Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Politics Technology

New Sanctions To Target Syrian and Iranian Tech Capacity 161

Posted by samzenpus
from the shut-it-down dept.
vivIsel writes "This morning, President Obama is set to unveil a new executive order that will allow the U.S. to specifically target sanctions against individuals, companies or countries who use technology to enable human rights abuse. Especially as repressive regimes more effectively monitor their dissidents online (rather than simply blocking access), the sanctions focus on companies that help them do that."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Sanctions To Target Syrian and Iranian Tech Capacity

Comments Filter:
  • TSA (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 23, 2012 @11:45AM (#39771745)

    Now if only they'd use that on the TSA

  • Pot, kettle (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 23, 2012 @11:47AM (#39771781)

    So when do the sanctions roll out against ourselves? I'd say "repressive regime" that "monitors dissidents" applies directly to the US, no?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by evanism (600676)

      Bingo. The USA is the bad guys in too many peoples eyes. Time for a little self reflection.

      • So, do you oppose the sanctions on the grounds that they're hypocritical, then? Or are you just happy that you can point out the hypocrisy?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by evanism (600676)

          Sorry, i dont understand your points. Are you suggesting that mearly commenting on a chat board implies freedom? Or are you suggesting that the NSA has ONLY harvested this information and added my dissidence to its profile on me, and not used it against me YET, is a form of freedom?

          Freedom is freedom FROM government, not freedom OF government.

          Critisism of ones government does not imply freedom, nor necessarily its ability to act against you... Yet.

          The worm is turning in the USA. Facism is half a goosestep

          • it's not democracy, or republic, and far away from fascism yet. i prefer to call it "elected dictatorship". you elect a group of people to rule you dictatorially for few years, while ensuring whoever succeeds them, will have the same agenda.

            • by rgbrenner (317308)

              What you described IS a republic.. which is exactly what the US is. Here's the dictionary definition [reference.com]:

              1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

              In other words, we all vote people into office, then those people do whatever the hell they want as our representatives.

              If you don't like the morons in office, then why do you (we) keep putting them into office?

            • by tqk (413719)

              it's not democracy, or republic, and far away from fascism yet.

              Spit it out. It's (so far, dependant upon who you are) a "benevolent dictatorship", with *a lot* of the stink of fascism. They just haven't bothered to come for you yet. That "benevolent" bit can change in a heart beat however. Keep watching.

              This is turning out to be a very interesting century (as in the Chinese curse - "May you live in interesting times").

          • I didn't MAKE a point. I asked a question with the hope of clarity. Do you oppose the idea of imposing sanctions just because the entity doing the imposition is hypocritical?

            That's different than well, anything that you responded to at all. Do you think I'm defending the current and past actions of the U.S. government vis a vis its own citizens' rights? I don't get it.

      • by ArcherB (796902) on Monday April 23, 2012 @12:23PM (#39772345) Journal

        Bingo. The USA is the bad guys in too many peoples eyes. Time for a little self reflection.

        Says the guy openly criticizing the USA with absolutely no fear for his safety or the safety of his family as a result.

        • by h4rr4r (612664)

          He is not saying that openly unless his slashdot handle is his real name.

          Say this stuff in an airport and see if they let you on a plane.

        • by Uberbah (647458)

          Says the guy willfully ignorant of the fact that the U.S. has had innocent people kidnapped, tortured, [salon.com] or killed: [cnn.com]

          The prime minister of Canada apologized Friday to Maher Arar and agreed to give $9 million in compensation to the Canadian Arab, who was spirited by U.S. agents to Syria and tortured there after being falsely named as a terrorism suspect.

          Arar, 36, a former computer engineer who was detained while changing planes at a New York airport in 2002 and imprisoned in a Syrian dungeon for 10 months, said

          • by ArcherB (796902)

            Are you really comparing the killing of one man, on foreign soil, conspiring with and surrounded by enemies of this country, who had openly declared war on the country and was actively trying to find ways to kill as many Americans as possible with the hanging of hundreds or thousands of men in the streets found guilty of being homosexuals?

