What does the report says about what amount of damage requires killing in retribution? Is it with due process or not? Would hacker include anyone with a computer that's in reach of drones?
I believe the language of the memo is framed in the context of an existing armed conflict. Even then, I think the level of damage done(and whether it is ongoing) that would determine the level of response. I imagine in the case of most amateur attacks they would simply mitigate the attack and move on, in others they might retaliate digitally. The option to drop a bomb on the hacker is probably a last resort, in the face of sophisticated and ongoing attacks(but in such a case how they'd determine the hacker's location is beyond me).
Please explain your understanding of the role 'due process' plays in international wars. Are acts of war preceded by international trials of some kind? Who provides the judge?
I meant in cases when military is damaged by a foreign spy working on American soil. If he is an American citizen would he receive chance to defend or just be summarily executed?
