The main bone I have to pick, however, is that most or all of those cracks happen because of either negligence or stupidity.

The database dump of Infinigard by LulzSec (assuming the database was not a honeypot) is proof of this.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/06/lulzsec_fbi_affiliates_hack/
http://www.unveillance.com/latest-news/unveillance-official-statement/
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201123/7236/Unveillance-faces-troubled-waters-in-the-wake-of-LulzSec-visit
About 60% of passwords were crackable, presumably within 24 hours. A study of the Torpig botnet found a similar fraction of crackable passwords in the botnet victims (general population?).
http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~seclab/projects/torpig/torpig.pdf
LulzSec did not disclose how many of those passwords were reused (and I have not attempted to find out myself). In Torpig’s case, the fraction was 30% of all users.

All in all, I am driven to conclude the US security scene is no different that the general population… Who gave them the keys??? THAT is the place Pentagon should address, rather then kill others in a futile attempt to protect the US.

War is never good for commerce and USA relies of foreign exchange for its livelihood. How exactly is USA planning to stay afloat if all its trade partners turn their back is beyond me (since you can’t extort and neocollonize forever).

Keep it in perspective. They’re not talking about dropping a thermonuclear bomb on a hacker from Russia for breaking into Gizmodo’s website or forcing FOXNews.com to display nothing but pornography. They’re talking about heavy duty acts of war; things like taking out our power grid or attacking major financial or governmental institutions.

Although these kinds of attacks could only have occurred through the use of bombs and missiles 50 years ago, that’s not the case now. All that’s required now is a heavy knowledge of cyber security, access to a computer and motive–no bombs or missiles needed so the financial cost is much less, thus it’s only going to become even more of a threat as the years go by.

We need to be ready to retaliate against these serious cyber attacks. So many facets of our country are run by computers that a decision like this was inevitable. In the future, wars will be fought remotely, just as much (if not more) than on the ground.

Correct. Only Congress has the power to declare war. In the War Powers Resolution of 1973 Congress granted authority to the President, who commands all the military forces of the US, to conduct war-like acts for a period not exceeding 60 days without a legal declaration of war or specific authorization of Congress. The President must notify Congress within 48 hours of the commencement of any such action. In order for the President to exceed those 60 days, he must get permission from Congress. If he exceeds those 60 days without that permission, he then is in violation of his legal authority. This Resolution was enacted to limit the President’s military power but recognized that rapid military response without lengthy Congressional debate might be pragmatically necessary for national security.

IAIN,

The present governmental authority of the United States is the Constitution which was adopted by the US on September 17, 1789. That invasion of Nicaragua in 1779 was apparently done by another government.

I wonder what the Pentagon would call it if another nation’s military invaded our sovereign territory to assassinate one of their enemies….

They could call it the same thing they called the shelling and sinking of the French Mediterranean fleet by the Allies in WWII immediately after France’s surrender to Germany.

Whether something is or is not an act of war, and whether it is or is not a justifiable action, are two utterly separate questions.

The recent attack to apprehend a wanted criminal terrorist in Pakistan was assuredly a violation of sovereignty, however these facts should be taken in consideration.

1. The mission team was in Pakistan only for the time required to accomplish the mission.

2. No Pakistani citizen was killed or injured, and no Pakistani property was damaged.

3. The Pakistani government had shown inability or intrasigience in helping to apprehend the criminal who, by the seized evidence, was still engaging in hostile acts of war against the US.

The US took primary actions not against the nation of Pakistan, but against a criminal apparently sheltered and protected by Pakistani anti-governmental elements. If anything, the incursion was a “friendly” violation of sovereignty to help Pakistan meet its moral and legal duties to the rest of the world community.

This is simply a matter of having the paperwork in place to allow for an appropriate response in the event (however unlikely) of the realization of what is a real possibility.

The only reason this is news is that it involves the ‘cyber sphere,’ a realm that has traditionally been underexposed to the regulations of legal systems.

clubconspiracy.com/forum/f29/judgment-day-may-21-2011-a-13663.html

Once they find out the attack was conceived by some bored kid in his mother’s basement, are they going to flatten the house?