            See, this is the kind of moral equivalence bullshit you guys pull all the time and it really makes you look seriously mathematically challenged at best. You truly see the

            • by Uberbah (647458)

              Are you really comparing the killing of one man

              Are you really expecting your fake outrage and filibustering to fly here? The Federal Government targeted an American citizen for execution without bothering to even indict him. Which alternates between insisting that no one should question this killing because there was so much evidence that he was a bad guy, and then refusing to give a shred of said evidence when pressed to do so.

              Then you uncritically accept their storyline without bothering to cite anythi

      • by Tasha26 (1613349)
        While I have many good American friends, I think the blame lies in their stupid greedy tyrannic government. Logically the latter should self-terminate when this executive order is activated.
    • by cpu6502 (1960974)

      In the 1990s sanctions against Iraq caused 1 million people to starve to death (the Secretary of State acknowledged that stat to be true, but she said it was necessary), and led to 9/11. Now we are going to starve another million Syrians and Iranians. Knocking off innocent people is a perfect way to provoke anger & spark a war.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ScentCone (795499)

        In the 1990s sanctions against Iraq caused 1 million people to starve to death

        No, Saddam Hussein caused every single one of those people to starve to death. Not least by diverting the aid meant for them, but in general by never honoring the commitments he made when he was being pushed back from his invasion of Kuwait. His regime was sanctioned because of its conduct. His people were offered food and other support, but he prevented that from being used well or at all. His continued actions in that regard were part of what motivated his final ouster from power, as eventually even the

      • by jbolden (176878)

        Well actually a 1/2 million. And they were a secondary cause of 9/11, the primary cause was our support for the Saudi government against their internal rebels.

        And this is about computer technology sanctions against Western / US companies not food sanctions against opposed countries.

      • Do you think you could come up with a list of foreign governments that you think are actually responsible for their own behavior, and that of their country? Are there any that have even a smidgen of influence over the activities within their borders? Or is everything the fault of the United States? The mass starvation in North Korea? The slaughter in Syria? The dreams of regional hegemony and genocidal inclinations of Iran? Do the leaders of these countries have their own dreams, their own goals? Ar

        • by cpu6502 (1960974)

          Strawman argument. I never said the U.S. is responsible for "all" the bad things in the world..... only those countries where blood is very clearly on its hands. Such as the blatant slaughter (or maiming) of 1 million Iraqis, half-a-million Afghanis, and who knows how many victims of our Yemen and Libyan bombings.

          Maybe we ought to find a better solution than going-round and murdering our neighbors. The amount of corpses the U.S. has created in the last two decades would create a mound higher than most bu

    • by kawabago (551139)
      Guantanamo
  • by crazyjj (2598719) * on Monday April 23, 2012 @11:48AM (#39771811)

    Is this the same administration that has been falling all over itself giving retroactive immunity [wikipedia.org] to telcos and other companies violating the civil rights of American citizens?

    • by omfgnosis (963606)

      I get what you (and a bunch of ACs or one really bored AC apparently) are saying, but I think the argument is going to be a hard sell when you're forced to recognize the categorical difference between the technocratic repression of a modern megastate and the repression of shelling cities where resistance is detected.

      That said, there's another powerful argument as to our hypocrisy, which is the double standard we hold our allies to versus these states we sanction.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 23, 2012 @12:12PM (#39772171)

        Just playing devil's advocate here:

        What would the US government's response be if a small (or a significant) portion of the population resisted/rebelled against the government?

        Well, the Whiskey Rebellion [wikipedia.org] was put down with violence. If you say that that doesn't count because the US is democratic, well, especially early on, the US was not very democratic, and that was a feature, not a bug. In fact, it was sort of like Syria, or Iran today, with elections, but also with features designed to perpetuate an existing ruling establishment.

        Second, take the Civil War, put down with hundreds of thousands of deaths, and then probable war crimes [wikipedia.org]. Is Syria's war not a war between two factions in the same country, i.e., a civil war? Would Washington have taken kindly to London helping the Confederate States of America [wikipedia.org]?

