Neuroweapons, war crimes and the preconscious brain:
A new generation of military technology interfaces directly with the
brain to target and trigger weapons before our conscious mind is fully
engaged.

In a new article
<http://organizations.lawschool.cornell.edu/ilj/issues/41.1/CIN109.pdf>
in the Cornell International Law Journal, lawyer Stephen White asks
whether the concept of a 'war crime' becomes irrelevant if the
unconscious mind is pulling the trigger.

In most jurisdictions, the legal system makes a crucial distinction
between two elements of a crime: the intent (mens rea
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea> ) and the action (actus rea
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus> ).

Causing something dreadful to happen without any intent or knowledge is
considered an accident and not a crime. Hence, a successful prosecution
demands that the accused is shown to have intended to violate the law in
some way.

This concept is based on the theory that the conscious mind forms an
intention, and an actions follows. Unfortunately, we now know that this
idea is outdated.

In the 1980s, pioneering experiments by Benjamin Libet demonstrated that
activity in the brain's action areas can be reliably detected
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bereitschaftspotential> up to 200ms
before we experience the conscious decision to act. In other words,
consciousness seems to lag behind action.

Although with only limited reliability (just 60%), a recent fMRI study
<http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/04/unconscious_brain_acti\
vity_shapes_our_decisions.php> found that areas in the frontal lobes
were starting to become more active up to seven seconds before the
conscious intention to act.

While these sorts of study raise interesting questions about free will,
their effect on the courts has been minimal, because it is assumed that,
at least for healthy individuals, we have as much control over stopping
our own actions as starting them.

The US government's defence research agency, DARPA
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA> , is currently developing new
military technologies, dubbed 'neuroweapons', that may throw these
assumptions into disarray.

The webpage
<http://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrusts/bio/restbio_tech/hand/index.htm> of
DARPA's Human Assisted Neural Devices Program only mentions the use of
brain-machine interfaces in terms of helping injured veterans, but p11
of the US Dept of Defense budget justification [pdf
<http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2006/DARPA/0601101E.pdf> ]
explicitly states that "This program will develop the scientific
foundation for novel concepts that will improve warfighter performance
on the battlefield as well as technologies for enhancing the quality of
life of paralyzed veterans".

In other words, the same technology
<http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/brain/index.html> that allows
humans to control computer cursors, robot arms or wheelchairs by thought
alone, could be used to target and trigger weapons.

Even if only part of the process, such as selecting possible targets, is
delegated to technology that reads the unconscious orienting response
from the brain, that still means that part of the thought process has
automatically become part of the action.

Notably, international law outlaws indiscriminate weapons and
aggression, but if the unconscious thought becomes the weapon, how can
we possibly prosecute a war crime?

White reviews the current state of the technology from the unclassified
evidence and carefully examines the ethical and legal issues, ultimately
arguing that we need a new legal framework for 21st century
'neurowarfare'.

The first preconsious war may soon be upon us.


pdf
<http://organizations.lawschool.cornell.edu/ilj/issues/41.1/CIN109.pdf>
of 'Brave New World: Neurowarfare and the Limits of International
Humanitarian Law'.

â€"Vaughan <http://tinyurl.com/6udmu> .



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]