We are involved in a different type of warfare which the cases you cited would not apply.
Cyberwarfare in the United States is the United States Cyber Command’s military strategy of Proactive Cyber Defence and the use of cyberwarfare as a platform for attack. The United States Department of Defense sees the use of computers and the Internet to conduct warfare in cyberspace as a threat to national security. The Joint Forces Command issued a statement: “Cyberspace technology is emerging as an “instrument of power” in societies, and is becoming more available to a country’s opponents, who may use it to attack, degrade, and disrupt communications and the flow of information. With low barriers to entry, coupled with the anonymous nature of activities in cyberspace, the list of potential adversaries is broad. Furthermore, the globe-spanning range of cyberspace and its disregard for national borders will challenge legal systems and complicate a nation’s ability to deter threats and respond to contingencies.”
The new United States military strategy, makes explicit that a cyberattack is casus belli for a traditional act of war.
In September 2012, the State Department chief legal advisor, Harold Koh, announced that certain cyber attacks may constitute a “use of force”, and are subject to international law and rules of war.
In 2013, a U.S. Department of Defense task force stated that nuclear weapons could be used in response to a cyber attack.
In September 2012, the State Department chief legal advisor, Harold Koh, announced that certain cyber attacks may constitute a “use of force”, and are subject to international law and rules of war.
very interesting...that possibly puts rebellion and treason on the table imo.
The United States Department of Defense sees the use of computers and the Internet to conduct warfare in cyberspace as a threat to national security. The Joint Forces Command issued a statement: ... The new United States military strategy, makes explicit that a cyberattack is casus belli for a traditional act of war. ... In 2013, a U.S. Department of Defense task force stated that nuclear weapons could be used in response to a cyber attack.
- - - - - - - - - -
We are involved in a different type of warfare which the cases you cited would not apply
Let me know when you can cite an actual change in the applicable law, or a voiding of the Constitution.
A statement from the Defense Department does not change the law that applies to them. One cannot just claim martial law and have a lawful military tribunal with jurisdiction in the United States. The Defense Department cannot do away with the courts in the United States and declare martial law. The Defense Department cannot suspend habeas corpus. A Defense Department claim of cyber warfare does not suspend the Constitution.
The original military commissions in Gitmo were carried out under presidential order and ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court. Legislative approval was acquired by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 9, provides, "The Congress shall have the power... To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." The Constitution grants that power to the Congress, not the Defense Department.
There have been 8 convictions by GITMO military commissions. Three were overturned completely, one partially. Of the 8 convicted, 5 were transferred out of Gitmo.
For five scheduled for trial, proceedings have been delayed yet again to at least August 2021.
As for legal changes, there have been some. See Stevie Moreno Haire, "No Way Out: The Current Military Commission Mess at Guantanamo," 50 Seton Hall Law Review 855, 872, December 17, 2019
Addressing first the legal changes that reduced the number of chargeable war crimes, two major decisions have reshaped the landscape in this regard. Decisions in the cases of Salim Hamdan and Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul on the constitutionality of certain offenses defined in the 2006 MCA have eliminated the offense called Providing Material Support for Terrorism and called into question whether inchoate conspiracy can withstand scrutiny by the federal courts. Because these were the lowest-level war crimes codified under the Act, this development may create pressure for men who may not have enough evidence against them to be charged with any currently valid war crime to plead guilty to serious offenses such as terrorism and attacking civilians.