        Finally, take the Occupy Wall Street movement, also put down violently. If Egypt had cleared out Tahrir Square claiming "health code violations", most international media would have laughed. But, in New York, it was done with a straight face.

        The message just seems to it's OK if we do it, bad if they do it.

        • by omfgnosis (963606)

          What would the US government's response be if a small (or a significant) portion of the population resisted/rebelled against the government?

          Depends what form the resistance takes. There's a fairly large portion of the population actively resisting US policy of one kind or another, and there's a small bug significant portion of the population preparing for revolution of one kind or another. Since these are mostly impotent threats to the status quo, they're largely ignored, but with some repression to remind the resisters what the state is capable of.

          Well, the Whiskey Rebellion [wikipedia.org] was put down with violence. If you say that that doesn't count because the US is democratic, well, especially early on, the US was not very democratic, and that was a feature, not a bug. [snip]

          Second, take the Civil War, put down with hundreds of thousands of deaths, and then probable war crimes [wikipedia.org].

          You'll note that in neither of these cases was the US a "modern megastate" which employed "techno

          • I still don't think it rises to the level of shelling cities which house resistance.

            Too many rich Americans in cities. Now, a small farming commune is another story...

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege [wikipedia.org]

            I guess that is totally different from the situation in Syria though. After all, the Branch Davidians were religious extremists.

            • by omfgnosis (963606)

              I don't understand why the replies I'm getting seem to treat me like I think the US gov't is all sunshine and daisies. Yes, it is brutal. It is far, far more brutal than any odd dictatorship. All the more reason for us to sharpen our arguments.

              Waco is a good example of what happens when the state perceives a genuine threat, even just out of pure paranoia. That is an example of "it always reserves the opportunity to drop the other boot". But it's also an outlier in terms of typical internal US behavior.

              I can

              • by jbolden (176878)

                Waco was an example of a group that had shot 4 federal agents trying to administer a court order and then refused to surrender. You don't have the right to violently resist police enforcement. You comply and after the fact sue if there were civil rights violations.

          • by Uberbah (647458)

            I don't understand why the replies I'm getting seem to treat me like I think the US gov't is all sunshine and daisies.

            Maybe because you're being overly literal. The point of making analogies other comparisons isn't to say two things are identical, but to, you know, compare them where they are comparable.

            In other words, you are sounding the like sort of person who hears a comparison between the wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam and proceed to spend your time complaining that there is no draft, jungle, or comm

        • by MightyYar (622222)

          Finally, take the Occupy Wall Street movement, also put down violently.

          In what world do you get your news? How can you possibly compare the scale of violence that occurred in Tahrir Square to the removal of protestors in any of the Occupy camps?

          It's actually a shame, because your post was making some decent (if IMHO flawed) points up to this point, and then you go and completely blow your credibility.

          • by Uberbah (647458)

            How can you possibly compare the scale of violence that occurred in Tahrir Square to the removal of protestors in any of the Occupy camps?

            Easily. Cracked skulls, bleeding heads, mass arrests, use of mounted police, tear gas, macing peaceful protesters (even ones sitting down) in the face with pepper spray....

            So, on what world do you get your news?

            • by MightyYar (622222)

              You have no sense of scale.

              • by Uberbah (647458)

                You've got willful denialism. Thousands of peaceful protesters arrested, police brutality, cracked skulls, mounted police (both motorcycles and horses), mass use of tear gas and pepper spray....

                It's all there man, whether or not you choose to ignore it.

                • by MightyYar (622222)

                  You also have no sense of context.

                  • by Uberbah (647458)

                    You're really this intellectually lazy? Hand waving and 7 word tautologies do not an argument make.

                    were not simply "peaceful protesters", they were also squatters.

                    Nonsense. What unoccupied dwellings were they located in for the purpose of residency? See also, the First Amendment: [wikipedia.org]

                    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition

                    • by MightyYar (622222)

                      You're really this intellectually lazy?

