Is the financial system of the invading force a lawful target?
It was for the allies in WWII bombings, along with other infrastructure. Blowing up trains would also be lawful - so long as the targets are not civilians.
Then there is "what is an invasion?"
When an army crosses a border uninvited from their country of origin into any other.
The events of 9-11 were unrelated to a US invasion of any country under any current legal definitions.
There was also no Nation State that was the originator or sponsor of those events.
Agreed. The 9-11 events were unlawful acts of terrorism and should have been (should be) pursued as criminals, by international means if necessary. Any government (Afghanistan Taliban) that supports, hides and shelters such criminals could be attacked by an invasion to make them comply with international law, and that takes a declaration of war to proceed. You now have two nations at war PLUS terrorist criminals to find and prosecute: difficult but not that impossible. Once a new government is established (if necessary, as was done in Afghanistan) or compliance agreement with the existing government is achieved, then the war part is finished and you are left with the legal one (and presumably a cooperative government). This stage is nearly in place in Afghanistan (are the remaining Taliban soldiers lawful combatants? imho yes even though the Taliban government no longer exists, because the new government is not fully established).
There is no such legal justification for invading Iraq and there were no Al Queda forces there, and the Shrubbia invasion is thus the cause for the fighting there, and any resistance is - imho - lawful (because the invasion was not lawfully justified).
There is no such legal justification for invading Iraq and there were no Al Queda forces there, and the Shrubbia invasion is thus the cause for the fighting there, and any resistance is - imho - lawful (because the invasion was not lawfully justified).
Set Iraq aside for a moment, though we can return to it later.
When there are conditions where it is determined that there is no legitimate Nation State (conditions in the dissolving Yugoslavia or in Somalia simply as examples), is outside intervention considered an Invasion?
When there are conditions where it is determined that there is no legitimate Nation State (conditions in the dissolving Yugoslavia or in Somalia simply as examples), is outside intervention considered an Invasion?
So in essence we have civil war, collapse of the original government and fighting between elements within the country over control. By your paradigm there are no lawful soldiers left, however each is still fighting for their country, just different visions.
Intervention would mean bringing in peace-keeping forces to keep the various sides from engaging in armed conflict while a political solution was developed. Such intervention should be inernational and have an emphasis on political solutions and police control of various zones where they can work to reduce violence. They should not be involved in military action (taking control of areas, infrastructure, etc). These forces must also be seen as unbiased between the different elements, only concerned with the reestablishment of civil law and government.
No I don't see that as an invasion, because the void was created prior to their entrance to the country. It's an intervention, and I think all such interventions should be international to ensure unbiased treatment.
This is the stage that Iraq is at, however the US is incapable of doing the peacekeeping service as they instigated the problem and cannot be perceived as unbiased: it cannot be solved without real peacekeeping from other nations. This is why th US should (1) withdraw from Iraq while international peacekeepers replace them (2) refocus on Afghanistan to make sure the job is finished there and the new government in running, AND where US forces can stage police pursuit of the terrorists. (3) the US needs to work to bolster the UN and it's ability to engage in peecekeeping work rather than work to hinder it.
Or we let such places collapse with genocide and sectarian conflicts and walk away, knowing that little can be done, and the overal effect on the human race will be small?
So in essence we have civil war, collapse of the original government and fighting between elements within the country over control. By your paradigm there are no lawful soldiers left, however each is still fighting for their country, just different visions.
Pretty much. To have Legal Soldiers you need a Legal Government to enable and they must be operation under the authority of the Legal Government.
The reason I brought up the issue of Intervention is that actually formed the basis and (at least in the terrorists minds) justifications for the events of 9-11 which then provided the political cover for the Invasion of Iraq.
In addition, there is the issue of "Police Pursuit".
The events in Somalia that lead to the US forces being withdraw were a "Police Pursuit" but carried out by military forces under conditions where there was neither a Legal Government, a Police Force or a Courts System.
Before there can be a Legal Government there really needs to be some consensus among those who will be governed that the Legal Government has legitimacy, OR, the Legal Government must be so totally in control of the populus that they cannot dispute the existence or actions of the Government.
Two examples, out side Iraq (but I will return) would be Germany after WWII. In one Germany a Government was established that was supported by the Governed, while in another Germany a Government was established that was so totally in control of the populus that it could not be resisted.
BOTH were Legal Governments and under both it was possible to have Police Actions and Court Systems.
To return to Iraq, before the invasion Iraq had a Legal Government. It had police and the ability to carry out Police Actions". It had a Court System.
From the Legal perspective, Iraq (as opposed for example to Somalia) was a functioning Government.
