasonable, right? Except we’ve seen an awful lot of erosion of that recently, what with Congress’s decision to allow warrantless wiretaps and the Department of Homeland Security insisting that probable cause isn’t needed to search your laptops at the border. Well, if it’s not needed at the border, why is it needed at all?

At least that seems to be the theory being pushed by the Attorney General, who is asking Congress to approve a plan that would let the FBI begin an investigation and surveillance on someone without probable cause — actually “without any reasonable basis” at all. That would seem to be in direct violation of the 4th Amendment, but apparently, ignoring the 4th Amendment is all the rage in Washington DC these days.

This is just bullshit in so many ways.

I commented:

This is really a debate over what the word “unreasonable” means in this context.

Obviously, from the comments on this post, most people are ignore or skimming past that word, or implicitly believing that no search is reasonable, and therefore all searched require warrants.

I for one don’t have a problem with with the Feds listening on overseas calls that only “enter” the US by a quirk of technology. When I hear people call that “domestic spying” I generally ignore anything they else they say or write and mostly likely to be further nonsense.

Anyways, surveillance (public observation) is not covered by the 4tgh amendment. Starting an investigation is not covered by the 4th amendment.

While the author of the post says the 4th amendment is “Pretty straightforward and reasonable” he sure seems to be confused by it.

As I think more about this, this really isn’t a constitutional issue. This is part of an on-going fight by one part of American Society against the rest that is in this case attacking the legal system in order to weaken the parts of it used to investigate and pursue criminal actors and anti-security actors (e.g. foreign agents, terrorist).

The author isn’t dumb. He clearly misspeaks on the constitution (quoting a section about searches, then applying it to something different) hoping to riles up the masses. Given that only 3 of 56 commentators do not seemed fooled, he was successful.

BTW, here is the dictionary.com definition of unreasonable:

1. not reasonable or rational; acting at variance with or contrary to reason; not guided by reason or sound judgment; irrational: an unreasonable person.
2. not in accordance with practical realities, as attitude or behavior; inappropriate: His Bohemianism was an unreasonable way of life for one so rich.
3. excessive, immoderate, or exorbitant; unconscionable: an unreasonable price; unreasonable demands.
4. not having the faculty of reason.
[Origin: 1300–50; ME unresonabel. See un-1, reasonable]
[…]
—Synonyms 1, 2. senseless, foolish, silly. 2. preposterous, absurd, stupid, nonsensical. 3. extravagant.

Of course, the Fourth Amendment is quiet on Surveillance or on criteria for starting an investigation.

New John Fonte Article: “Global Governance vs. the Liberal Democratic Nation State: What Is the Best Regime?”

I will blog on these later, but I thought I would point them out to others for now.

John Fonte (who authored the article on Transnational Progressivism) has a four-part article at familysecuritymatters.org entitled: “Global Governance vs. the Liberal Democratic Nation State: What Is the Best Regime?”

1) Who Governs

2) The Response of the American Governing Center-Left to the Transnational Challenge

3) The Response of the American Governing Center-Right to the Transnational Challenge

4) Conclusion

A Few Lawfare Links

Note: I have been hording these, so they are not all current.

Fuck the Spanish and Their Lawfare

From Concurring Opinions:

Spain’s recent indictment of 40 Rwandan army officers on international criminal charges raises interesting questions about the appropriateness of trying such cases in the domestic courts of nations with little connection to the conflict from which these crimes arose.

What’s this?

The charged Rwandans were not responsible for the 1994 Rwandan genocide (Hutus killing Tutsis), but for acts by Tutsi-led rebels who defeated the Hutu extremists responsible for the genocide.

Yes, while the “brave” Spanish and the rest of the world sat by doing nothing other then making speeches, some Tutsi-led rebels fought and beat those running the genocide.

The Spanish have decided to indict for war crimes those who fought and defeated the genocide.

Disgraceful.

The article covers more.

