RE: military strike possible?

["David Gillett" <gillettdavid () fhda edu>]

  This is getting WAAAY off topic, but while we're there
anyway:

  On the same day, about a year ago, that Colin Powell was
assuring a meeting of senior European diplomats that there
was no chance that the US would act pre-emptively "because
that's not how we do business", his boss was telling the
graduating class at West Point that pre-emptive action was
going to dominate their careers.
  They couldn't both be right.

Dave Gillett


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barry Fitzgerald [mailto:bkfsec () sdf lonestar org]
> Sent: October 29, 2003 06:56
> To: Meritt James
> Cc: 'security-basics () securityfocus com'
> Subject: Re: military strike possible?
>
>
> Meritt James wrote:
>
> > Going from the premptive strike philosophy demonstrated in Mideastern
> > countries, what are your thoughts on a military strike
> against (as yet
> > unseen) "cyberterrorists" a'la
> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/985295.asp?0si=- if there were
> extranational
> > agents tampering with identified components of the infrastructure to
> > the extent that they were risking human life?
> First and foremost, how do you attack someone when they:
>
> A) Haven't done the deed and thus, are unidentified?
>
>    -and-
>
> B) Haven't done the deed and, by any sane measure of justice, are not
> guilty of anything?
>
> These are the pretenses of the current pre-emptive strike
> philosophy.
> It's success is, as of yet, in question.  Unless its goal was
> to create
> an escalating security situation in the middle east and to stir up a
> hornets nest, then it was a massive failure.
>
> That's why the only way that pre-emptive strike works is during the
> first stages of an "attack".  The initial transgression has to be
> entered before a pre-emptive strike can be justified.  Even then, I
> shudder at the thought of military intervention in cyber
> affairs.  These
> are really criminal matters and thus should be handled by law
> enforcement authorities.  The military is a broadsword, not a
> scalpel.
> Cyber affairs are, by definition, essentially domestic.  If
> you were to
> bring the military into this, that would be like making MP's
> patrol the
> streets replacing police officers.  That's a nice little inroad into
> martial law and martial law is the first step into ensuring the
> existance of a tyrrany.  This has been true throughout
> history and with
> any exception that I'm aware of.
>
> Basically, no - bad idea, IMHO.  :)
>
>              -Barry
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> Forum Systems PRESIDIO: PGP / XML GATEWAY APPLIANCE
> The Presidio integrates PGP data encryption and XML Web
> Services security to
> simplify the management and deployment of PGP and reduce
> overall PGP costs
> by up to 80%.
> FREE WHITEPAPER & 30 Day Trial -
> http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/ForumSystems_security-bas
ics_031027
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forum Systems PRESIDIO: PGP / XML GATEWAY APPLIANCE
The Presidio integrates PGP data encryption and XML Web Services security to 
simplify the management and deployment of PGP and reduce overall PGP costs 
by up to 80%.
FREE WHITEPAPER & 30 Day Trial - 
http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/ForumSystems_security-basics_031027 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------