What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[derspiess]

We'd like to think that women in power would somehow be less pro-war

We would?

Well, The Nation would anyway.

https://www.thenation.com/article/obamas-women-advisers-pushed-war-against-libya/

[grumbler]

We'd like to think that women in power would somehow be less pro-war

We would?

Well, The Nation Bob Dreyfus would anyway.

https://www.thenation.com/article/obamas-women-advisers-pushed-war-against-libya/

Kind of a silly article, but then Dreyfus is a silly writer.   Probably right up your alley.

[Syt]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/21/us-electronic-devices-ban-flights-tsa-airports

Experts criticize US electronic devices ban on some flights from Middle East

Technologists say new rules against electronics 'larger than a cellphone' on flights from 10 airports seem illogical and at odds with basic computer science

The US government's unexpected ban on laptops, iPads and other electronics "larger than a cellphone" on flights from 10 airports in the Middle East has sparked criticism from technology experts, who say the new rules appear to be at odds with basic computer science.

Hours after the distribution of a "confidential" edict from the US Transportation Safety Administration (TSA), senior Trump administration officials told a hastily convened press briefing on Monday night the ban had been brought in after "evaluated intelligence" emerged that terrorists favored "smuggling explosive devices in various consumer items".

Passengers will be allowed to stow their devices in checked-in baggage on flights from the affected airports, which are in Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. None of them are covered by the Trump administration's ban on travel from six other mostly Muslim nations; all, in fact, are in countries which are close US allies.

Officials at the US department of homeland security (DHS) have claimed that the ban will help prevent terrorist attacks on commercial airlines, but tech experts questioned the safety implications.

If there are concerns about laptops on board being used as explosives, they said, those same risks could exist in checked baggage. Furthermore, many smartphones, which are not banned, have the same capabilities as larger devices.

"It's weird, because it doesn't match a conventional threat model," said Nicholas Weaver, researcher at the International Computer Science Institute at the University of California, Berkeley. "If you assume the attacker is interested in turning a laptop into a bomb, it would work just as well in the cargo hold."

"If you're worried about hacking, a cellphone is a computer."

Separately, some experts, including those at the Federal Aviation Administration, have previously raised concerns that the shipment of lithium batteries in airplane cargo poses a serious fire risk.

Numerous questions were raised at Monday's press briefing about the meaning of "larger than a cellphone", but the responses did not provide any clarity.

"To be honest, guys, there's a pretty universal understanding of where we're at," said one exasperated official who was repeatedly asked about how large a phone could be before it qualified as a tablet and was banned. Requirements appear to be at the discretion of the airlines.

A state department official referred reporters to "several terrorist events on airplanes in the last year", all outside the US. When pressed, a homeland security official said only one incident involved a bomb smuggled into the cabin – an explosion resulting in a single fatality on a Somali carrier called Daallo that does not fly to the US.

The DHS said passengers must submit to the ban "regardless of status and pre-clearance" and that the procedures would "remain in place until the threat changes", though a spokeswoman for Emirates told Reuters on Tuesday that the TSA directive is valid until 14 October.

Asked if the new order was an excuse to rifle through passengers' hard drives, a DHS official said: "This has absolutely nothing to do with the data in passengers' baggage."

Bruce Schneier, a security technologist, called the new rules an "onerous travel restriction".

"From a technological perspective, nothing has changed between the last dozen years and today. That is, there are no new technological breakthroughs that make this threat any more serious today," he said in an email. "And there is certainly nothing technological that would limit this newfound threat to a handful of Middle Eastern airlines."

Paul Schwartz, professor at the University of California, Berkeley law school, noted that the 9/11 hijackers had a cell in Hamburg, Germany. "One potential problem with this approach where you single out countries is that you ignore the extent to which the terrorist threat is kind of state-less," he said. "The terrorists have cells throughout the entire world."

Efforts to more broadly restrict laptops on planes would likely face widespread resistance, said Chris Hoofnagle, professor of law at the University of California. "It's a massive inconvenience to have to check a laptop, and you can imagine that such a demand is met with resistance by air carriers, who are powerful lobbies."

US airlines have been lobbying the Trump administration to intervene in the Persian Gulf, where they have contended for years that the investments in three rapidly expanding airlines in the area – Etihad Airways, Qatar, and Emirates – constitute unfair government subsidies with which Delta, American and United cannot compete. All three Middle Eastern airlines are among the carriers affected by the electronics ban.

[Oexmelin]

This has nothing to do with security, or technology. The point is to harass and inconvenience, and display such harassment and inconvenience to other passengers. 

[Jacob]

I guess if you're travelling from the Middle East to the US and you want to have an electronic device with you, you transfer in London or Paris or some other third country.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Looks like the UK is doing something similar :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39343971

[The Minsky Moment]

If Trump posted here, he'd be banned within a week for being obnoxious and pro-Trump.

