|
Posted by on April 17, 2006, 4:40 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Cliff wrote:
>
> And that is really a moot point to begin with as the prisoners are being
> treated as they are prisoners of war. The only difference is what standard
> they fall under not that they cannot be held.
Not really. If they were being treated as POWs then the Red Cross would
be allowed into Gitmo, for instance. This hasn't happened, AFAIK. Also,
POWs aren't to be held criminally or morally responsible for their acts
on the battlefield.
I recognize that for the most part (except for certain egregious
counter-examples) they are being treated humanely. But at some point,
even humane imprisonment becomes mis-treatment when they have yet to be
afforded even the pro forma consideration of a kangaroo trial.
Question: Is the War in Afghanistan over yet? The country has been
liberated and they have a functioning government. We still have troops
there, but we still have troops in Germany so I'm not sure that means
much. If the war is over then POWs should be returned and War Criminals
need to be tried. Neither is happening.
On the other hand, if they are being held as prisoners of the War on
Terror, we have a different set of problems. The War on Terror isn't a
real war, it's a rhetorical war. It's like the War on Drugs or the War
on Poverty. Terrorism isn't a group or a state, it's a tactic. It's like
a War on the Forward Pass or the End Run. And it is likely to never end,
just like the War on Drugs or Poverty. I have a real hard time with a
President claiming war powers that way.
It looks to me like we have a President who is claiming the authority to
arrest anyone they like, anywhere, anytime, whisk them off to a secret
prison outside of the jurisdiction of any court system, deny them access
to legal aid or the International Red Cross, and hold them indefinitely
-- perhaps even for life -- with no trial or any kind of accountancy to
any outside agency or authority.
That doesn't sound like America to me.
I recognize that terrorism is different than ordinary war and it's
different than ordinary criminal behavior. If we need to pass new laws
and establish new legal principles and processes to deal with it, then
fine; let's do that. but do it the right way. But all this secret, "no
court has jurisdiction", and "no laws apply to what we're doing" crap
has got to go.
Try, convict, sentence, and execute. And I'll gladly borrow your 45 cal
and serve in the firing squad. Trust me, I have no love for those assholes.
--
Rod
|
|
Posted by Sebastian Gottschalk on April 17, 2006, 5:00 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
stacey.michols@gmail.com wrote:
> I keep my computer pretty 'clean', and XP's firewall would normally do
> the job, but there are certain programs that I don't want to dial out.
So why don't you configure them accordingly? Or uninstall them if such a
configuration is not possible?
> Is there a way to manually block these programs (either in XP or Server
> 2003) from outbound communication,
If these programs are untrustworthy: no
> or is there some real small
> footprint firewall that'd let me do that without keeping my CPU or
> harddrive too busy?
You mean a host-based packet filter? Take a look at Wipfw. Still it
won't solve your social problem 'trust'.
|
|
Posted by Duane Arnold on April 17, 2006, 5:52 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> I've tried a lot of firewall products, and I find them all either too
> instable or too much of a resource hog.
> I keep my computer pretty 'clean', and XP's firewall would normally do
> the job, but there are certain programs that I don't want to dial out.
> Is there a way to manually block these programs (either in XP or Server
> 2003) from outbound communication, or is there some real small
> footprint firewall that'd let me do that without keeping my CPU or
> harddrive too busy?
>
What do you mean? You go to the XP or 2003 O/S that's using NTFS and
configure them to not allow the programs to run using the O/S. You don't
go to no personal FW or any solution like that and try to control a
program from running or communicating. If it cannot run, then it cannot
communicate.
Duane :)
|
|
Posted by Volker Birk on April 18, 2006, 2:07 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> I've tried a lot of firewall products, and I find them all either too
> instable or too much of a resource hog.
> I keep my computer pretty 'clean', and XP's firewall would normally do
> the job, but there are certain programs that I don't want to dial out.
> Is there a way to manually block these programs (either in XP or Server
> 2003) from outbound communication, or is there some real small
> footprint firewall that'd let me do that without keeping my CPU or
> harddrive too busy?
Isn't it possible to just configure these programs? What programs are
they?
Yours,
VB.
--
At first there was the word. And the word was Content-type: text/plain
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Block Outgoing Traffic Only | October 21, 2007, 10:41 pm |
| URGENT - Logs - outgoing 443 traffic | November 16, 2004, 9:50 am |
| ICMP 3 & 11 incoming but no outgoing traffic | September 14, 2005, 12:48 am |
| Newbie - can Snort alert me to outgoing traffic? | November 30, 2004, 2:00 pm |
| Watchguard Firebox 5x blocking outgoing traffic. | May 14, 2006, 7:36 pm |
| What's the point of not allowing all outgoing traffic by default? | May 24, 2007, 1:13 am |
| Why does Kerio 4.1.2 block ALL traffic?! | November 25, 2004, 12:59 pm |
| Sygate Block all traffic | December 31, 2005, 12:09 am |
| How to block upd port 137 traffic | May 20, 2007, 7:11 am |
| Unable to block traffic from VM Workstation | September 26, 2008, 9:24 am |
|
XML site map