From https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1721&context=cilj
Brave New World: Neurowarfare and the Limits of International Humanitarian Law
Stephen E. White t
Introduction …………………………………………….. 177
- DARPA’s Brain-Machine Interfaces and Human Assisted
Neural Assistance Programs ………………………… 179
- The Use of Brain-Machine Interfaces in the Context of
International Criminal Law ………….. 186
III. Novel Issues of Law That Brain-Machine Interfaces Raise
in the Context of International Criminal Law …………. 192
- An Argument for Enlarging the Scope of Command
Responsibility …………………………………….. 205
Conclusion ……………………………………………… 210
Ya’ll might want to review the above information and research the direction it’s headed since 2008; at least before the democrats make their next run for office.
After all,
Under international law, the use of brain-machine interface weapons must also comply with the customary law of war. Many treaties, including treaties that the United States has ratified, explicitly recognize the role that customary law plays in circumscribing the range of permissible weapons.
88 For example, paragraph 8 of the preamble to the 1907 Hague Convention IV, known as the “Martens Clause,”89 requires state parties to ensure that “the inhabitants and belligerents remain under the protection and governance of the principles of the law of nations, derived from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and from the dictates of public conscience.” 90
Since the seventeenth century, the general customary law has been that states may employ only those weapons that military necessity justifies during war. 91
And these days who knows how much the laws of humanity have changed?
In the meantime, that Part2 of the Best Deceptions posted 9/2 will show up soon.