Re: [iwar] news - "Homeland Defense"
From: Ross Stapleton-Gray
From: amicus@well.com
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Mon, 05 Feb 2001 14:45:43 -0500
fc Mon Feb 5 11:56:07 2001
Received: from 207.222.214.225
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
for fc@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 05 Feb 2001 11:56:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by multi33.netcomi.com for fc
(with Netcom Interactive pop3d (v1.21.1 1998/05/07) Mon Feb 5 19:56:01 2001)
X-From_: amicus@well.com Mon Feb 5 13:55:49 2001
Received: from ej.egroups.com ([64.211.240.230])
by multi33.netcomi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA10899
for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:55:47 -0600
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-907-981402940-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.56] by ej.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Feb 2001 19:55:51 -0000
X-Sender: amicus@well.com
X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 19:55:40 -0000
Received: (qmail 25987 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 19:55:39 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 19:55:39 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO postal.dn.net) (207.153.221.107) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 19:55:39 -0000
Received: from home.well.com (pm-6.ppp.wdc.dn.net [207.226.188.6]) by postal.dn.net (111001-jg) with ESMTP id OAA03700 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:55:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010205143612.00d36c50@90.0.0.1>
X-Sender: director#embassy.org@90.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
In-Reply-To: <200102021355.FAA00677@all.net>
From: Ross Stapleton-Gray
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe:
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 14:45:43 -0500
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [iwar] news - "Homeland Defense"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
At 05:55 AM 2/2/01 -0800, Fred Cohen reported:
>[Gary Hart said,] "We believe very deeply the
>threats to our homeland, in terms of chemical
>[and] cyberwarfare ... have to be dealt with."
While I'm a bit put off by the term "Homeland," I can see some of the
issues that have been percolating behind this. One relates to the imagery
of enemies able to strike past our historical natural defenses of
continental isolation, and to zap the "homeland" via "cyberattacks;"
another is the threat of terrorism on U.S. soil, where the delivery
mechanism can be as simple as a panel truck. "Defend our vulnerable
homeland!," will be used here, as it is with "National Missile Defense."
There's also the issue of "posse comitatus," and the military's ability,
willingness, or appropriateness in responding to acts of war or terror
visited on "the homeland." The alternatives are to amend the Constitution
to permit the military more license to work domestically, or establish a
new agency (or new powers and capabilities to domestically-operating
agencies like FEMA and the FBI). Personally, I'd prefer to keep the
military in the roles it's currently serving, which diminishes the
temptation to have it pulled into domestic police situations. Which isn't
to say, though, that the Air Force or Army, with sizable CONUS "tails,"
won't have to do a lot to secure themselves against attacks within CONUS.
Ross
_____________________________________________________________________
Ross Stapleton-Gray TeleDiplomacy, Inc.
director@embassy.org 2503 Columbia Pike, Suite 118
Arlington VA 22204
http://www.telediplomacy.com +1 703 685-5197 / 5257 fax
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/1/_/595019/_/981402940/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
------------------
http://all.net/