PrairePundit on “Lawfare against the CIA”

Prairie Pundit links to an article and comments:

The left’s insistence on reversion to the Trial on Terror rather than waging war against the terrorist is a major miscalculation that will render great aid to the enemy, if not comfort too. While they may be pursuing this strategy in good faith, the demonstrable results after eight years of using it in the 90’s is that it leads to disaster. This is another example of liberals reverting to form after their fear subsides. It is why they should never be trusted with national security.

People reading this blog probably think sometimes I am a right winger or at least a conservative. Maybe I am. It might surprise you all to know I have only only voted republican once (so far) for president – 2004.

I too have come to the conclusion that the current national Democratic party can not be trusted on security issues.

That is bad for the US system.

“Blue on Blue” Lawfare

Wolf Pangloss writes about an incident:

The kill had already been approved by the American command. And the main job of soldiers in war is to kill the enemy, which Buntangyar was. So, the American soldiers shot him.

And now the lawyers have decided to prosecute them for murder.

Some quick Thoughts:

1. Why the fuck are the JAGs running tactical decisions?
2. How can we expect to win and keep morale high if rules for the trigger-pullers are changed retroactively?
3. Why wasn’t Frank H. Kearney fired by SecDef or POTUS? Jeez, he was promoted!
4. WHy haven’t more generals been fired? Lincoln did. Roosevelt/Marshal did.
5. The US needs to revamp its the National Security institutions and legal framework. Fellow bloggers, let’s start writing for the next congress a National Security Act of 2009.

PrairiePundit on Lawfare

He writes:

The smoke screen is by the terrorist rights advocates who are trying to reveal our sources and methods of gathering information so that the enemy can avoid future detection and preemption of its attacks.
[…]
This is just another example of why judges have no business interfering with the war effort. The lawfare approach exposes our intelligence gathering. These enemy combatants should have zero access to US courts. They should be detained until the end of the conflict.

Think: Lawfare is the weaponization of legal systems and lawyering.

No Way To Run a War

While reading instapundit I saw this:

Goldsmith notes that the Defense Department alone has over 10,000 lawyers, not including reservists.

Unless they are in some special suicide-squad, this can’t be a good thing…it can’t be a good use of human capital resources.

Congress Had A Chance to Apply an Anti-Lawfare Measure…

…but chose not to regarding the Flying Inmans.

There are several possible whys individuals voted against the Counter-Lawfare protection:

• Their Cryptocalvinism Universalism ideology maneuvers them into stupid position
• There are afraid of Islam (and appeasement is their instinctual – their fingertip feeling – reaction)
• Some may be on the other side

Anyways, read more here (Gates of Vienna) and here (Political Warfare).

Don’t Play Loose With the Constitution: Cheney Apparently is a Dick

So, Dick Cheney thinks he is part of the Legislative branch when it suits him.

The VP is part of the executive Branch. He is not part of the legislative branch because one of his duties is to preside over the Senate.

The Supreme Court Chief Justice is not a member of the legislative branch because he may also preside over the senate in some circumstances.

I don’t like people fucking with the constitution.

I don’t like the money this is going to cost the taxpayers.

I am now officially okay with Congress impeaching Dick Cheney purely on this issue.

Also, The loophole over the VP presiding over his own impeachment trial must be closed (yeah, I know this will take a few years).

Personal Lawfare or Assholness? You Be The Judge!

From the Sun:

A customer got so steamed when a dry cleaner lost his trousers that he sued for US$65 million.

Oh yeah, the guy suing is a judge.

An Asshole judge.

Lawfare Links and Comments [Updated]

In 4GW, the use of non-Kinetic power is as important (if not more so) then kinetic power.

I am fascinated by the practice of lawfare (I am not a lawyer, though law school was a mental plan B that I had and occasionally think about). It is type of legalistic judo where the rule-sets and systems of a state actor are used against it by opponents (internal and external) often in conjunction with other kinetic activities (e.g. terrorism) and non-kinetic activities (e.g. psychological warfare, Information Warfare).

What follows, are some recent examples and links.

