Can an attack on troops in the field be "terrorism"?

[syncrolecyne]

There have been many stories about the possibility of terrorists striking at American or British troops in Iraq or Kuwait.

But would those who attacked uniformed troops, especially in the course of an invasion and declared hostilities, be “terrorists” by the conventions of warfare or international law? I am not talking about attacks on permanent instalations or outside the theater of operations, but attacks on actual combat troops.

[MC_Master_of_Ceremonies]

No, it’s just an example of co-opting the word. The attacks may use simlair methods to terrorist attacks, but they lack the two most vital aspects of terrorism.

1. Directed at civilians

2. In order to inspire terror to effect a policy change.

International law (summary of convention):

International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, New York, 15 December 1997

The Convention applies to the offence of the intentional and unlawful delivery, placement, discharge or detonation of an explosive or other lethal device, whether attempted or actual, in, into or against a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or extensive destruction likely to or actually resulting in major economic loss. Any person also commits an offence if that person participates as an accomplice in any of these acts, organizes others to commit them or in any other way contributes to their commission. The Convention does not apply where an act of this nature does not involve any international elements as defined by the Convention.

States Parties are required to establish jurisdiction over and make punishable, under their domestic laws, the offences described, to extradite or submit for prosecution persons accused of committing or aiding in the commission of the offences, and to assist each other in connection with criminal proceedings under the Convention. The offences referred to in the Convention are deemed to be extraditable offences between States Parties under existing extradition treaties, and under the Convention itself.

CLOSED for Signature

http://untreaty.un.org/English/Terrorism.asp

This is the only treaty I could find relating to terrorism which could be relevant in this case. But you’ll notice it doesn’t include military targets and would be inappliable for the situation you describe.

[DSeid]

A nitpick before I otherwise agree (gah!) with MC: sure terrorists can attack military targets, but those attacks are not terrorism. They are still terrorists if they have committed other acts against civilian targets (with the aim to produce a change in policy by the creation of fear in the general population and so on) even if that act is not terrorism.

Guerilla warfare is a more precise term for those kinds of attacks, methinks.

[Estilicon]

No, but I am sure Bush will call anyone who does so a terrorist and he will deprive him/them of their rights as POW (if they are taken prisioners)

[kniz]

I agree with DSeid and have my own nitpick.

The second aspect cited above is not necessarily applicable. The attacks mentioned would be made to incite terror among the troops and among civilians at home. The intent would be to bring about a policy change of either stopping the war or preventing regime change.

Also indirectly civilians are bing targeted, especially the loved ones of the troops.

[ruadh]

*Originally posted by kniz *
**Also indirectly civilians are bing targeted, especially the loved ones of the troops. **

“Indirectly targeted”? Isn’t that an oxymoron?

[Menocchio]

But kniz, that would be true of any attack on Allied troops, wouldn’t it? Attacking troops duringa state of open war (or, arguably, just before a war) isn’t terrorism, even if it isn’t conventional, uniformed warfare.

[DreadCthulhu]

Attacking military forces isn’t what I would call terrorism, unless they also intend to hurt civilians in the attack - the aircraft that was flown into the Pentagon, for example. Guerilla warfare does sound like the correct word.

[John_Mace]

Estilicon:

On what do you base your assertion that the US (or “Bush” to use your term) would deprive Iraqi troops of their “rights” as POWs? Perhaps you are confusing the detained “enemy combatants” with POWs. One can argue if the “enemy combatants” should be treated as civilians, but are you saying that they are somehow being treated worse than POWs?

[John_Mace]

Oh, BTW, I agree that attacks against soldiers would not generally be considered terrorism. I equate terrorism with civilians, as I think most people do.

[CarnalK]

I thought of this question when the USS Cole was attacked. It was military personel on a military mission but it was often called “terrorism”. I guess since it was a suicide job they’re not around to dispute the characterization.

[Lemur866]

It’s a funny thing. Soldiers can shoot at each other, and it is not a crime.

Imagine Iraq’s air force was a little more competent. Once the war is underway, an Iraqi pilot could take off from Baghdad, fly to New York and start dropping bombs. The US military could legally shoot at him and try to kill him. But say his plane gets hit, and he bails out, and parachutes to ground. American soldiers pick him up. He’s a POW. He faces no charges for what he did. In fact, we would be violating the Geneva Convention if we prosecuted him for dropping bombs on New York. But we can hold him prisoner, even if he never dropped any bombs or hurt anyone, until the war is over. But then we have to let him go.

But now imagine the same Iraqi. He takes off his uniform, poses as a refugee, and travels to New York via JFK airport. Once there, he starts setting off bombs. We catch him and take him prisoner. Is he a POW? No, he is not. He can be charged with murder, arson, whatever. He will be tried in American courts, and if convicted sentenced. But suppose we catch him before he does anything. We believe he traveled to the US to set off bombs. But he hasn’t done anything. Legally, we can’t charge him with anything, we can’t hold him, all we can do is deport him, or perhaps intern him as an enemy alien. But the mere fact that his country is at war with our country does not give him POW status.

Here’s the relevant part of the Geneva convention, which can be found here:
http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

© That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

[kniz]

*from homelandsecurity.com*
[ul]Terrorism is the
unlawful use of force or
violence against
persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a
government, the
civilian population, or
any segment thereof,
in furtherance of
political or social
objectives. --FBI
Definition[/ul]

Seems to me that according to this definition an illegal attack on the military is terrorism (such as the attack on the USS Cole.)

[mhendo]

*Originally posted by kniz *
**Seems to me that according to this definition an illegal attack on the military is terrorism (such as the attack on the USS Cole.) **

Also seems to me that according to this definition, if the US invades Iraq illegally (i.e., without UN Security Council aproval), then it will be an act of terrorism.

[AZCowboy]

Is intentionally killing civilians during a time of war “illegal”?

[smiling_bandit]

I thought of this question when the USS Cole was attacked. It was military personel on a military mission but it was often called “terrorism”. I guess since it was a suicide job they’re not around to dispute the characterization.

Partly because they are not a recognized military and were conducting no open operations against the US of A.