The United States' use of cyberweapons against Iran threatens to undermine the critical and sensitive ongoing negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. Building trust is a significant component of these negotiations, and the use of cyberweapons may break down that trust and leave us vulnerable to similar attacks.
Technology has changed the nature of modern warfare. Drone strikes, "precision" incursions and cyberweapons are examples of these changes. The war in Libya proved that war does not necessarily mean boots on the ground. In Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, unmanned drones kill suspected militants and civilians. Yet these tactics may ultimately undermine our national security. One only needs to understand that this is in fact warfare by asking what the United States would do if we were targets of similar attacks.
If an American citizen were to launch a cyber attack on an American facility, it would be a crime. What happens when one country launches such an attack on another? If the purpose is to steal information, it would be considered espionage. What if the purpose is to damage or destroy? What if the target of that sabotage is a nuclear weapons facility?
Our increasing reliance on cyberweapons and unmanned drones should concern Congress. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution makes clear that only Congress has the power to declare war. No administration should be permitted to assert high-tech exceptions to the U.S. Constitution.
Congress must reassert its constitutional authority and conduct proper oversight of government's "counterterrorism" policies regardless of the technology being used. Cyberweapons and unmanned drones must be subject to the same laws, oversight and accountability as so-called "conventional weapons." It is time for Congress to weigh in and work to create a legal framework which reflects the changing face of modern-day warfare in order to protect the United States Constitution, our citizens and the long-term security of our nation.
Follow Rep. Dennis Kucinich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RepKucinich
Tom Engelhardt: Praying at the Church of St. Drone
Daphne Eviatar: Sec. Clinton Should Make Sure the U.S. Lives Up to Her Promises
Lawrence Wittner: Do Nuclear Weapons Really Deter Aggression?
How America's worst crimes are ignored, while we lecture others on human rights.
In his penetrating study “Ideal Illusions: How the U.S. Government Co-Opted Human Rights,” international affairs scholar James Peck observes, “In the history of human rights, the worst atrocities are always committed by somebody else, never us” – whoever “us” is.
the government of Vietnam addressed a letter to International Olympic Committee expressing the “profound concerns of the Government and people of Viet Nam about decision of IOC to accept the Dow Chemical Company as a global partner sponsoring Olympic Movement.”
Dow provided the chemicals that Washington used from 1961 onward to destroy crops and forests in South Vietnam, drenching country with Agent Orange.
These poisons contain dioxin, one of the most lethal carcinogens known, affecting millions of Vietnamese and many U.S. soldiers. To this day in Vietnam, aborted fetuses and deformed infants are very likely effects of these crimes – though, in light of Washington’s refusal to investigate, we have only studies of Vietnamese scientists and independent analysts.
Joining Vietnamese appeal against Dow are the government of India, the Indian Olympic Association, and the survivors of horrendous 1984 Bhopal gas leak, one of history’s worst industrial disasters, which killed thousands and injured more than half a million.
http://www.alternet.org/world/155712/Chomsky%3A_America%27s_Rank_Hypocrisy_--_Why_Is_it_Only_an_%22Atrocity%22_When_Other_Countries_Do_It%3F/