...more recent posts
"[B]ut if I were a betting man, I'd wager that kottke.org and I will be around for a 50th anniversary post. Stay tuned!"
Of course I'm not a lawyer, so it may be stupid to analyze something like this. But even to my untrained eye this looks like a complete sham. So I'm going to give it a go.
Here is the 9 step argument from U.K. Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, laying out the case for why an invasion of Iraq is legal under international law. Note that Lord Goldsmith was saying thought to believe as late as yesterday Wednesday March 12 that an invasion without a second (second to 1441) security council resolution would be illegal.
You've got to keep your eye on the ball here. To me the interesting thing is that, while he mentions resolution 1441 in 5 of the 9 points of his argument, a close reading reveals that 1441 plays no real role in the argument itself. Strange. Why mention it so much then?
The main point is number 8: "Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today." The problem here is with the '[t]hus'. One would think this 'thus' refers to, and builds upon, the previous point which is that Iraq is in material breach of 1441. Unfortunately this doesn't follow, even according to his argument.
Look closely at the very careful wording of point number 7: "It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach." Note that the material breach he is refering to cannot be of 1441, because he says that Iraq is already in material breach "at the time of resolution 1441."
What he means is that Iraq is in material breach of 687 and this is what revives the use of force granted in 678, thus making the war legal. But then why all this talk of 1441?
Try this: read the argument again, but throw out points 4, 5, 6, and 9 and add the following phrase to the end of 7: "of resolution 687."
I think this shorter version is actually his argument, and it may well be correct. I don't know. But I can see linguistically, and logically, that it sure doesn't depend on 1441 in any way. So this begs the question (again,) why put in so much about it?
Well, to distract us of course. Both from the fact that 1441 doesn't authorize force (even if Iraq is in material breach,) and also from the fact that Bush and Blair both held up material breach of 1441 as being the reason for military action. So as not to confuse the public they are trying to fool, he has to make it sound like a breach of 1441 is the reason for war (thus the tricky 'thus' in 8 which would seem to refer to 1441 in point 7, but doesn't really) while still make a legally sound case for war (which would have to hinge on a resolution that actually authorizes force - like 678.)
I'll leave aside the fact that the rather bald factual assertion implicit in number 7 - that Iraq has not eliminated its weapons of mass destruction - is nowhere backed up with any facts. It's merely given as "plain." Uh huh. Isn't this precisely what the UN inspectors were trying to ascertain?
I'm searching for, and would love to find, actual knowledgeable commentary on this obviously technical matter. Pointers welcome.
Fun bits from the Daily Koss coverage of the California Democratic Party's annual conference:
But then Edwards spoke in support of the Iraq war and all hell broke loose. The entire convention hall resonated in boos, the crowd chanting "no war! No war!" It was an amazing sight, and Edwards seemed a bit taken aback. Jerome thought it looked like '68. Edwards recovered with a line about Ashcroft, but the damage was done. The 20 or so brave souls waving Edwards signs were suddenly radioactive.And on the Dean speech:
But the most amazing part was the finale, with a fiery Dean pounding the podium:Note, of course, that CDP crowds probably don't track with the viewpoints of a majority of voters. Even democratic voters. Still.I want my country back!When Dean uttered this last line, the whole place went nuts. Utter pandemonium....
I don't want to listen to fundamentalist preachers anymore!
From the undisclosed location department: OK, I admit it, we snuck out of town last night. We're holed up at the secret Long Island headquarters. Be heading back in a few hours. Also, sort of pleasantly, my cell phone doesn't work here. But email is firing and jabber is on.
Kevin Sites is a CNN reporter on the ground in the Iraq region. He's been contributing blog like reports which have been posted intermittently on boing boing. But now he has his own page where he is audblogging (a service which allows you to post audio to your blog from any phone) from his satellite phone.
I can't find the link now, but I read yesterday that the U.S. military has warned the press that any satellite phone connections they sense from the battlefield will be immediately targeted. Yikes! I better find the link because that sounds a little hard to believe. But anyway, my point is that I don't know how well he'll do once the war (officially) starts. I don't think this is going to let him break any real information. But it's a pretty exciting read (and listen) right now.
This is really starting to bug me. Safari won't load google.com. I'm using version .64 although I believe it's always been this way. And, of course, it isn't really necessary because there is a google search bar built right into the browser. If I type my search there it will immediately load the results page from google. But I can't load the blank google front page and perform a search from there.
Hmmm. Since I know google has no javascript or other fancy weirdness on their page I'm inexorably drawn to the rather conspiratorial conclusion that Apple built it this way to force you to use the bulit in search field. Could this be true? Are they (either Apple, Google, or some combination) collecting search histories the way google does with the installable (on internet explorer) google bar? I mean, and not telling us?
I won't be happy if this turns out true. In fact I'll be very unhappy. And I'll switch immediately back to Camino. (I'm sure Cupertino is quaking at that threat.) But maybe there is a more reasonable explanation? Anyone?
Looks like there is water flowing on the surface of Mars. At least occasionally. Wow. We'll need some confirmation on this, but it sounds like they're pretty sure.
I hope we do a better job interacting with alien life then we're doing interacting with each other down here. Maybe we can learn something from the caution (and respect) that will be necessary. Even where we are just meeting an itinerant brackish water dwelling bacteria...
Frog Design and Motorolla have teamed up to produce some amazing wearable computing prototypes.
Yes please.
Well, his message is getting through. Salon has an introductory piece on the "there's enough bandwidth for everyone" utopian arguments of the oft mentioned David P. Reed. Still, the actual math is so hard - assuming you dig in deeper than the Salon article - that I doubt many people have much beyond a metaphorical understanding of what he's talking about.
Slashdot posted the story. Here's the +5 rated comments (the best comments.) They almost universally savage Reed (in the best/worst tradition of /. commenting.) The message here seems to be: "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about" which is sort of what I was scared of.
Still, while a close reading of all the objections is instructive, I do think most people misunderstand his point. No doubt Salon's intro isn't the best text to base a technical refutation on. Sure, we can't do what Reed says with today's radios. But Reed isn't claiming we can.
Part of what he's saying is that software defined radios are going to allow this sort of thing to happen. Assuming we can build (program) them. And assuming we can change the (soon to be) out of date broadcasting regulations that would disallow such devices. And the first step in changing such regulation is to have people believe that something better is possible.
So perhaps he's overly optimistic (as most /. comments complained) but I don't think he's wrong. Or at least not yet. Let's see how the software comes along over the next year. But a little optimism might well be warranted. I think getting the idea that something wildly better is possible into non technical people's heads will be for the better. And it sure won't hurt anything, since all these claims will have to be demonstrated eventually anyway. It's not like we're going to dismantle the FCC until there's some running code and working gear.
Is this thing on?
I downloaded fire in an attempt to experiment with jabber instant messaging. Of course I can't really do much experimenting because I don't know anyone else who uses jabber. Do you? IM me at jimbass@jabber.org and help me get up to speed.
Or, if you don't have it and you're slightly adventurous, download the jabber client (windows, linux, Mac.) Then you just connect to one of the many public servers with a name/password you've made up. If the name isn't recognized it will simply ask you if you want to make a new account. Nice. Simple. Free.
And then IM me.