Law of Armed Conflict To Apply To Cyberwar 242
charter6 writes "Gen. Kevin Chilton, the head of STRATCOM, just declared that the Law of Armed Conflict will apply to cyberwar, and that the US won't rule out conventional (read: kinetic) responses to cyber-attacks. This means that we consider state-supported 'hackers' to be subject to the Geneva Conventions and Customary International Law, including the rules of proportionality and distinction (i.e. if we catch them, we can try them for war crimes). Incidentally, it also means we consider non-state cyber-attackers to be illegal enemy combatants, which means we can do all kinds of nasty stuff to them."
Hey! (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't "illegal enemy combatant" a new term invented by Bush administration to describe people they sent to Guantanamo prison in violation of Geneva Convention and pretty much all other laws or treaties relevant to those people?
Rules of Engagement would still apply (Score:4, Informative)
Those in charge of US CyberCommand have stated for a long time now they want the ability to a physical attack in response to a cyber attack.
They state that they want the Law of Armed Conflict to apply. This would also mean that the Rules of Engagement would apply as well. Generally, the Rules of Engagement state that they are only allowed to use deadly force if there is an imminent threat of death or injury. That means they won't be dropping bombs on hackers' houses anytime soon. But then the US military does have a record or "shoot first, ask questions later".
What they want is for a cyber attack ot be deemed an act of War. This is hardly going to stop attacks from China (where a large proportion of the attacks currently originate). Needless to say that sending a cruise missile into mainland China to take out a hacker's house would be a very bad move for the US in the current climate.
Re:Hey! (Score:1, Informative)
No, says Article 4 of the Geneva Convention [unhchr.ch]
Since those captured do not fall under the definitions of Article 4, they're not subject to the protections granted by it.
It's pretty simple, if you get off the 'blame Bush' mode for a few minutes and check the facts.
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Informative)
The whole "illegal enemy combatant" thing is immoral regardless of whether the "attacks" are physical attacks or just attempts made to disrupt digital communications.
No, it's very much moral and necessity. The application of it by the previous administration, however, is outright criminal.
The Laws of Armed Conflict and the Geneva Conventions that provides the clause for "illegal enemy combatants" as a classification to exist, exist for a reason. It's to prevent war from descending to absolute fucking barbarism. War is ugly and brutal enough as it is when everyone follows the rules.
You have no idea how inhuman the actors who play outside of those rules can be unless you've seen it for yourself. The terrible things that criminal things soldiers have done pale in comparison to the gutwrenchingly and heartbreakingly deplorable acts that armed people will do in the absence of good order and discipline.
That we're using illegal combatant status as a loophole legal justification for torture IS immoral, but the rules were there to try to force everyone to behave with some semblance of human civility, no matter how small.
Re:Awesome (Score:3, Informative)
any american geek who prods too deeply will be branded an enemy combatant.
If he's an American geek (as in citizen of the U.S.), there's no "branding" him an enemy combatant. He is a citizen entitled to due process. He would be tried in a federal district court. Unless he's also caught in the hills of Afghanistan carrying a weapon with a Taliban squad, in which case there are those who would treat him as an enemy combatant. But I don't think that's your average geek.
Re:Awesome (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe educate yourself?
The Japanese version of waterboarding and the CIA version of waterboarding are significantly different.
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/04/27/regarding-those-claims-about-wwii-waterboarding.php [wizbangblog.com]
Re:Hey! (Score:3, Informative)
The idea that they don't meet any of those definitions is tenuous at best, and a downright lie at worst.
I see the list as an AND filter, not an OR filter.