/quote/(a) those nations able to build nuclear reactors should commit themselves to build reactors that can only be used for non-military purposes. (b) The reactors that have dual-use capacity should be converted so that they can be used only for civilian purposes. (c) Even lowly enriched uranium should be supplied from an international bank, run by a supplier group, rather than be locally enriched. (d) Nations that have built nuclear arms should be encouraged to give them up,/unquote/

If the U.S. starts following those rules, others may follow.

Mr. Ezionis argument is btw full of crap.

Posted at November 15, 2007 10:52 PM in response to The Nigeria Lesson

The former White House official in the story must be Richard A Clarke.

But I don't buy it. The piece is obfuscating with its talk about traffic flow and network security.

(At that time I was CTO in an international telco/internet company in Europe. I know a bit about networks.)

For simple 'flow of traffic' analysis Quest would have had no problem to give away the needed aggregated(!) stuff.

For security (attack on machines etc.) you don't look much at flow of traffic but you start with the attacked machines and work back from there. That usually is no problem even with various network providers involved. It's routine. Quest would have had no problem with that either.

The Echelon comparison shines some light. Echelon does list to 1 on 1 traffic, i.e. to distinct phone calls. It listens into the calls. It is not about traffic flow, it is about the content of the calls.

The NSA did want listen to distinct "calls" or person to person Internet traffic in early 2001. Quest had to deny that for legal reasons.

I wonder why Clarke did that. He must have know that his(?) request would break the law. Who in the White House ordered this?

Posted at November 2, 2007 8:31 AM in response to National Security Mission Creeps: Forget Terrorists, Feds Want Hackers

The piece is mostly a correct version of the history, but the conclusions are wrong.

- What would an international force in Gaza be expected to achieve, aside from being shot at by Palestinians and shelled by Israeli.
- Who would put forces there?

- If you want to achieve some humanitarian good in Gaza, open up the borders and give aid to Hamas. Unlike Fatah they are proven to be not corrupt and very able in administrating such.

- How do your distingues "Palestinians ready to live in peace with Israel" from those who are not when you do not define Israel and its borders?
Hamas rightly askes "What Israel?" when they are told to accept it.

Posted at June 15, 2007 9:48 AM in response to HAMAS Wins! Thanks to Us

"right to resist occupation"

The right to fight for self determination is a right the UN and international law have accepted. I am not aware of any restriction of this right to an occupied area.

Hamas had in place a chease fire with Israel which was never honored by Israel, instead Israel has jailed, wounded and killed hundreds. So why should Hamas stick to it?

The Iraqis btw should probably start to attack the US on its ground too.

Posted at March 20, 2007 8:41 AM in response to Hamas and The Right to Resist

Iran, which poses a real threat to Israel's existence, ...

What, please is the threat Iran poses to Israels existance???

The last time I looked it was Israel and the US who threatened to bomb Iran.

Nuke weapons? Iran does not have any and does not want any, Israel has lots of them.

"Wipe Israel off the map?" Ahmadinjad never said so (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20070120&articleId=4527">)

So what is the threat from Iran please?

Posted at March 14, 2007 8:09 AM in response to But Does AIPAC Want to Go to War? Or Stay at War?

and we had a strategic and moral obligation to get Iraq back on its feet.

This curious, U.S. exclusive "obligation" has killed enough people in Vietnam, Haiti, Iraq, ...

Americans, you have NO obligations neither strategic (what a moronic expression: "strategic obligation") nor moral to kill people who are very well able to take care of themself.

Posted at October 10, 2006 11:36 AM in response to Welcome to the Emerald City

"Hezbollah has no goal but terror and destruction which constitute both its means and its ends."

Know your enemy and you will know yourself.

Posted at July 14, 2006 10:23 AM in response to Gaza, Lebanon: Two Entirely Different Wars

Larry, the essenece of the information Suskind revealed in your example was known at least since October 2004 to any reader of the WSJ frontpage.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2006/07/a_dud.html

Please retract your accusations against Suskind.

Posted at July 13, 2006 1:04 PM in response to A Real Security Breach

Independent of Specter has done something wrong or not (we don´t know yet): 

Has it occured to anyone else that the Specter story pops up just in the moment where Specter is about the only wellknown Republican still opposing the Cheney administration in the NSA domestic spying scandal?

Rove promised carrots and sticks to get the Republicans in line of the issue. Carrots did work with Pat Roberts, but obviously not with Specter.

So maybe someone at the White House talked to USA Today and launched the story just to trip Specter?

This sure looks like the typical modus operandi of the Rove gang.

Posted at February 17, 2006 8:10 AM in response to The Daily Muck

Rich is wrong in writing "This case is about Iraq, not Niger. The real victims are the American people, not the Wilsons."

The real victims are the Iraqi people. More than 100,000 have died, maybe a million wounded. All for the benefit of cheap gas for American drivers. A war of agression that does cry for Nuremburg trials.

That is the scandal - not the lies published in his paper that he frogets to mention and that faciliated the crime.

Posted at July 18, 2005 3:16 AM in response to frank rich