                      Arguing with someone who thinks that the Occupy xxx protests and the Tahrir Square protests were similar beyond being a bunch of dissatisfied people seems like a waste of time, and in that regard yes I'm being lazy.

                      What unoccupied dwellings were they located in for the purpose of residency?

                      Tents aren't "dwellings"? How about you discuss the gist of my argument instead of arguing about whether my use of the word "squatter" is appropriate? They were living in the park(s), not simply "protesting" - that is the important distinction I was trying to make.

                      or the right of the people peaceably to assemble

                      Care to point to the part of the

                    • by Uberbah (647458)

                      Arguing with someone who thinks that the Occupy xxx protests and the Tahrir Square protests were similar beyond being a bunch of dissatisfied people seems like a waste of time, and in that regard yes I'm being lazy.

                      Which part is your lazy mind having a hard time understanding?

                      The mass evictions under laughable pretenses?

                      The use of tear gas against peaceful protesters?

                      The mass arrests of hundreds of peaceful protesters?

                      The many acts of police brutality against peaceful protesters?

                      The use of mounted police ag

                    • by MightyYar (622222)

                      The mass evictions under laughable pretenses?

                      I have no problem with the evictions, only with the methods used in some of the cities.

                      The use of tear gas against peaceful protesters?

                      Agreed that tear gas is out of bounds. It's not deadly force however.

                      The mass arrests of hundreds of peaceful protesters?

                      They got away with violating local laws for months before they were arrested. I'd say people were extremely lenient for the most part with the Occupy xxx protesters, only breaking it up when it had lost any semblance of momentum or purpose.

                      The many acts of police brutality against peaceful protesters?

                      Many is a weasel word. Document the brutality. I can count the really outrageous stuff on one hand, though the Oakla

                    • by Uberbah (647458)

                      Many is a weasel word. Document the brutality.

                      As you have documented the brutality in Egypt?

                      The government may place restrictions on the right to assemble that will maintain law and order, facilitate traffic, protect private property and reduce noise congestion. It does not guarantee freedom of assembly wherever and whenever you want to assemble. It also does not guarantee total free speech - yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and all that. Do some very basic reading before you lecture me on the first amen

                    • by MightyYar (622222)

                      As you have documented the brutality in Egypt?

                      Yes, exactly.

                      facilitate traffic

                      Irrelevant to the Wall Street protests.

                      You are wrong here. The incident where the NYC cops used the pepper spray on the girls was during an operation where they were trying to keep people on the sidewalk and off of the street with orange snowfence - the "barricades".

                      reduce noise congestion

                      Irrelevant to the Wall Street protests. Also hilarious, given the use of LRAD audio cannons to break up the protests. You were saying?

                      So law enforcement tools should be chosen not based on effectiveness of the technique, but on how hypocritical the method might sound to Uberbah? I'm going to disagree with you there. If a guy is using a weapon in a crime I have no problem with the police also using a we

                    • by Uberbah (647458)

                      Yes, exactly.

                      No, not exactly. Unless you are referring to some past conversation which only took place inside your head.

                      You are wrong here. The incident where the NYC cops used the pepper spray on the girls was during an operation where they were trying to keep people on the sidewalk and off of the street with orange snowfence - the "barricades".

                      According to the same police commissioner responsible for cracking down on the protests when he's not busy spying on hundreds of people for suspicion of not being

                    • by MightyYar (622222)

                      No, not exactly. Unless you are referring to some past conversation which only took place inside your head.

                      Are you just trolling me? LOL. From our conversation:

                      Over 600 dead in Egypt. Thousands of terrible injuries, including gunshot wounds. Arrests were for whatever the police felt like and people, including journalists, were held without charge, in secret, and tortured by the regime. The entire duration of the protests were met with violent resistance by the regime, with dramatic running battles. The protestors had many and varied demands, but all coalesced around a single common one: Mubarak had to go. Once h

        • by ScentCone (795499)

          Second, take the Civil War, put down with hundreds of thousands of deaths, and then probable war crimes [wikipedia.org]. Is Syria's war not a war between two factions in the same country, i.e., a civil war? Would Washington have taken kindly to London helping the Confederate States of America [wikipedia.org]?

