Do you even understand what Dunlap said?
Not exactly a ringing endorsement is it?
He applied the facts to the law and rendered an opinion, that is his purpose as an attorney. Should he have placed a value judgment such as an endorsement or rejection on the issue his opinion would have been attenuated by his bias.
If this attack of questionable legal status leads to retaliation that results in deaths, I would say it is not so harmless.
Are you suggesting that a conventional attack, and the aforementioned retaliation, with death and destruction in both instances, is better?
And I really don't understand this notion about the "legality" of attacking another country. Making war is a crime. Always. But if you win, then no one is around to punish you for it. Rebelling against England was a crime. Invading Poland was a crime. Destroying the WTC was a crime. Invading Iraq was a crime. This was a crime, too. The only difference lies in who won the conflict. It's only a crime if you lose. So, why does the "legality" of this act make a difference? The only reason why this would a crime and shooting and bombing people wouldn't be is because mass murder of innocent civilians is the traditional way to make war. It's relatively safe for those in power, while these cyber attacks are a wild card that could threaten the powerful, and not just kill the children of regular people.
So again, why should this be illegal and bombing a hospital legal?
By leaking the origin of the Stuxnet cyberattack, President Obama's Administration has invited an Iranian cyberwarfare counterattack on the United States.
No, I am suggesting that we should not attack others (in any manner) that are of no threat to us.
Yes, he said, "it doesn’t necessarily rise to a casus belli". That is not exactly a ringing endorsement is it?
Ollie North.
My God! what is the problem with the Obama administration? Do they have to leak everything? :roll:
It's a very dangerous and stupid game they play.
one of my fears is that this will set off a chain of events that results in an attack on the US. every militaristic nation in the world probably has stuxnet now, and most have probably made used it to make their own weapon.
that's the problem with game changing weapons : it's only a matter of time until your "enemy" gets one.
i'd prefer we use more of our innovative power to address energy and the economy. want to disarm Iran? stop buying oil.
Come on Catawba. Last election they went to Obama.
Stuxnet also Bush's fault. Originally activated under the code name Olympic Games.
Obama disagrees with you, so you better not vote for him. So you agree you'll be voting for Romney, who is guilty of no such thing.
By leaking the origin of the Stuxnet cyberattack, President Obama's Administration has invited an Iranian cyberwarfare counterattack on the United States.
Obama disagrees with you, so you better not vote for him. So you agree you'll be voting for Romney, who is guilty of no such thing.
Two reactions to this. First, is there any hard proof that they leaked it, or is that speculation? Second, if it was leaked intentionally, there may well have been a pretty good reason for it. Governments leak stuff like this all the time for a variety of reasons.
LOL! Romney thinks the president is not being tough enough with Iran and thought our war on Iraq was a good thing.
So thanks, but no thanks!
Come on, Obama is so last term anyway. :lol:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?