American covert agencies have been known to use clandestine cyber warfare.
And, as a result of this fact, our governmental security agencies assume they are entitled to keep dark secrets from the very taxpayers that fund these risky cyber operations. However, that is against our premise of liberty.
Secretive American cyberattacks on foreign sovereign countries are causing a threat to our national security rather than achieving the goal of intended protection. It generates a new kind of threat to American civilians — at home and abroad. Also, unjustified cyber war is a betrayal to American integrity because it is against international law.
Fortunately, one man, ex-Pentagon Gen. James Cartwright is no longer deceiving us about American cyber warfare. Last year, he exposed information for public consumption that proves we are on the cyber attack offensive, not the defensive.
Cartwright, a former member of President Barack Obama’s National Security Team, knows the U.S. has perpetrated vicious cyberattacks. He even ordered some of the attacks when he was the head of Strategic Command for Cyber Operations during the Bush Administration in 2006.
Cartwright was a key player in sending out the cyber weapon Stuxnet — a worm to disable the centrifuges of nuclear facilities in Iran. The virus was a joint U.S./Israeli design. And worse yet, the nuclear reactors the virus targeted were those used for legal uranium enrichment for entirely peaceful energy needs. Which, according to international law, makes the attack a war crime.
There was no justification for the cyberattack. Iran does not have nuclear weapons and there is no proof they want them. Unlike nuclear-armed Israel, India and Pakistan, Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), giving them every right to utilize nuclear technology for clean energy and medical purposes. This makes the Stuxnet cyber virus look even more criminal.
Former United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix clearly said, “So far Iran has not violated NPT and there is no evidence right now that suggests Iran is producing nuclear weapons.”
And Cartwright fears that if we further antagonize Iran we will be fighting a cyber war for “tens of years” with little chance of victory. Cartwright rightfully realized the destructive error in sending out Stuxnet, so he exposed it, courageously giving up a secret that is crucial for Americans to know.
The Stuxnet virus is a weapon of mass destruction used against another sovereign nation with intent to cause catastrophic damage, putting innocent civilians at risk. Fortunately, malfunctions minimized the effects when it attacked Iranian centrifuges.
NATO has established international regulations for the civility of cyber warfare. Cyberattacks can cause “physical damage, injury or death” and is comparable to conventional weaponry. And U.S. security officials are not above the law.
Many American leaders, like NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander, Chief Technology Officer Ira Hunt and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, assert that America is being attacked by others in the onslaught of cyber warfare. Yet, they do not hold themselves accountable to disclose the many countries the U.S. has attacked in the cyber war. It is a state of hypocrisy, as we are the offender of cyber war far more than other countries.
Regrettably, now that we have started the internet battles, we can expect no less than retaliation in return for our cyber crimes. In addition, the more secrets our government keeps from us, the less prepared we will be to combat what they have done.
[email protected]
U.S. cyberattack strategy destructive and a ‘betrayal’ of American trust
July 15, 2013
4
0
Buddy Zuckerman • Jul 30, 2013 at 12:16 pm
“it is against international law.”
and who enforces international law? Think about that for a while.
Buddy Zuckerman • Jul 30, 2013 at 12:16 pm
“it is against international law.”
and who enforces international law? Think about that for a while.
Itso Ashkee • Jul 16, 2013 at 2:31 pm
You’re correct, in that America does conduct covert cyber activities against other countries. News flash: so do they. Does this surprise you? If they didn’t, wouldn’t you say that we were pretty stupid?
How do you know what American security agencies assume? I would assume, not that they think they are entitled to monitor American citizens, but that they do so because they have been instructed to by either the Legislative Branch (the Congress), or the Executive Branch (the White House). After all, they can’t just run any program they want to, they have to justify it to the government, and request funding through their budget. Or didn’t that occur to you?
In what sense is the government tracking the activities of citizens “against our premise of liberty”? Is there something in the Constitution you are referring to? Because I haven’t seen it.
By definition, a cyberattack by America on another country would be “secretive”, and also, by definition, a foreign country would be “sovereign”. Why do you insist on cluttering up your article with useless qualifiers designed to make things sound worse than they are? After all, during World War II, weren’t Germany and Japan sovereign nations? Did that make our war against them worse in some meaningful way? I think not.
How does conducting a cyberattack against a foreign country (presumably in response to a similar attack from them) cause a threat to our national security? How does it generate a new kind of threat to American civilians — at home and abroad? Maybe it does. I suppose its possible, but you never get around to explaining it.
I could go on, but I think I will stop here.
This article is a pile of crap, and so badly written that it is indecypherable.
Actually, maybe the NSA could help with that.
I think there could be something worth discussing here, but this author has failed miserably at having that discussion.
I think you had a point… Nice try.
Itso Ashkee • Jul 16, 2013 at 2:31 pm
You’re correct, in that America does conduct covert cyber activities against other countries. News flash: so do they. Does this surprise you? If they didn’t, wouldn’t you say that we were pretty stupid?
How do you know what American security agencies assume? I would assume, not that they think they are entitled to monitor American citizens, but that they do so because they have been instructed to by either the Legislative Branch (the Congress), or the Executive Branch (the White House). After all, they can’t just run any program they want to, they have to justify it to the government, and request funding through their budget. Or didn’t that occur to you?
In what sense is the government tracking the activities of citizens “against our premise of liberty”? Is there something in the Constitution you are referring to? Because I haven’t seen it.
By definition, a cyberattack by America on another country would be “secretive”, and also, by definition, a foreign country would be “sovereign”. Why do you insist on cluttering up your article with useless qualifiers designed to make things sound worse than they are? After all, during World War II, weren’t Germany and Japan sovereign nations? Did that make our war against them worse in some meaningful way? I think not.
How does conducting a cyberattack against a foreign country (presumably in response to a similar attack from them) cause a threat to our national security? How does it generate a new kind of threat to American civilians — at home and abroad? Maybe it does. I suppose its possible, but you never get around to explaining it.
I could go on, but I think I will stop here.
This article is a pile of crap, and so badly written that it is indecypherable.
Actually, maybe the NSA could help with that.
I think there could be something worth discussing here, but this author has failed miserably at having that discussion.
I think you had a point… Nice try.