Election interference by foreign country: act of war?
Forums:
If a foreign country kidnapped or tried to assassinate a monarch of another country, would that not be an attack on the nation's "sovereign"?
If a Republic's sovereignty is vested in The People, and elections are the singular conduit to officially allocate said sovereignty with a representative. If a foreign country attacks said conduit, how is this not a direct attack upon the "command and control" of the heart of a Republic; namely, of the Will of The People?!?
- Log in to post comments
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: New & Improved
Influence via media,
Influence via media, propaganda, etc? No.
Hacking into election, polling places etc and manipulating the outcome? Yes.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: An organ grinder’s tune
"The U.S. has done it, too,
"The U.S. has done it, too, by one expert's count, more than 80 times worldwide between 1946 and 2000. "
https://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-history-of-u-s-...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call"
Kill?
Kill?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ken D.
Its called espionage and
Its called espionage and intrigue. Countries have been doing it to each other for a long, long time. Sometimes it has lead to war, but most of the time, countries simply attempt to stop it with counter espionage operations. You should check out a book by Machiavelli called "The Prince."
As far as rigging elections, the CIA has been one of the world's worst offenders for decades.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
Influence via media,
Influence via media, propaganda, etc? No.
Hacking into election, polling places etc and manipulating the outcome? Yes.<<<<
Are you sure re: "influence"?
In terms of the monarchy hypothetical parallel: would Louis XVI have felt sufficient cause to go to war with George III if the latter engaged in a well funded effort via proxy to incite a domestic coup again the former?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
Its called espionage and
Its called espionage and intrigue. Countries have been doing it to each other for a long, long time. Sometimes it has lead to war, but most of the time, countries simply attempt to stop it with counter espionage operations. You should check out a book by Machiavelli called "The Prince."
As far as rigging elections, the CIA has been one of the world's worst offenders for decades.<<<
Is there not a threshold where espionage turns into a full on frontal attack re: election interference?
I have no doubt the CIA has been knee deep in rigging elections, but does it make it acceptable to adopt a casual attitude to the underlying issue?
At this point, I wouldn't be upset if the United Nations - or some global entity - were to step in to provide some form of newly innovated and embedded form of "open source monitoring and verification" for all elections across the entire globe. It would necessarily need to be valid, reliable, and sufficiently immune from being compromised.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ken D.
>>>>would Louis XVI have felt
>>>>would Louis XVI have felt sufficient cause to go to war with George III if the latter engaged in a well funded effort via proxy to incite a domestic coup again the former?
Talk about mischief in other countries affairs, those European monarchs from the 1300's to WWI got everyone beat, but not sure a simple plot to overthrow Louis, by itself, would have launched a war between France and Britain during the reign of George III. Of course, Louis XVI did declare war against George III when he intervened on the side of America during the Revolution, but that was more a war of opportunity and an attempt to regain territory lost during the Seven Years War.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ken D.
>>>> does it make it
>>>> does it make it acceptable to adopt a casual attitude to the underlying issue?
No. Countries need to remain vigilant and maintain robust counter espionage operations while not freaking out or letting foreign operatives sow distrust and chaos. And the UN does have election monitoring programs, especially for third world elections where the vote rigging can be pretty over the top and blatant.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Old Fart Message Board
Big military supply and
Big military supply and weapons companies only wish. I wouldn’t be suprised if they were able to convince the American people that hacking emails negatively effected or even had any effect on the election at all. There’s just zero evidence to support that it changed the outcome of the election. USA has already spent time and money convincing the American public that Wikileaks is a non credible source so are they going on the pretense that a non credible source changed the outcome of the election as. Thus that is an act of war? Bunch of bologna. Trump sucks, it’s true but if people are getting gung hoe about this shit they are as I would refer to a bad soloist in a musical group, “fishing for notes”.
But alas, good ol’ USA is the ONLY country allowed to cheat, steal, influence and completely bombard elections by drone strikes and interference in other countries for their own political and financial benefit without anything happening to them.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
>>>>would Louis XVI have felt
>>>>would Louis XVI have felt sufficient cause to go to war with George III if the latter engaged in a well funded effort via proxy to incite a domestic coup again the former?
Talk about mischief in other countries affairs, those European monarchs from the 1300's to WWI got everyone beat, but not sure a simple plot to overthrow Louis, by itself, would have launched a war between France and Britain during the reign of George III. Of course, Louis XVI did declare war against George III when he intervened on the side of America during the Revolution, but that was more a war of opportunity and an attempt to regain territory lost during the Seven Years War. <<<<
I wasn't necessarily referring to the likelihood of the hypothetical particulars I had raised, but rather posing the more general question in effort to shine some light on the underlying fundamentals regarding the magnitude of attacking the mechanism that actualizes and transfers sovereignty to a representative in a Republic. IOW, going after elections in any capacity is not a superficial abstraction, but a beeline for the jugular of a Republic.
But yeah, I'm sure the period you've cited was ripe with this sort of thing ... which I fear we're regressing to in part.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
And the UN does have election
And the UN does have election monitoring programs, especially for third world elections where the vote rigging can be pretty over the top and blatant.<<<
Yeah, was thinking of said programs, but believe current state of affairs with UN monitoring is not sufficient in terms of ultimate authority and global scope; that is not influenced with the bias of the narrow interests of the security council. IMO, it would need to be adopted as binding & invoked in the most egalitarian and open sourced manner across all member nations to insure its position as being a final and neutral arbiter
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ken D.
>>>a beeline for the jugular
>>>a beeline for the jugular
Elizabeth I cutting off Mary Stuart's head for a plot to overthrow her is a real beeline for the jugular.
Still wonder who blew off JFK's head?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Oaksterdam Dan
Republicans and Democrats
Republicans and Democrats both liked being able to hack elections for there benefit. No paper ballots or backups leads to conspiracy be floated in the news. The Russians exploited this situation. Russian hacking and voter suppression is the GOP plan for holding there majority in November.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
>>>a beeline for the jugular
>>>a beeline for the jugular
Elizabeth I cutting off Mary Stuart's head for a plot to overthrow her is a real beeline for the jugular<<<
I read "A Column of Fire" by Ken Follett (3rd in trilogy starting with Pillars of the Earth) this past year. Not as good as Pillars, but interesting read on this topic and interesting to ponder in relation to a democratic Republic regarding the OP. Instead of the electoral process being protected, heirs to the thrown were cultivated and protected from an early age; and likewise, existed as targets to be taken down.
It's also interesting to contemplate how from a military point of view if Russia were to attack us in a traditional manner (including cyberwarfare), the command and control apparatus would be a prime target. Yet stop for a second and ask what kind of "software" (figuratively speaking) is being run at C&C running and how did it get there? They arise as a direct distillation of the electoral process. Wouldn't this software or set of directives be the overarching root source that drives the trajectory of C&C? In this light, targeting elections could be considered one of THE most extreme strategies or tactics.