USA example, I think you'll recognize the reference:
quote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
Article. I Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Article. II Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Let's assume that US government is destroyed by some attack. I put to you that every citizen is empowered to act in defense of the country because we are also the source of the government.
Also, from another familiar reference:
quote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Why is this not true of other countries? Isn't that part of the inalienable rights that we declared to belong to all people? This gives a right to people to defend their land from invasion, whether a government exists to sanction it or not. This is similar to the right of self-defense when fights between individual occur.
Why would other countries not have the same lawful inalienable rights to defend their country?
One is the body of law that has been developed over time and agreed to by Nation States. The other is the basic rights of peoples to resist or forcefully change their government.
The facts are that the actions we took to establish the current Nation State called the United States of America are legal because the supporters of those actions won.
The problem with how we are currently treating people as in Guantanamo is that the Administration is trying to apply the Laws developed for dealing with Nation State conflicts to a situation where it is NOT a Nation State conflict.
Look at your two examples.
The first is an after the fact establishment of powers of a specific government. The later is a statement of strongly held beliefs.
Neither holds sway as an agreed international Legal Standard. Neither actually addresses the legal standings of those held at Gitmo.
We need to develop a set of Laws that will apply to extra-national situations.
The problem with how we are currently treating people as in Guantanamo is that the Administration is trying to apply the Laws developed for dealing with Nation State conflicts to a situation where it is NOT a Nation State conflict.
In each case there was a country involved, those still fighting are part of that country, and the fact that the US has installed a possible puppet government in each case does not change the affiliation of those fighting. I would say there are three categories of prisoners:
(1) Afghani that was fighting in Afghanistan: lawful combatant (2) Iraqii that was fighting in Iraq: lawful combatant (3) Non-national in either country: unlawful combatant
My understanding is that most are (1) and (2). Remember too that most of the prisoners come from the period of original conflict. There should have been a commission set up immediately to categorize the prisons, subject to appeal. Because some are illegal, this should be done according to our laws of Habeous corpus so that proper representation and decisions could be reached in a timely manner.
Look at your two examples.
If we expect to set the examples for how people are to be treated in a just, free and equal society, then we should apply the same standards to people that are not citizens that we do to citizens, and anything less is hypocrisy.
We need to develop a set of Laws that will apply to extra-national situations.
How's this: we will treat foreigners no different from citizens? It's a golden opportunity eh?
In each case there was a country involved, those still fighting are part of that country, and the fact that the US has installed a possible puppet government in each case does not change the affiliation of those fighting.
The Legal status does not regard whether there was a country, but rather a Nation State.
If we expect to set the examples for how people are to be treated in a just, free and equal society, then we should apply the same standards to people that are not citizens that we do to citizens, and anything less is hypocrisy.
Again, that is a moral stance and unrelated to Legality.
How's this: we will treat foreigners no different from citizens? It's a golden opportunity eh?
Irrelevant. The issue is one of Legality. When we are talking about Terrorism we need to establish a whole new set of laws, and those laws must have the force of International Acceptance.
When we are talking about Terrorism we need to establish a whole new set of laws, and those laws must have the force of International Acceptance.
I disagree. Terrorists are criminals and should be treated as criminals. The laws on treating, prosecuting, imprisoning and executing Timothy McVeigh worked just fine in response to his terrorist bombing of the Murray Building. It also did not take a military action to track him and Terry Nicols down or to find the evidence needed for prosecution.
Thinking that the world was changed by 9-11 is nonsense, not just because it was not the first bombing, nor the first attempt on the World Trade Towers by terrorists, but because terrorism is a criminal activity that existing laws can deal with, and because it is prevalent in many parts of the world. It only changed for people with their heads in the sand who were ignoring the rest of the world. Or too stupid to put two and two together.
The one thing that is different from the case of McVeigh is when terrorists cross national boundaries to commit their crimes, thus making it an international crime and requiring the legal and political will of the countries involved to prosecute them. If one is forced to invade a country to achieve those goals then you de facto make anyone resisting that invasion a lawful combatant or YOUR soldiers are not lawful combatants (they are fighting and killing civilians). You are also then responsible to sorting prisoners between resistance fighters (lawful fighters) and the original terrorists (unlawful criminals) in a timely manner with appeals in line with Geneva Convention protocols.
This is more a problem for the UN than it is for US law, as it has to deal with treaties between countries and with the Charter of the UN
quote:The United Nations Charter is the treaty that forms and establishes the international organization called the United Nations. While this document is often misconstrued as a constitution it is, in fact, an agreement between states and not a compact among the individual peoples to create a government.