          Nice moral equivalency shenanigans, there. The US South was defending the indefensible, and the Baathis regime in Syria is defending the indefensible. Your attempt to flip things around backwards is (or should be understood to be, if you're paying attention) embarassingly lacking in a moral compass and any sort of intellectual integrity.

          Finally, take the Occupy Wall Street movement, also put down violently.

          Oh, please. They were completely indulged at every turn, and completely abused their fellow citizens' patience as they squatted on public property that was not theirs to e

        • by jbolden (176878)

          Your analogy of the whisky rebellion is fair.

          I had friends at Tahrir square. After they were arrested they were sent to jail for extended periods of time. At occupy they were mainly out within 24 hours with minor fines. In Syria the police are clearing the square with thousands of deaths. In the USA were are upset someone got hit and hospitalized and a few people got hit with tear gas.

          We have problems but they are orders of magnitude different. And as an aside, London did assist the Confederate States

    • Sometimes the government will order others to do things on its behalf, and sometimes, these things may fall on its ass. No one will listen to the government if there's a chance that they can get sued for following orders, so the government can do things such as limit liabilities or to assume the liabilities resulting from these actions. If the government wants to spy, it has to have the telcos comply so the government will provide retroactive immunity. If the government wants airplanes made, it wouldn't do

  • Abuses, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Khyber (864651) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Monday April 23, 2012 @11:55AM (#39771913) Homepage Journal

    "a new executive order that will allow the U.S. to specifically target sanctions against individuals, companies or countries who use technology to enable human rights abuse"

    Good, start directly with yourselves, US Gov't. You're one of the worst offenders on this fucking planet.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      "a new executive order that will allow the U.S. to specifically target sanctions against individuals, companies or countries who use technology to enable human rights abuse"

      Good, start directly with yourselves, US Gov't. You're one of the worst offenders on this fucking planet.

      This kind of ignorance is what keeps mass-murder from happening across the world. Does the US government have its share of problems? Heck yeah. Is it reasonable to compare it to what is going on in Iran and Syria? Far from it.

      The next time civilians get gunned down systematically by our government on a daily basis you can bring up this point. Until then, leave politics at home and allow us to save lives.

  • by SuperCharlie (1068072) on Monday April 23, 2012 @11:57AM (#39771949)
    It is far more dangerous that we are seeing an increase in executive order being the rule of law than the content of those orders whether justifiable or not. What little influence we have as voters is nullified by this side-stepping of congress and our system of government, however flawed it may be.
    • by craznar (710808)

      The US doesn't currently have a system of government, so anything useful that can come from this complete breakdown of government ... seems good to me.

    • by Ihmhi (1206036)

      We'll know they're serious when the President repeals the National State of Emergency [wikipedia.org] that we have been in since September 2001. It has to be renewed every year and it has been renewed every year. The SoE grants the Executive Branch several hundred additional powers reserved for a state of emergency.

  • Which companies? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by chill (34294) on Monday April 23, 2012 @11:58AM (#39771953) Journal

    Is that the U.S. or European company that manufactures the products? Oh, no. They don't sell to customers in embargoed countries! Hold on a sec. I see a large order of "corporate internet filtering" products for shipment to the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain that needs attention. Amazing how much tech stuff those guys use!

    Where was I? Oh, yes. Those nasty gray-market distributors. You know, the shell companies incorporated a couple of months ago? Yeah. Those guys are ruining it for everyone!

    Now if you'll excuse me, I have a large order of CALEA equipment for delivery to U.S. telecom firms to ship out. Between that and the systems on order by the U.K. and China the bonuses should be fat again this quarter!

  • Start at home first? (Score:4, Informative)

    by mspohr (589790) on Monday April 23, 2012 @11:59AM (#39771965)

    They should start with the good old USA.
    The NSA is currently building a huge data center to capture email, phone, sms, etc. data.
    http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/23/more_secrets_on_growing_state_surveillance [democracynow.org]
    This includes an interview with hacker Jacob Appelbaum, who has volunteered for WikiLeaks and now works with Tor Project and others.

