Decentralizing the Internet

Jim Dwyer, of the NYT, reports that:

A Columbia law professor in Manhattan, Eben Moglen, was putting together a shopping list to rebuild the Internet — this time, without governments and big companies able to watch every twitch of our fingers.

The list begins with “cheap, small, low-power plug servers,” Mr. Moglen said. “A small device the size of a cellphone charger, running on a low-power chip. You plug it into the wall and forget about it.”

Almost anyone could have one of these tiny servers, which are now produced for limited purposes but could be adapted to a full range of Internet applications, he said.

“They will get very cheap, very quick,” Mr. Moglen said. “They’re $99; they will go to $69. Once everyone is getting them, they will cost $29.”

Put free software into the little plug server in the wall, and you would have a Freedom Box that would decentralize information and power, Mr. Moglen said.

Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack’ by CNS News

From (CNSNews.com):

As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.

Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

From Wikipedia, it states that...

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war, in the following wording:

[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Jason Ditz reports that, in a 10-0 vote (with five members abstaining), the United Nations Security Council Thursday approved an attack on Libya, urging nations the world over to use “all necessary measures” to move against the Gadhafi regime.

The resolution, UNSC Resolution 1973, mandates a no-fly zone and authorizes strikes against Libyan territory, but explicitly excludes, in Paragraph 4, the possibility of a “foreign occupation force of any form.” It is unclear if this rules out a ground invasion, or only requires them to be “temporary” deployments.

In the instance of attacking Libya, under the guise of UN Resolution 1973, not only has President Obama used military force unconstitutionally, but also against the Charters of the UN.  

The Charter of the U.N. in Article 2 calls for the "sovereign equality of all its Members."  The U.N. is violating its Charter by disregarding Libyan sovereignty, and by taking it upon itself to determine the nature of that sovereignty. 

Article 2 refers repeatedly to international disputes, i.e., disputes that are between or among States, not within States. It ends up saying explicitly that "Nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state..." The U.N. is violating this provision of its Charter when it intervenes in Libya. Can this organization be trusted?

From LewRockwell, Mr. Rozeff states that:

The Charter perhaps leaves itself a loophole, where it says that "this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII." However, that Chapter refers again and again to "international peace and security." By no stretch of the imagination or by any legal maneuvering or mumbo-jumbo does this mean the internal affairs of Libya. International peace means between two nations or among several nations. Libya’s civil war is within Libya. It is not breaking the international peace. The term "international security" is not threatened either, to the extent that this term can be comprehended. 

If some countries think that they must have Libyan oil in order to maintain their security, they should have managed this risk in other ways before this time. They shouldn’t be using the U.N. and U.N. force to bail them out of their own bad risk management of the past. Even if they impose such force, they might end up making matters worse for themselves.

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Obama’s New War Has Started

Number 3's a Charm...

So...we've decided to bomb another Muslim populated country (that being Libya, the third on the list after Iraq and Afghanistan).  The US, in conjunction with coalition forces that include the United Kingdom and France, have today launched over a 100 tomahawk missles fired into cities within Libya.

Secretary of state Hilary Clinton stated in Paris today, in agreement with President Obama, that "military action is to protect civilians and is to provide access for humanitarian assistance".

Obama states, "Today we are part of a broad coilition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interest of the US and the world." Obama has continued to repeat his stance that no US troop will be deployed on the ground.

However, If we are acting in the interest of the world and answering the call of a threatened people...why not go to Egypt?  (Heck, I feel threatened paying all these taxes.Where's my stimulous package? Oh, sorry, let me get back on track...)  In Egypt's attempt at overthrowing a ruthless dictator, Mubarak, the Egyptians ended up getting a government and military more ruthless than before.  At least, the US now has an ally in Egypt.

The leader of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, said Saturday that he will arm civiliaions to defend Libya from what he called "colonial, crusader agression" by western forces.

Let me ask some questions.   Is our interest in Libya just for geopolitical positioning? Or is Libya a source of huge deposits of petroleum? If it's the latter, why didn't we pick other oil-rich contries like Saudia Arabia, Iran, or Oman? Or even countries like Berma?

And while we're at it, why don't we go after the natural gas-producing countries, say like...Canada? They're closer. And they have lakes and great vacation spots, not to mention some good Hockey teams. They almost became part of the US 200 years ago. 

Sufice to say, this is another bad decision when it comes to foreign relations with other countries. Again, we are picking fights with a people who have difficutly defending themselves. Even if they could be on our target of Muslim extremists, why not go after countires like Saudi Arabia or Pakastan?

It just appears we are the bully and picking on the "weaker kids on the block".  Eventually, this foreign policy we are pursing will come home to roost.  Ron Paul repeatedly says that an act like 911 on New York and Washington are examples of an aggressive foreign policy, "returning to us as blowback".