Was 9/11 an act of war?

Great Debates
21

Ok, I see what I did now and why you were confused. My post not correct. I said “The United Nations has a specific definition in Article 2.” That’s not right, and I was actually referring to Art. 2 of the GC.

It’s the gold standard in the sense that you don’t the GC without passing through Article 2 (or, being in an “armed conflict”).

In that same post, I also said there are non-international “armed conflicts” (Article 3 of the GC). Before 9/11, a terrorist attack had not, could not, be an “armed conflict.” It was neither an inter-state conflict (Art. 2) nor an intra-state conflict (Art. 3). It was only a criminal act.

That appears to be changing since 9/11 and it’s unprecedented. As I mentioned, the UN, NATO, Congress, and President all said we were at war/armed conflict with a terrorist organization (criminals). It’s a shift away from law enforcement of terrorism and an endorsement towards a military means to fight terrorism.

If it’s an “armed conflict” then the laws of war apply and the terrorists can (and will be) tried by military commissions and/or tried for war crimes. Again, previously criminals are not tried for war crimes, but if they are now “enemies” fighting against us, they can be.

It’s a big deal and Obama appears to have endorsed the “we’re at war” concept.

22

Want to add to my above post. It’s not clear when I refer to “armed conflict”

An intra-state (Art. 3) armed conflict is basically anything that rises above criminal acts. The most common intra-state armed conflict is a civil war. There’s no clear definition though, but it must look like a war. Or what xtisme said, “If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.”

An inter-state (Art. 2) is a dispute between states using armed forces. It doesn’t matter if the States think or deny being in a war.

Mere acts of terrorism, pre 9/11, were neither of these. Lots of people today still think this today (and have good reasons). I don’t.

23

I’ve heard there were financial considerations involved in this issue. One indisputible fact is that a lot of people were killed and property was destroyed on 9/11. But many insurance contracts have examptions saying that the contract is voided if the death or destruction were caused by “acts of war”. So there were billions of dollars riding on the issue of whether 9/11 was an act of war or a criminal act.

24

IMO, no, it wasn’t.

25

Although I consider DIo to be wrong on the issue, and frankly, it’s a rare day when he’s not completely wrong, he’s semi-sorta right. Well, not really: he is wrong, but at least he’s gone wrong in a very classical way. Like many people, he seems quite incapable of comprehending the world is not the 18th century anymore.

The technology and relatively high-powered nation-states of the 18th century led to most wars being between them. Internal rebellions were rare and large-scale. External wars could be huge and devastating, but were also obvious and open. This applied most in Europe, but remember that the Middle East was then dominated by the Ottomans, the Chinese were still reasonably strong, and several other powerful states dominated the world stage. basically, central government was growing instead of coming under significant assault.

Likewise, most technology and warmaking was very distinct from civilians, as guns were becoming extremely common (melee weapons were present in rare cases but vanishing quickly). Meanwhile, making war with the new technology was both expensive and time-consuming. Armies were increasingly huge and consumed vast quantities of supplies. What this meant was that civilian populations were a resource for both sides in any conflict, and they weren’t attacked so much as exploited.

The major thinking of an age of centralized and centralizing governments, powerful and obvious military engagements, and a golden age of diplomacy, treaty-making and backstabbing was that war was something fought between states (and even nation-states) with other similar nation-states. This had a lot of advantages, but it proved much more vulnerable to the passage of time and changing technologies and societies than theorists thought.

Clausewitz is a signal example. His famous dictum was that “War is the continuation of policy* by other means.” (*i.e., political policies)

This was largely true in his era. But it did not remain true. Modern war changed a great deal after his seemingly final and complete descriptions of it. The World Wars were not so much poltiics or policy as a death-struggle between whole nations, while the concept of civilized warfare or special protection of civilians became a huge joke. Today, we see many rebel and guerrilla fighters throughout the world, and centralized governments may actually be less powerful and less commonplace in the future. Some of these groups have legitimate reasons to rebel, while others simply revel in the possibility for murder and loot, like modern-day vikings. Some claim religious authority, and others are strictly secular. Some fo them seek to inspire civilians, and many others seek to cow them through fear and cruelty.

What these movements tend to share is a rejection of traditional warfare and traditional descriptions of it. Al Qaeda does not recognize any nation or government: they claim to have authority from Allah or at least the moral right to do as they please to restore what they see as the rightful place of Islam, and that nobody has any moral claim weighed against that. They recognize no government and no nation as neutral: everyone and everything is a target or a resource or both. Thus former President Bush’s much-decried statement that people were either “with us or with the terrorists” was not only correct, but it was not he who drew the line.

