All Articles All Articles

DennisLoo.com

NATO Commissioned Report: Killing Hackers is OK

NATO Commissioned Report: Killing Hackers is OK

By Dennis Loo (3/22/13)

This is from an article posted today at GIZMODO.

NATO (basically the Western powers-that-be) commissioned a report from a bunch of legal experts at the ‘NATO Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence' to suggest some rules for cyber-warfare. Well, the report's in, and the suggestions are kinda surprising.

Basically, cyber attacks which cause "physical damage, injury or death" constitute a ‘use of force', and thus can be retaliated to with real physical weapons. Equally surprising is the classification of civilian hacktivists as legitimate targets during war.

These recommendations are not yet law, so calling attention to it far and wide at this point needs to happen. If NATO knows that people are outraged at this, then they might back down. This doesn’t guarantee, of course, that they won’t assassinate people who they regard as nuisances or worse: consider what Obama has been doing with his drones. But raising people’s awareness of these atrocious moves and mobilizing public opinion against the whole trajectory which this NATO commissioned report is a part of is critical. What is instituted into regulation and law de jure matters because if what they have down on paper is as outrageous as this, then there are no limits to what they will do and the ability of people to contest these actions in court and elsewhere are made that much more difficult.

As many people know, “use of force” has become the catch-all term for governments and other private security agencies to kill people that they believe are in any way challenging what they are doing or wish to do. This is the world that we live in now. This is the change that people like Obama have brought. Isn’t it time that people get real about what it is actually going to take to bring about real change?

For more on this picture, see this.

Comments   

 
0 # RandyB 2013-03-22 20:10
Uh, basically, NATO's job is to fight against those who use force against its members.

You did not disagree that "cyber attacks which cause "physical damage, injury or death" constitute a ‘use of force'."
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2013-03-23 00:02
To those who are willing to accept any lies offered you by authorities, as long as it sounds reasonable, such as that the young children the DoD kill are "human shields" or "enemy combatants," or that Yoo wasn't enabling torture by his legal memos - things that you have said Randy - then I suppose it's no leap to accept justifications for murdering hackers. You will buy anything as long as it comes wrapped in officious language.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # RandyB 2013-03-23 03:01
Yes, I'm the one who says that both sides must respect the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war.

I'm the one who opposes the use of children as human shields. You're the one who says it's not happening, as though their side wouldn't do such a thing.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2013-03-23 04:13
According to your logic, the entire population of Iraq should & must don uniforms & carry weapons openly, including children, & if they don’t, the US is justified in killing men, women & children, because they can claim that the children they kill are being used as human shields or are “enemy combatants” and that any men killed or tortured of a certain age must by definition be “militants.”

If another country invaded the US & used your ridiculous & reactionary logic, then the ongoing murder of Americans by foreign soldiers & drones would be justified because Americans of all ages were going about their daily lives without wearing military uniforms.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # RandyB 2013-03-25 18:26
It's always fun to see which of my messages you're willing to post, and which ones you can't.

You're clearly not comfortable with what the Geneva Conventions actually say.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2013-03-25 21:17
The reason why I didn't post your last comment was because I don't find it useful to flog a dead horse, which is what you do when you persist in claiming that Iraqis (and other occupied peoples) are supposed to follow the "rules of war" that you accept. It's not helpful and a waste of time to debate you indefinitely on this since you refuse to recognize a very basic truth: that when an imperialist power invades a country that a) did not threaten it, b) did not attack it, and in Iraq's specific case especially, c) did not have anything to do with 9/11 and therefore all of the deaths since the US invasion and occupation - numbering over 1 million - are a result of the US war of aggression.

You cited the US occupation of Japan after WWII in a comment as evidence for your position, but Japan's government actually did attack Pearl Harbor.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # RandyB 2013-03-26 00:06
My reference to Japan wasn't about after the war. It was about the beginning of the war, when Japan invaded the Philippines.

I was replying to your speculation about "If another country invaded the US & used your ridiculous & reactionary logic."

I was giving an example where something like that happened, and the U.S. behaved in accordance with the laws of war. Fewer Americans might have been killed if we didn't, but a great many more innocent Filipinos, including women and children, would have been killed.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2013-03-26 14:43
Your reference to Japan was inapt. Japan was a great power involved in an inter-imperiali st war in WWII and was an invading force in the PI. It doesn't apply to asymmetrical warfare. It just shows once again that you either are incapable of understanding what's going on with the wars the US is waging against the people of poor countries, or refuse to see the difference and continue to wage a war of words here that consist of mostly repeating falsehoods over and over again in different fashion as if this is the pinnacle of pursuing truth, when in fact you're doing the opposite of that and defending war crimes such as torture and crimes against humanity. It's really despicable and a waste of time. You don't respect facts and have no compunctions about misrepresenting things.

Why we should continue to give you a forum to continue to do so is a question we're considering seriously right now.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # RandyB 2013-03-27 04:20
Your what-if was about the U.S. being invaded, and you were trying to suggest that we would do what our enemies are doing today. That the U.S. didn't devolve into asymmetrical warfare in the P.I. is a point in our favor -- even when it meant capture and the Bataan death march.

You don't need to allow my posts. But my posts are factual.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2013-03-27 21:39
I've decided it's not worthwhile to try to respond to your comments and am likely to not do so in the future. But as one last point - you don't distinguish between great powers and poor countries and have a blind spot regarding the actions of this empire, a form of great power chauvinism. Your "facts," when you actually cite any, are affected by this.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 

Add comment

We welcome and encourage discussion and debate. We find truth via contention.


Security code
Refresh