I can’t believe I’m still hearing/reading people saying that Tuesday’s atrocity wasn’t really an act of war, that it’s just rhetoric.
Those of you who believe that, if hijacking four passenger planes and crashing them into 1) the pentagon and 2) the world trade center, where 50,000 people work on a normal work day…then WHAT IS!?
Seriously, what would it take for you to consider it an act of war? Since targeting the US president isn’t enough for you.
Criminal act. Simple equation really:
[ul][li]Act of War - carried out by the government of one nation against another nation.[/li][li]Criminal Act - carried out by an individual or group of individuals acting on their own.[/ul][/li]
Thus, what happened last Tuesday was mass murder, as it stands now. If it can be proved that the government of a nation, even an outfit that claims to be the government of a nation, carried out the events last week, then that would constitute an act of war.
Well, I’ve always thought of “war” as being fought between nations, or between large sections within a nation (civil war). The government and the media are pinning this on Bin Laden, not Afghanistan. How can you have a war between a large nation (USA) and a tiny group of fanatics (OBL and his posse)? Sure, it’s a horrible act of terrorism, bit it’s not an act of war. That doesn’t make sense under the circumstances.
If the USA declares a “war agains terrorism”, that’s another thing, although in my opinion it muddies the definition of “war”. But I don’t think that’s the subject of the OP.
The word “war” is such a hot-button term, I don’t think it should be thrown around lightly. If the USA starts bombing Afghanistan, then I think “war” should be declared. But right now, we’re just looking for one guy. That’s not a war.
“War” also, AFIK, gives the president (either legally or implicitly, I’m not sure which) expanded powers which I am not comfortable with. Search and seizure, wire taps, ability to declare martial law, conscription, that sort of thing. Not sure about that part.
Well, I was really talking about the people who seem to think this was an accident or a natural disaster, but…
Monty, do you have a legal source to cite that it has to be a nation perpetrating an act of war? Or is it just the way you see it? Because by your definition, we can’t go to war against Afghanistan because we don’t recognize their government.
Kamandi, we’re not looking for one guy, we’re looking for members of an organization with operations in 50 countries. We’re also looking at the nations known to harbor them.
Just because our Congress hasn’t declared “war” yet (which it hasn’t done since WWII, despite Korea, Vietnam, Haiti, Nicaragua, Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo), doesn’t mean that an unidentified agency has not declared war on us. I think it’s pretty damn clear that they did.
Perusing my subcourse “Basic Course in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Hague Convention No. IV of 1907,” I find:
“…(3) no acts of warfare shall be committed by the authorities or by the population…” Italics mine.
Sounds like you don’t have to be a nation to commit an act of warfare.
Anyway, I’m not looking for a fight or an argument here.
bluethree, who is calling it a natural disaster or accident? We may be treating it as such through our emergency response plans, but that doesn’t mean anybody is saying it wasn’t a deliberate attack.
But regarding it being war, you have to have an identifiable political group. Usually those are countries. I guess you are claiming that the terrorist organizations funded by Bin Laden qualify as political groups. Maybe so.
Of course it is still a new type of warfare, as they don’t have fixed assets to attack, and their mobility and lack of a “seat of government” prevents conventional tactics from being applicable. If we locate members, we can stage assaults, but otherwise warfare as we know it is uneffective and irresponsible.
Now if some government (like Afghanistan) can be shown to be harboring him and in collusion, or even aiding the events, then certainly that government can be treated to regular war.
Not that I support attacking Afghanistan. I won’t hijack this thread, so leave it at that.
It is a CRIMINAL act, that could LEAD to war. Remember Gavril Princep?
What about the war on drugs? Or maybe I shouldn’t open that can of worms. 
From http://www.dictionary.com:
[quote]
war (wôr)
[list=1][li]n. [list=a]A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.[/li][li]The period of such conflict.[/li][li]The techniques and procedures of war; military science.[/list=a][/list=1][/li][/quote]
Blue, there’s a huge difference between diplomatically recognizing a government and carrying out a war against same. After all, the United States did not maintain diplomatic relations with Japan and Germany during our involvement in World War II.
How you read that into my posting above is beyond me.
Exactly: A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
Exactly what we have here.
I thought I posted this earlier but I must have forgotten to hit “submit”:
From www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1899b.htm
On the qualifications of belligerents
Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
To carry arms openly; and
To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination “army.”
And what parties would that be? Surely not the Northern Alliance vs. the Taliban? Surely not the Federal Forces vs. the Confederate Forces? Surely not the separate Houses in the War of Roses?
Or do you actually advocate an entire nation going to war to arrest an individual?
If so, pray tell, why did the United States not threaten to attack Israel recently? IIRC, a murderer fled the jurisidiction of one of the United States and ran off to Israel. Once there, he claimes Israeli citizenship and, due to Israeli law, could not be extradited. Israel then tried him there for his crime here.
What we have here is a matter of degree. It is not an act of war until and unless it’s proven that the governing entity of a nation directed this act.
The customs of war certainly do not include targeting purely civilian targets. If they do, I must have avoided that particular class for running on 20 years.
Is he responsible for the actions of others because of the legally defined military relationship (which I do not see existing there) or because he is a co-conspirator?
Where is the confusion here?
It was an act of terrorism.
Morons.