Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 05/23/2010 9:13:06 AM PDT by yoe
The US military has appointed its first senior general to direct cyber warfare – despite fears that the move marks another stage in the militarisation of cyberspace.
The newly promoted four-star general, Keith Alexander, takes charge of the Pentagon's ambitious and controversial new Cyber Command, designed to conduct virtual combat across the world's computer networks. He was appointed on Friday afternoon in a low-key ceremony at Fort Meade, in Maryland.
The creation of America's most senior cyber warrior comes just days after the US air force disclosed that some 30,000 of its troops had been re-assigned from technical support "to the frontlines of cyber warfare".
The creation of Cyber Command is in response to increasing anxiety over the vulnerability of the US's military and other networks to a cyber attack.
James Miller, the deputy under-secretary of defence for policy, has hinted that the US might consider a conventional military response to certain kinds of online attack.
Although Alexander pledged during his confirmation hearings before the Senate committee on armed services last month that Cyber Command would not contribute to the militarisation of cyberspace, the committee's chairman, Senator Carl Levin expressed concern that both Pentagon doctrine, and the legal framework for online operations, had failed to keep pace with rapid advances in cyber warfare.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Well, glad to hear that ... it’s about time since the Chinese and the Russians have been at it for a long time now ... LOL ...
30,000 troops??
say what?
30,000 troops against FR...
Of course it would never be used against Tea Partiers and the American citizens...
You can bet there are embedded bots and back doors in firmware across the entire communication spectrum - ready to be mobilized when needed. For instance, the FBI can use your cell phone as a bug to ease drop - even if your phone is "off". You have to remove the battery to disable it.
Possible Ping List interest here.
This General probably couldn’t find Mine Sweeper via the Windows Start Menu...
The internet folded into Northcom...DHS etc. One big cyber attack and “domestic terrorists” could become a hot issue...and of course people will gladly give up the internet as we know it in the name of safety or getting rid of extreme sites....like freerepublic or dailykos...depending on who is in charge.
Pretty soon we’ll all have to use a CAC card to use the internet.
President Bush started a snowball rolling down a hill...and I don’t know if it can be rolled back. Obama is jumping all over it and who knows what the President in ten years will do with all this power.
Skynet
So have we - it's just being telegraphed to the world in a formal proclamation.
Well... heck! Since we're going that way ... we could just get rid of all our generals and military and pretend we don't have one (but still keep it on the sly, doncha know) and fool everyone ... LOL ...
This would be General Danger. General Abel Danger.
You might want to read General Alexander’s C.V.
to the frontlines of cyber warfare
Ping a ling!
Compiling an enemies list of anyone that’s not one of them; do ya think????
Sounds like it to me.
"Well... heck! Since we're going that way ... we could just get rid of all our generals and military and pretend we don't have one (but still keep it on the sly, doncha know) and fool everyone ... LOL ..."Where have you been? They've been gone since 2008.
Barry and Holder have leaked every top secrete security plan possible - dismantling interrogation protocols that extracted real-time actionable information, while providing legal "rights" to enemy combatants that are reserved for US citizens.
Where have you been? They've been gone since 2008.
Well, someone better tell those generals who are still there to go home, then ... LOL ...
Barry and Holder have leaked every top secrete security plan possible ...
I think for what was let known... there's probably 1,000 times additional that no one even knows about ... or can even guess. I don't think the quantity of our secrets are that paltry.
... dismantling interrogation protocols that extracted real-time actionable information, while providing legal "rights" to enemy combatants that are reserved for US citizens.
Ya know... for some reason, those guys seem to just spill the beans anyway. It's kinda weird, but they're not used to not talking about what they did. It seems that they want everyone to know. I guess it's a sort of "dying like a martyr" thing... (you know... so you can go to be with Allah), so they make sure that everyone knows they were fighting for Allah. I think they can't resist telling it all, actually ... :-)
BUT, in regards to the legal rights "reserved for US citizen" ... actually, that's not true, because those are rights that are given to citizens of other countries, who may be in this country and not a citizen of this country, and have never lived here. They may be just visiting here, and they end up having those same rights as US citizens, under the Constitution. They can even be illegal immigrants, who snuck in going across the border and they would get the same rights as US citizens. So, those rights were not reserved for US citizens.
If you are a combatant in war, then you have rights, too... but they are a different set of rights, not the ones that are outlined in the Constitution, but they've got rights, too. And they would be tried under those rights.
However, it has been a political decision as to whether these guys (Muslim terrorists) should be tried with the rights that one has as a citizen under the Constitution or as combatants at war. And depending on political circumstances, that has been different with different people.
Now, keep in mind that the courts have weighed in here, too... like for instance with some of those at Gitmo. And some have been required, by the courts, to be tried with the same rights as citizens, under the Constitution. So, in those instances, it's not even a political party or a President who decides on that.
Furthermore, you've got actual US citizens, themselves, who are doing terrorist acts, like that guy in New York, recently, who is a US citizen and he did that terrorist act.
So, when you look across the broad spectrum of all the people involved in this, the political parties, the courts, who is President at the time, if the terrorist is a citizen himself, then it's not "one policy fits all" type of thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.