  • what's new? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tastecicles (1153671) on Monday April 23, 2012 @12:07PM (#39772087)

    Since WWII the US Government has sanctioned entire economies and betold woes on those who would deal with them.

    What, you want a list?

    (note: this is by no means exhaustive. Just the ones that actually made the news. Source: own research)

    China 1945-46
    Korea 1950-53
    China 1950-53
    Guatemala 1954
    Indonesia 1958
    Cuba 1959-60
    Guatemala 1960
    Belgian Congo 1964
    Guatemala 1964
    Dominican Republic 1965-66
    Peru 1965
    Laos 1964-73
    Vietnam 1961-73
    Cambodia 1969-70
    Guatemala 1967-69
    Lebanon 1982-84
    Grenada 1983-84
    Libya 1986
    El Salvador 1981-92
    Nicaragua 1981-90
    Iran 1987-88
    Libya 1989
    Panama 1989-90
    Iraq 1991
    Kuwait 1991
    Somalia 1992-94
    Bosnia 1995
    Iran 1998
    Sudan 1998
    Afghanistan 1998
    Yugoslavia - Serbia 1999
    Afghanistan 2001
    Libya 2011

    • Iran is already on the list, so it doesn't count. However, Syria appears to be a newcomer to the club, so make sure you get em a jacket!
      • Like I said, not exhaustive... Iraq should be there near the bottom again, unless you account for the fact that the US has maintained a military presence there since the invasion of Kuwait... Gulf War II is just Gulf War I: The Sequel much like Kill Bill Volume 2 is the sequel to Kill Bill Vol. 1.

  • by Medievalist (16032) on Monday April 23, 2012 @12:13PM (#39772193)

    We're already sanctioning Iran because they will take Euros or Yen for oil.

    This is another straw for the camel; the American public is tired of invading Middle Eastern countries to keep the price of Texas oil high, so we need them to attack us.

    Blood is already in the water, the sharks are circling.

    • We're already sanctioning Iran because they will take Euros or Yen for oil.

      The Europeans, like the US, say that they are sanctioning Iran due to its outlaw nuclear program. But lets go with what you assert, that it is about dollars versus euros. So are the Europeans sanctioning Iran [bloomberg.com] because they take Euros for oil too? Wouldn't that be kind of stupid for the Europeans to do, to punish Iran for accepting their currency to pay for oil? And that's what you claim? Shouldn't they be punishing the Iranians for accepting their currency for other goods besides oil too? Or do they th

      • You seem to have mistaken me for some caricature you have built in your mind. I have never in my entire life said the US invaded countries to get cheap oil - that is your narrative, not mine, my friend.

        I don't know why people believe such illogical things, but reducing the supply of something never makes it cheaper, and turning a major oilfield into a series of flaming holes always reduces the supply of oil. Did you think Bush fils and pere were both unfamiliar with basic economics? Did you think their T

  • by LanMan04 (790429) on Monday April 23, 2012 @12:14PM (#39772195)

    Can we start with HP?

    In Palestine, HP is deeply involved with the Israeli occupation. HP develops and profits from population-control systems that assist the Israeli government in the restriction of Palestinian movement, ethnic-based discrimination and segregation, and human rights violations.

    http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/703/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1232244 [democracyinaction.org]
    -----------------

    "Through its subsidiary EDS Israel, HP is the prime contractor of the Basel system, an automated biometric access control system installed and maintained by HP in checkpoints in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt).

    Another control mechanism HP is involved in is Israel's ID card system, which reflects and reinforces its political and economic asymmetries and tiered citizenship structure. HP will manufacture biometric ID cards for the citizens and residents of Israel (Jewish and Palestinians) for the Israeli Ministry of Interior. In addition, HP also provides services and technologies to the Israeli army.

