4 ms·

They are not talking about hacking only military targets. But they are talking about State-sponsored attacks and State-directed retaliation. The study indicate

by roc 14y ago

They are not talking about hacking only military targets. But they are talking about State-sponsored attacks and State-directed retaliation. The study indicates that killing state-sponsored hackers is justified as an act against the aggressor State, not as an act against those individuals. Attacking an individual in another State is itself a violation of that target State's sovereignty and would be grounds for legal retaliation. The real legal problem in this comes from the grey area around where "terrorists" fit in these definitions [1] and who exactly gets to define "terrorist" [2]. But given how far US legal minds have already taken the escalation of executive power in these cases, it seems silly to think they'd feel particularly restricted in adding "hellfire missile" to their list of options, if not for some third party's supportive legal opinion. Frankly, when the State can simply disappear a citizen without recourse, the question of whether they may decide outright murder is legal seems rather superfluous. [1] Where it is precisely the lack of State sponsorship that brands one a "terrorist" and opens the door to extra-legal abuse. [2] In the US, two administrations have asserted that a "terrorist" is anyone the executive branch claims is a terrorist due no particular evidential requirement and subject to no legislative restriction or judicial review.

bobwaycott 14y ago
Well put. Exactly some of the points I tried to point out, as well, in my comments. There is also the central issue that this document is a NATO handbook, not a doc focused on the US military or other governmental agencies. NATO is trying to wrestle with how to understand and apply the Geneva Conventions to cyberwarfare. Seems some people are missing that part and reacting as if this is another secret White House memo.
rayiner 14y ago
> In the US, two administrations have asserted that a "terrorist" is anyone the executive branch claims is a terrorist due no particular evidential requirement and subject to no legislative restriction or judicial review. That's not actually true, but don't let the facts get in the way of your narrative.

by roc 14y ago

bobwaycott 14y ago

Well put. Exactly some of the points I tried to point out, as well, in my comments. There is also the central issue that this document is a NATO handbook, not a doc focused on the US military or other governmental agencies. NATO is trying to wrestle with how to understand and apply the Geneva Conventions to cyberwarfare. Seems some people are missing that part and reacting as if this is another secret White House memo.

rayiner 14y ago

> In the US, two administrations have asserted that a "terrorist" is anyone the executive branch claims is a terrorist due no particular evidential requirement and subject to no legislative restriction or judicial review. That's not actually true, but don't let the facts get in the way of your narrative.