Gather 'round the fire while I tell a tale of days gone by... days when the intarweb was a little used piece of technology inaccessible outside of government research and academia...

Back in those days we didn't have browsers or blogs.

Back in those days we didn't have web sites.

Back in those days we had the Bulletin Board System (BBS).

BBSes were seething hotbeds of vitriol, and host to amazing discussions on all manner of topics - sometimes civilized, oftentimes not. Death-threats of "me and my friends we're gonna come over to your house and burn it down and rape your mom" were not unheard of. In fact on the more juvenile BBSes they were common. Nothing really ever came of them.

Later the Internet supplanted those isolated bastions of knowledge, file trading, and battlegrounds of words. But people's behavior never really changed.

Usenet spawned thousands of discussion forums. Files were traded, porn was posted, and of course the insults continued. Flaming became popular. The term "Troll" for posters of inflammatory invective was popularized.

When they fired up 3D First Person Shooters (FPSes) and engaged each other in online play - the insults were rampant. Many questioned the sexual orientation of the opponent, or their dubious parentage. Some even went so far as to claim, "I'm going to kill you!"

When bulletin board style forums became more popular on web sites the insults and barbs continued. Multimedia insults became common - with gory photoshopped images included with whatever text insult could be mustered. All to score points in some nearly imaginary game.

Then came social sites like Yahoo Groups. Soon the Trolls found those too... engaging in concerted attacks to enrage groups of users by posting inane, insulting, or off topic junk to the mailing lists.

And now we have blogs. Do we have reason to suspect that human behavior has changed so radically in less than 10 shorts years? No.

This does not excuse the behavior. As the threats against Kathy's person were odious. But it should not be surprising. And it should not be construed as uniquely a phenomena directed at women. Prior to last year, women constituted a minority of online users. In many ways - they still are. I don't know what the demographics of content production and site building are (outside of pornographic content in any case) - but I suspect that women are still minority partners in building - if not the usage of - the internet.

If that's the case - where do we suppose all these insults, death-threats and other random ill will has been directed all these many years. Mostly between juvenile men.

Having said that I did note that the term misogyny was used to describe a general sort of feeling about the tenor of postings on the 'net. I'm not sure that that is true. I'm sure in this case the insults were misogynistic; but believe you me when I say there's a literal ton of non-misogynistic insulting going on out there that nobody has really given a damn about - and still generally don't. Not to mention that Kathy's post titled "is your app an ass kisser" - may have very well triggered this response by virtue of it's "female chauvinism"... It used only male stock art to describe unflattering characteristics software can have.

None of which makes it right what was done to her. But that doesn't mean we can't have a rational discussion about stereotypes, and the fact that threats of violence were here long before Kathy - and will continue long after Kathy - and are not solely directed at women.

From Section 8: Powers of Congress -

• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The way I see it - they either had to pass a law enabling the executive to hire mercenaries; or they had to grant permission at some point when operations in Iraq commenced. That being the case as these are "such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States" - I would say that Congress has the authority to discipline them.

On top of that jvankw cites a specific code which may apply (and likely has the backing of this section of the Constitution underpinning it's legality). If they aren't in the employ of the military (and may not be accompanying them either) it might not apply - but the buck does come to rest at Congressional feet regardless.

kickstarts - how do you know it's not legal to invade and occupy a country? Is there some specific statute or law or code you can cite from the body of US laws? Sure it's possible there might be some international approbation to such acts - but "international law" is a nebulous thing which I am unwilling to say trumps our body of laws - you may have noted the relative caution Congress engages in when ratifying treaties.