    Furthermore, two of HP's technological services providers in Israel are Matrix and its subsidiary, Tact Testware, which are located in the illegal West Bank settlement of Modi'in Illit. HP is also taking part in the "Smart city" project in the illegal West Bank settlement of Ariel, providing a storage system for the settlement's municipality."

    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      Not gonna happen.

      Nor will we go after the Saudis, these are the folks our government likes. In the case of Israel they even have their own senator Joe Lieberman. I am sure the Saudis have a couple too.

    • Israel/Palestine (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Americans will never see the Palestinians as victims.

      Never.

      The reason is simple too. They aren't. They have played the role of terrorist for so long now Americans find it difficult to separate the words Palestinian and terrorist. To be honest, the Palestinians have never given the world any reason to separate the two words either. No reasonable person believes that they want to be anything more than terrorists. If it walks, quacks and shits like a duck ... it's a duck.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Oh, cry me a river. First you complained that border controls were too slow so they added biometric controls to speed things up. Now you're crying that there are biometric controls.

      PS: The "occupied territories" are neither Palestinian nor occupied, but don't let facts get in the way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYxLWUKwWo

    • by jbolden (176878)

      Palestine is a terrible example. The US directly sells arms to assist in Israeli actions, and those actions have broad support in congress and moderate support in the population at large.

  • by Galestar (1473827)

    Especially as repressive regimes more effectively monitor their dissidents online (rather than simply blocking access), the sanctions focus on companies that help them do that."

    So then US gov, what you're saying is you should place sanctions on yourself and the companies that aid you?

  • by dryriver (1010635) on Monday April 23, 2012 @12:36PM (#39772551)
    When the Saudi, Bahraini or Qatari governments buy "mass-surveillance technology" by the million-load, that lets them spy on all of their citizens, its perfectly "OK". After all, the Saudis provide the U.S. with cheap oil, Bahrain is another important oil-producer, and the Qataris provide military bases from which the U.S. can launch convenient wars against "rogue states" like Iraq. But when Iran & Syria do the exact same thing - buying snooping gear from the free market to keep their population in check - they are suddenly "evil", and "decisive sanctions" have to be imposed on them, and the companies. ------ Obama, either be fair and impose those sanctions on ALL surveillance tech vendors and ALL of their middle eastern clients (and perhaps the U.S. too?), or give your Nobel Peace Prize back, and let someone take office who isn't such a "double standards wielding" hypocrit. ------- The best solution to all of this would be to ban the creation, marketing and selling of mass-surveillance systems across the entire world. But where is the leader-class that could pull this off? Nowhere. The politicians who currently lead the "free world" seem to be far too fascinated by being able to "listen to" and "track" everybody within their state borders, to ever think about abolishing this practice in the first place.
    • But when Iran & Syria do the exact same thing - buying snooping gear from the free market to keep their population in check - they are suddenly "evil"

      No, I'm afraid you are quite wrong there, Syria and Iran have been evil regimes for quite some time. The 1982 Hama massacre [abovetopsecret.com] is a good taste of what the Syrian regime is capable of. It also serves as an example of what the Arab & Muslim world will tolerate in silence, but when an Israeli soldier kills one Palestinian Arab suicide bomber it is decried as a massacre and war crime. Iran has long practiced state sponsored terrorism [cfr.org].

  • This seems somewhat hypocritical, unless this legislation can also be used against the US Government and companies like the RIAA.

  • Sanctions? I thought that was political speak for "shame on you". They don't do anything real.

    Can anyone name an international issue or conflict that was resolved by sanctions?

  • TSA, NDAA, Executive Orders his inside circle buddies of Corzine of MF Global fame I could go on and on.

    Human Rights Abuses Indeed, Obama should look out his WH window.

    -Hack

    PS: Oh, and just as a closing point. If you think gun sales are hot now, wait till Romney and his cohorts get into office. TSA will need every single one of those Hollow Point bullets....at last count, over 200 Million ordered for delivery....right between the eyes of every man women and child in USA.

  • So they are going to put tech sanctions on england?

As the trials of life continue to take their toll, remember that there is always a future in Computer Maintenance. -- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"

Working...