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.
“The original military commissions in Gitmo were carried out under presidential order and ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court.”
Both Mark Levin and Justice Clarence Thomas were alarmed by that judicial legislation. And while Ann Coulter is now ‘out’ she is a smart scholar and she too wrote a strong legal opinion.
That is the root problem. The judiciary reflects an education system that reeks of Globalism. The judiciary is indoctrinated generally speaking to belittle originalism. Most are no longer proper citizens of the US.
Any federal civil servant who is not America First (or not pro Constitution) violates his/her oath. Such as ending Trump’s border policy. Biden violated his oath on Day 1. And any in congress who disagree are complicit.
Obvious unless you are conditioned to ignore it. They are aiding a hostile invasion. And the federal judiciary frequently ruled in favor of this invasion years ago.