RUTHFULLY YOURS

The FBI accused the North Korean government last week of perpetrating the devastating cyberattacks against Sony’s computer network for which a group calling itself the Guardians of Peace took responsibility. The North Korean government denied the charge and warned of serious consequences if the United States launched any counter-attack. President Obama ignored the threat, declaring that the U.S. would respond “proportionally” to what he characterized as cyberspace “vandalism.”

This Monday, North Korea experienced a total Internet outage for a bit less than ten hours. “I haven’t seen such a steady beat of routing instability and outages in KP before,” Doug Madory, director of Internet analysis at DYN Research, told North Korea Tech, referring to North Korea’s Internet country code top-level domain. “Usually there are isolated blips, not continuous connectivity problems. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are absorbing some sort of attack presently.”

North Korea’s Internet access, which it obtains through China-based facilities, has since been restored.

Some observers have attributed the temporary Internet outage to the fulfillment, in part or in whole, of Obama’s “proportional” response, which a White House National Security spokeswoman would neither confirm nor deny. Whether China may have played a role in the temporary outage is unknown, but doubtful.

“You have a cross on… Do you know what we do to people like you?” — Muslim in Denmark.

Muslim Fulani gunmen forced their way into the church, cut [the pastor], his wife and a daughter with a machete, and then tied the hands and feet of the three of them before setting the building on fire… We only found the charred remains of the three of them in the morning. I heard them shouting at the top of their voices, saying they must obliterate any traces of Christianity in the town.” — Eyewitness account, Nigeria.

Each year, approximately 1,000 women in Pakistan are forced to convert to Islam and marry Muslim men. Whenever a case of this nature reaches the law courts, those women, under threat and blackmail, often declare that their conversion and marriage were decisions freely made, and the case is closed.

The Muslim persecution of Christians in September started making prominent appearances not just in the Islamic world, but also in the West—in America, Australia and Europe.

In the United States, in Columbus, Indiana, three churches were vandalized on the same night. The words most frequently sprayed were “Infidels!” and “Koran 3:151.” The verse from the Koran states, “We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve [or “infidels”] for what they have associated with Allah [reference to Christian Trinity] of which He had not sent down [any] authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.”

Like many other Americans, I have always had a desire to travel to Israel and visit firsthand the many historical sites of spiritual significance. I was recently afforded the opportunity to fulfill that desire and was not disappointed.

In addition to being greatly inspired, I had an opportunity to speak with numerous Israeli citizens from a variety of backgrounds. One of the overwhelming themes in those conversations was the feeling of abandonment by the government of the United States. Some of the more diplomatic individuals said they felt sidelined by a U.S. government that had more important issues to deal with. Of course, they had not forgotten the times that our military and financial aid saved them from utter defeat at the hands of their numerous local enemies.

We must remember that Israel is a small country, about the size of New Jersey with only 8 million people. It is surrounded by Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and the Mediterranean Sea, with several other hostile nations in proximity. Enemy forces are in control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which consists primarily of Samaria and Judea and is home to many elements that are less than friendly toward Israel. If not for the Iron Dome missile defense system, the multitudinous rockets that were launched at Israel this summer from Gaza would have wreaked unimaginable damage on the tiny country. Many Israelis believe, probably correctly, that the aggressiveness of the hostile nations surrounding them is increased when the perception exists that we in the United States are not seriously committed to their protection.

Whatever happens to the movie “The Interview” – a Sony Pictures flick that parodies an assassination of North Korea’s Kim Jong-un – is not quite as important as our nation’s response to the North Korean attack on Sony, but nearly so. At this point, the Obama administration appears undecided on what, if any, our response should be.

What happened was an attack – purportedly by a group calling itself the “Guardians of Peace” – aimed at blackmailing Sony to not release the film. Sony’s computer networks were infected with malicious computer code which enabled the hackers to steal private data including emails, employee records and even the script for the next James Bond movie. It also enabled them to erase data, bringing the company to a standstill. The computer networks of Sony’s accounting firm, Deloitte, according to a confidential source were also attacked.

Then came threats of attacks against movie theaters showing the film, at which point Sony cancelled its release. (It has since announced a limited release in approximately 200 theaters and to stream it online.)

Last week, the FBI issued a statement which said that they had enough information to conclude that the North Korean government was responsible for these attacks. President Obama said on Sunday that, “I don’t think it was an act of war, it was an act of cyber-vandalism that was very costly, very expensive.”

Obama is right in one respect. An act of war must be defined as an act which causes physical harm to people or property. But he is wrong to say that it was merely an act of vandalism.

Mr. Tribe is a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School and a University Professor at Harvard University. He was retained by Peabody Energy to provide an independent analysis of the proposed EPA rule.
The EPA acts as though it has the legislative authority to re-engineer the nation’s electric generating system and power grid. It does not.

As a law professor, I taught the nation’s first environmental law class 45 years ago. As a lawyer, I have supported countless environmental causes. And as a father and grandfather, I want to leave the Earth in better shape than when I arrived.

Nonetheless, I recently filed comments with the Environmental Protection Agency urging the agency to withdraw its Clean Power Plan, a regulatory proposal to reduce carbon emissions from the nation’s electric power plants. In my view, coping with climate change is a vital end, but it does not justify using unconstitutional means.

Although my comments opposing the EPA’s proposal were joined by a major coal producer, they reflect my professional conclusions as an independent legal scholar. I say only what I believe, whether I do so pro bono, or in this case having been retained by others. After studying the only legal basis offered for the EPA’s proposed rule, I concluded that the agency is asserting executive power far beyond its lawful authority.

The Clean Power Plan would set a carbon dioxide emission target for every state, and the EPA would command each state, within roughly a year, to come up with a package of laws to meet that target. If the agency approves the package, the state would then have to impose those laws on electric utilities and the public

Harvard Law Prof. Jeannie Suk writing at newyorker.com, Dec. 15:

Students seem more anxious about classroom discussion, and about approaching the law of sexual violence in particular, than they have ever been in my eight years as a law professor. Student organizations representing women’s interests now routinely advise students that they should not feel pressured to attend or participate in class sessions that focus on the law of sexual violence, and which might therefore be traumatic. These organizations also ask criminal-law teachers to warn their classes that the rape-law unit might “trigger” traumatic memories. Individual students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.