As a Charter it is a constituent treaty, and all members are bound by its articles. Furthermore, the Charter states that obligations to the United Nations prevail over all other treaty obligations [1]. Most countries in the world have now ratified the Charter. One notable exception is the Holy See, which has chosen to remain a permanent observer state and therefore is not a full signatory to the Charter.[2]
Chapter 1, Article 1 of the UN Charter states:
The Purposes of the United Nations are
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
The only issue with international terrorists is the ability to investigate, arrest, prosecute, convict and imprison international terrorists in the same manner that McVeigh was handled. New domestic laws are not needed, there is an international body (the UN) to formalize and standardize any international laws needed, and if this still needs to be done it is the fault of all other nations that have incurred terrorist activity and not pushed for new laws. The US is also not pushing the UN for new laws, and thus I conclude that no new laws are needed.
The issue is one of Legality.
The laws are there, but they have been ignored by the US in contravention of signed treaties including the Geneva Convention and the UN Charter among others.
Personally I would like to see an international police arm of the United Nations that absorbs INTERPOL and extends it ability to work in all member states to pursue international criminal, so they could pursue terrorists across international boundaries and to find evidence necessary for prosecution. They could then arrest and bring those prisons back to the country(ies) where the crimes were committed for prosecution under the existing laws of the country(ies) involved.
If that means their ability to arrest and take US citizens out of this country for prosecution in other countries for crimes committed, then this too could be a good thing, especially in exchange for their action against anti-US terrorism (and remember that embassies are legally considered part of the sovereign territory of the nation state). This would include the prosecution in Italy of the CIA agents that abducted the Imam there, breaking Italian law in the process.
This is no different in principal than the agreement built into the Constitution for taking care of crimes that cross state boundaries. That familiar reference again:
quote:Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
Like I say, the US should treat foreigners in the same manner as we treat citizens. Yes it is a moral standard, but it is one founded on the social values of the United States and existing laws, and doing less would mean not giving full force to those values that makemade the US an example of justice, equality, liberty and freedom around the world.
So do we agree that non-terrorists should be considered lawful combatants?
It is interesting that they include the Revolutionary Tribunal in France but not the French Resistance.
As I say, it is criminal behavior, and should be treated as such -- if you want to succeed.
I would use definition #1 and #2 (with "others" including civilians) for terrorist and #1 for terrorism.
Notice that this also includes those anti-abortionists that bomb clinics and shoot doctors. Including those that advocate it. Same with homophobes, same with segregationists, etc.
It's not so much that this is a new thing, a new definition, but that it is a thing that we are way late in recognizing as a different class of antisocial and criminal behavior. This would count as an aggravating element of the criminal prosecution under existing laws.
{abe3}
quote:threats to intimidate or coerce,
Wouldn't this fall under laws set up for mob type behavior? Those are used as aggravating elements in conviction and sentencing IIRC.{/abe3} Enjoy.
So do we agree that non-terrorists should be considered lawful combatants?
Not exactly. It is not an issue of what should be. It is an issue of how the current laws read and are being applied.
Under current laws I don't think anyone who opposed the US invasion of Iraq other than those in the Uniform of and under the Authority of the existing regime at the time would be considered as legal combatants.
Please understand my position.
Legal combatants should be handled under the Military system of judgment.
During Nation State conflicts and during occupation periods, things get less defined. There, civilian resistance forces seem to be illegal combatants.
When there is NO Nation State conflict, it gets even messier.
Where the issue comes up is in how illegal combatants should be handled.
The US position was to say that they did not fall under the Military Protections.
That much I agree with.
The next question is "If they do not fall under the Protections of the Military regulations, do they automatically devolve to the Civil Protections?"
My position is that if they are not Legal Combatants they should then devolve to civil status, with all of the protections afforded under our Civil Laws.
My position is that if they are not Legal Combatants they should then devolve to civil status, with all of the protections afforded under our Civil Laws.
I'll agree with that. We may not agree on who is which, but it appears we do agree that they should be treated in different ways according to existing laws and the lawful\unlawful criteria.
Not exactly. It is not an issue of what should be. It is an issue of how the current laws read and are being applied.
And yet we seem to have agreement on what those laws are, with the only disagreement being on who fits under which system.
And that the current system used by the Botch Administration at GITMO currently fits neither category.
And that the current system used by the Botch Administration at GITMO currently fits neither category.
Amen to that.
The prisoner situation is simply another of the examples of the current Administrations total disregard for rule of law.
If someone is a legal combatant then they fall under the internationally accepted rules for warfare. That includes the Geneva Conventions.
If they are NOT a legal combatant they fall under the civil laws. That includes right to a speedy trial, access to the evidence against you, right to legal council and an open trial.
However I do not think terrorism is always Criminal or wrong. I think there are situations where terrorism is the correct behavior.
The problem comes down to deciding if a particular case was wrongful terrorism or legitimate terrorism.
™ Version 4.2