Barack Obama can now give the green light to carry data attacks based on suspicion.

So now as usual !

A suspicion is just enough to carry on right?

Like a suspicion when they kill with their drones...

Good Luck America!

USA already has a policy of pre-emptive strikes if the country is threatened by such a nuclear attack, but now it is clear that President Barack Obama gives the authority to conduct cyber variant of this principle. If a country or a group is about to attack U.S. computers or networks, the U.S. could attack even if it is not declared war.

Source

America's SCADA networks have the most worst security in the world.

Barack Obama should do something to improve security of his own country.

Majority of webcam's in US's hotels,apartment and streets can be easily exploited.

Please taste these words! "U.S. could attack even if it is not declared war."

It is kinda scary! they can attack first! just tell us after it went down! that they were on the brink to BE attacked!

So no rules applies here ..

I guess they have done this for several times anyhow! but now its public!

Ever heard about this?

"The end justifies the means"

Many historians, myself included, believe that the right of Congress to declare war is really nothing more then a statement of fact.

I don't think anyone expects Congress to have the ability to make decisions as a group about who we are going to fight. If they disagree with the President they have the right to end it by cutting off funding but the decision to go rests with the President. He has access to the information and intelligence.

As for the main point of this post I would have to say I agree with it. If you know an attack is coming why not hit them first? Would you really have not tried to stop the Japanese before they hit Pearl Harbor if you knew they were coming?

I find it comical that they can say, without any doubt. that Iran or China (for instance) are guilty of any specific cyber attacks against anyone. They are always so sure, yet they can't even trace or track the perpetrators of virus and malware attacks, or kiddie porn material...etc...etc!

It just seems that, with "Cyber" warfare being the new scary scenario they are throwing at us, they think simply telling us who the bad guys are will suffice, without actually having to present any evidence, as they do currently with drone strikes.
Of course, it's a lot more complicated than that. Sure, they can say the attack originated from a server or systems located in China or Iran, but that does not necessarily mean they are the guilty parties, as any attack could be routed from any location. But, we just have to trust them when they say they know who is guilty!

reply to post by Britguy


Are you implying that they are going to carry out cyber warfare without a reason?

I doubt if they are just sitting around being bored and decide to just attack a country for the heck of it.

Originally posted by Spookycolt
reply to post by Britguy

 

Are you implying that they are going to carry out cyber warfare without a reason?

Oh no! They always have a reason, just a different one from the one which they tell us and which the corporate MSM parrots.

I doubt if they are just sitting around being bored and decide to just attack a country for the heck of it.

Of course they don't. Everything they do and people / countries they attack is all planned well in advance. They do however need to sell the public an excuse for the attack, so like to start the fear mongering early on, increasing in pitch until they think the public have fallen for it and are baying to be protected from the latest bogeymen threatening our children and kittens and end life as we know it.

Originally posted by Spookycolt
Many historians, myself included, believe that the right of Congress to declare war is really nothing more then a statement of fact.

I don't think anyone expects Congress to have the ability to make decisions as a group about who we are going to fight. If they disagree with the President they have the right to end it by cutting off funding but the decision to go rests with the President. He has access to the information and intelligence.

As for the main point of this post I would have to say I agree with it. If you know an attack is coming why not hit them first? Would you really have not tried to stop the Japanese before they hit Pearl Harbor if you knew they were coming?

You're a historian? Well, then perhaps you can explain what Congress meant by the War Powers Act. I don't believe they were just having a little fun with the President to give him a hard time. I do believe, in fact, they were quite clear on the issue of seeking their permission *BEFORE* committing United States Forces to war.

In fact, I am 100% positive the U.S. Constitution enumerates the right to declare war as a power exclusively held by Congress and NOT the President. The problem, of course is that a right is only that if those who have it actually use it and force the issue when someone else takes it from them. Like the budget, as another example.

If Congress has lost the right to be the sole deciding factor of when war should begin, I'll admit they have themselves to thank for it. They've allowed it to slide by default and a lack of effort. Indeed....Omission of action is action in itself, as they've proven here.

However...The Constitution was written with clarity and brevity as the defining factors. Who is charged with the sole powers of declaring war is of no question by a simply reading of the sections to each branch and which powers each branch is delegated. If only the King would honor it.

* Oh... and this means everything to topic because the U.S. has been saying since 9/11 that a considerable cyber attack against U.S. Interests would be viewed as an act of war against America. I wonder....will other nations not see it how we've defined it ourselves.....as It's done TO them? We're in trouble and this Gov't is out of control.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Yes but perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I do not believe the Framers intended Congress to start wars so the interpretation they use is incorrect. The War Powers Act is completely within their rights to pass as a check on the President.

They can also cut off funding if they so wish. That is not the part I'm referring to, rather just the initial sending of forces into combat. That is a right reserved for a President in my opinion. After that intial action then Congress can make it official by declaring war or ending the funding for it.

And the Constitution is nothing if not very vague in many areas. If it was clear we wouldn't be having this conversation or wouldn't need to send any cases to the Supreme Court.

reply to post by Spookycolt

The War Powers Act, as stated clearly in legal opinion and supporting material at the time it was passed, was to reinforce and support the division of powers.

Yeah, you were clear enough about your opinion. You figure a U.S. President can just send troops into war anywhere, for any reason and then let Congress know to do something about it after the fact. THAT is how Vietnam started in earnest. That is what brought about the historic passage of the War Powers Act.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution reads (in part)

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Source

They weren't even half way vague about it. I love the Constitution for that. They weren't trial attorneys to a person, how Congress is almost entirely made up now. They didn't use a page of text when just a few words would do.

On the War Powers Act:

Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).

The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543); section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b).

Source (Emphasis Added is mine)

Since you mention it.... are you a historian by profession? You'd mentioned yesterday you were the head of your Tea Party chapter and an accomplished public speaker. You sound like a really busy guy.