We'd just assume he's a sock of bmollsen or IKK.

"Obama rubbed me on the bitch with his Tapps.  it's unpresidented."  etc.

Ironic that our first president to speak English as a second language is so hostile to immigrants.

[CountDeMoney]

We'd like to think that women in power would somehow be less pro-war

We would?

Little boys should be doctors and little girls should be nurses.

[derspiess]

Nothing wrong with women being nurses.  It's a noble profession.

[CountDeMoney]

They just shouldn't be doctors.  That would be ignoble.

[viper37]

I mean I don't disagree that Iraq II was a clusterfuck and directly lead to ISIS, which has primarily an Iraqi origin. But that's different from the Syria conflict, I don't believe Iraq II caused the Arab spring, I think angry Arabs who had been misgoverned for a century boiling over caused that. Particularly more religious-government minded Arabs ruled by more secular dictators who have had varying levels of backing from the West over the decades. I don't think Syria would be all that different today if Iraq II hadn't happened. It's possible that Iraq would be in a Syria state right now as Saddam fought an insurgency of his own, that he likely would be at least somewhat constrained (by international powers and a much decayed military) in his ability to shut it down like he did the major uprising after Iraq I in the early 90s. There's a lot of insurgent groups active in Syria and ISIS's largely just cannibalized al-Nusra front.

Well, it's always hard to isolate one event and say "we remove this and this never happenned".  I think Arab spring is a partial result of the Iraq invasion.  Not the biggest part, but it played a certain role in that you didn't have a Syrian friendly regime working hand in hand to chase down activists.

Having protests is one thing.  Having a small, local rebellion is one thing.  Saudi Arabia and Bharein,  they dealt with that. The way Saddam would have done.  The way Al Assad would have done if he didn't had to deal with an influx of trained and fanatical warriors right accross his border.

Saudi Arabia help squash the rebellion in Bharein.  Iraq and Syria would have cooperated in front of a massive popular uprising.  But without a stable Iraq governed by a fanatical dictator intent on doing everything and anything necessary to keep himself in power, Syria was alone.

Imagine Bahrein if Saudi Arabia had been in a state of chaos like Iraq, they would likely have descended into anarchy and civil war themselves too.

The instability in Syria and Iraq at the same time was a big aid to ISIS as it was able to move freely between both countries and executes its nefarious plans, but I think we'd still have a massive Syrian refugee crisis right now even if we had never gone into Iraq a second time in 2003.

We would have had refugees, political opponents of the regimes, just like before, but nothing massive like that.  ISIS could not have risen in a stable brutal dictatorship.  Nor could it have risen in a stable democracy, as was the dream of the neo-conservatives for Iraq.

But even if I'm wrong, none of that changes the fact that even if what you say is 100% true that America is to blame for the refugee crisis and the new wave of terrorism throughout Europe, that that means France is correct that we should be bombing Syria to...vague ends.

I'm more relating the thought of the French government and its citizen rather than my own.  I have a tad more nuanced view of the subject.

FWIW our bombing of Syria largely accomplished little but to make sure Assad stays in power, and Assad's forces are by far the ones who have committed the most humanitarian harm in Syria, even moreso than ISIS or any other terrorist group. Right or wrong, the American President viewed escalation in Syria as misguided, and was basically being pressured by a more activist NATO ally to "do more."

Hmm, if I remember correctly, Obama wanted to increase pressure on Syria by declaring war, but the Republican Congress disapproved.  The same administration keeping it shut when the new President is now sending troops over there.

In any case, Assad would have fallen without Russian help.  Only the help of the Russians in bombing every single cell of resistance, civilian or military did help.  And the Russians intervened because there was a power vacuum as there was really no one in Syria.  A few air raids here and there, but nothing truly significant compared to Iraq.  Had the US and NATO intervened before the Russians got there, things would have turned differently.  Assad would have been ousted for power and Russia would never have stepped foot in the middle east.

To my mind if you're thinking like that, and you have a multi-trillion dollar economy like France, you probably can go ahead and work on funding your own ability to act in such scenarios instead of utilizing the NATO relationship as a vehicle to apply pressure to the United States.

Imho, NATO should be used as a stabilizing force as well as a pure military force when an ally is threatened by terrorism, massive refugee crisis/disaster or conventional military threat.  Wars, when left alone, have a tendancy to grow, like a fire.  But unlike fire, they never seem to lack fuel.

[alfred russel]

Ironic that our first president to speak English as a second language is so hostile to immigrants.

Martin Van Buren's first language was Dutch.

[The Minsky Moment]

Martin Van Buren's first language was Dutch.

Should've impeached him too.

[Berkut]

There is no such thing as a "stable, brutal dictatorship". Surely history has taught us that at least.

[alfred russel]

There is no such thing as a "stable, brutal dictatorship". Surely history has taught us that at least.

To the extent that history teaches us that stability is an illusion in the long term, sure.