Ethics of secret cyberattack on Iran needs full debate

[Commentary] The United States has been has been waging a secret war on Iran since the beginning of President Barack Obama's presidency. At least, it is war by the definition of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who told ABC News only three weeks ago that a major cyberattack on U.S. electrical or other infrastructure would be considered an act of war on a par with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

How would this be different from the technological attacks Obama has launched to debilitate and destroy Iran's nuclear facilities? And if they do constitute war, at what point do Congress and the American people get to weigh in? Congress should conduct a full hearing on the ethics of cyberattacks and drone attacks against nations and suspected terrorists. Feinstein should lead the charge to establish rules of engagement for this rapidly emerging field of technological warfare. Wars against sovereign nations must not be conducted in secret. They need to be debated and authorized by Congress in full public view. But war by technological attacks on a nation's infrastructure is new, and it raises different issues from, say, a secret order to send troops to invade a country. It's hard to imagine a modern president trying that. But if technological attacks truly are acts of war, as Panetta argues -- and who wouldn't agree that the U.S. should swiftly retaliate against a foreign power that crippled our power plants? -- then shouldn't more than one person be making the call?