Slashdot Mirror
Law of Armed Conflict To Apply To Cyberwar
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."
They don't even have any affiliation with any sovereign nations as far as their actions go
So as long as instead of declaration of war the aggressor declares that it no longer recognized a nation, it's OK to shove everyone who resists into a death camp? What about attacking states without universally recognized government or disputed territories, like, say, Taiwan or Somalia? How about South Ossetia? (Oh wait, US client state tried that -- by firing rockets at civilians' houses covering the whole capital city).
So, Bush administration can call them either "illegal enemy combatant", or "terrorists", or if they really wanted to, even "freedom fighters". It's just words. It doesn't change the essence of what (a good majority of) these people are.
Members of a military that has been or is being defeated?
Armed resistance fighters?
Violent criminals?
All those categories are protected under those treaties.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
"Bush and Gonzalez" say they do not fall under the definitions of Article 4.
Do you really believe that? The idea that they don't meet any of those definitions is tenuous at best, and a downright lie at worst. It hinges almost entirely on the definition of "regular" in "regular armed forces", or upon the specifics of those who were captured, such as that every single one of them was captured in a way that they were not "respecting the laws and customs of war", or maybe not openly carrying arms.
Do you really believe for a second that these Taliban men captured in Afghanistan were not any kind of organization nor were carrying arms?
The idea that they do not fit the definitions above is almost entirely a repeated assertion, without much factual merit, by the Bush administration.