Islamic Lawfare

From LGF:

At “The American Muslim,” Issa Smith describes the plan to establish shari’a law in the United States—and yes, he is talking about shari’a for everyone: Native American Courts: Precedent for an Islamic arbitral system. (Hat tip: The Gathering Storm.)
This is the violence-deferred front of the global jihad—the attempt to use our own democratic institutions to subvert themselves and institute a Dark Ages legal code for the entire country. It’s Islamic supremacism in a Trojan Horse disguise of free speech.

Lawfare Link: “Strategic Corporals? How about Strategic JAGs and the Rise of Lawfare?”

Here is the link.

New Year’s Eve Links [Updated]

BTW, I am listening to The Pipettes while I type this.

Top 10 Businesspundit Posts of 2006

TDAXP describes the differences between Shia and Sunni Islam; [update] Catholicgauze has the maps to go with it.

5GW: “Exploring what comes next is cooler than what’s maturing now”

In “The empires of the future are the empires of the mind” EnigmaFoundry writes:

So the Bush administrations policy has a fundamental conceptual flaw: It is fighting an ad hoc network by trying to kill those it believes are part of the network. But this ad hoc network is feed by a fundamental belief, which is: The US is evil, it is out to kill Muslims, and it is therefore the duty of good people to destroy this evil killing machine. Now, to defeat this network we need to fight this fundamental belief, not to kill those who hold it, because this would just demonstrate that the belief is correct. Every time we win, we lose.

My thought on the aboive: 4GW (and 5GW) is as much about memes as about tangible things.

Old Lawfare links: here and here. A newer one here. [Update] And here.

Hezbollah’s Christian Allies

When Sysadmins Ruled the Earth by Cory Doctorow

“…One of its main ideas is that mandatory schooling begin at age 3 and end after 10th-grade. After that, going on to colleges and universities would be one of several choices available. Another choice, equally typical and just as well-funded, would be vocational training.”

Pro-Illegal Immigration Lawfare Example

Via John Robb the New York Times writes:

But now, after boasting of having captured 12,000 illegal crossers on land he owns or leases from the state and emerging as one of the earliest and most prominent of the self-appointed border watchers, Mr. Barnett finds himself the prey.

Immigrant rights groups have filed lawsuits, accusing him of harassing and unlawfully imprisoning people he has confronted on his ranch near Douglas. One suit pending in federal court accuses him, his wife and his brother of pointing guns at 16 illegal immigrants they intercepted, threatening them with dogs and kicking one woman in the group.
[…]
The court actions are the latest example of attempts by immigrant rights groups to curb armed border-monitoring groups by going after their money, if not their guns. They have won civil judgments in Texas, and this year two illegal Salvadoran immigrants who had been held against their will took possession of a 70-acre ranch in southern Arizona after winning a case last year.
[…]
Still, the threat of liability has discouraged ranchers from allowing the more militant civilian patrol groups on their land, and accusations of abuse seem to be on the wane, said Jennifer Allen of the Border Action Network, an immigrant rights group.

Two More Examples of Islamic and Anti-Anti-Islmaofascist Lawfare

Via InstaPundit:

My advice to Saudis who don’t want to be accused of supporting terrorism: Get your country to stop being a major source of funds for terrorists. That’s better than engaging in legal terrorism against a free press of the sort that isn’t allowed in your own benighted country.

and from LGF:

Former prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are filing criminal charges in Germany against Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, George Tenet, and other officials: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse.

TDAXP on Lawfare

TDAXP has a written a post on Lawfare:

International Law and Foreign Law are both attempts by legalistic factions who cannot impose their will democratically, so they use legal-sounding words to try to get in through the back door. The world is better off without them.

Lawfare (a non-kinetic type of power) can also be purposely used by our enemies directly or through proxies to achieve gains that could not get directly on the battle field or to distract / deceive /disrupt in support of other operations. I expect that 4GW, as it continues to involve and emerge will include much more in the way of Lawfare and other non-kinetic powers.