26

Interesting angle I don’t remember reading about. I doubt it would qualify, though. While arguable, I don’t think the clause “act of war” in an insurance contract (pre 9/11) would contemplate a terrorist attack, regardless of how the President classified it. Have these cases been decided, yet?

Using smiling bandit’s great summary below, there is a shift taking place regarding these types of attacks/terrorist. Hopefully this shift settles onto some middle ground. This where I think the pushback from those who oppose trying KSM in criminal court is coming from, it’s treating (implying) he is only a criminal, and not an enemy belligerent.

As long as the President tries some of these enemy combatants by military commission, it would explicitly imply he also thinks 9/11 was an act of war/armed conflict, because w/o that interpretation you could not try them by military commission. It will be interesting to see if others are tried by military commission at the same time KSM is tried in federal court (who will get all the attention).

27

It was a misuse of the term war. It has been cheapened the last few years with "war on Drugs’ and other misuses. i feel that war should not be thrown about so freely, because it has ramifications that are serious and legal . Al Queada is in many countries. Does your declaration of war give you the right to disrespect borders and national sovereignty. It is war after all, so we should be able to enter Somalia if we feel we feel the need to.? How about Saudi Arabia, we know they are financing Osama? Whats next, attacking Pakistan? Then who is next?
If we ran it like an international police action, we would get active participation from lots of countries. Many of them have had terrorist attacks and would be happy to go after them if US empire building wasn’t a part of the equation.

28

Your point is well taken. In that sense you’re right, everything can be a “war.” But, Congress authorized the use of military force to fight al qaeda. That is significant, no matter how you label it. It’s the switch from law enforcement to military.

This is the novel part, and again, you’re right; where can’t the military go to fight al qaeda. The authorization just says, basically, you can go after the organizations, or country that harbors them, responsible for 9/11. We picked the “nation” of Afghanistan because they harbored Al Qaeda. You would make a policy decision to not violate any nation’s sovereignty, even though the language in the statute doesn’t limit where you can use the military force. You would likely get permission from the country before entering.

We are still running an international police action. We’ve added the military (military with law enforcement assistance; pre 9/11 it was the opposite). The FBI is still heavily involved in fighting terrorism. Intelligence agency’s in every country are still heavily involved in fighting terrorism. The military, should they be used in other countries, offers you a force capable of responding quickly to any intelligence with power that far outweighs what any law enforcement agency has.

29

I don’t just make this stuff up. I originally read this back around 2002 or 2003 and I have no hope of finding the original article (assuming it was ever online) but thiscite makes the same point: damages caused by acts of war are specifically excluded from insurance payouts (When it comes to acts of war, you’re out of luck. Your home and auto policies do not cover acts associated with war.) and the government decides whether or not it was an act of war (“After an incident, there will be a declaration by the Treasury Department on whether or not an act of terrorism occurred,” he explains. "It has to be certified officially that it was an act of terrorism and not an act of war declared or undeclared.). This cite makes the same points (While insurers had sufficient resources to pay losses arising from the attacks, they soon questioned whether the attacks qualified as an “act of war.” If yes, insurers would be freed from their liability to pay because “act of war” exclusions are found in virtually every commercial property and personal property insurance policy.) and tells how insurance laws were changed following 9/11.

30

In a war, you know who the enemy is, and you know it’s over when one side surrenders. The first condition doesn’t apply here, and the second can’t.

A criminal act does not become a “war” because of its dramatic impact, and its perpetrators don’t thereby become tantamount to national governments.

If your answer is “Why, of course, it’s a War on Terror”, then it becomes necessary to point out that terror is not an enemy but a tactic. It’s like having a War on Bullshitting.

31

First, We have defined the enemy in this “war,” “unpriviliged enemy belligerents,” but it’s harder to identify them because of the type of enemy they are. It’s a necessary tactic they do, and should, employ.

Second, that’s classical war. These times, they are a changin’. You don’t formally surrender, you withdraw. You don’t declare war, you act in self-defense or per a UN resolution authorizing it.

The war is against Al Qaeda (or similar organization), not against terrorism. The Global War on Terror is an easy label to use to refer to that war. But you’re right, you can’t have a war on “terror” per se, but it’s starting to look like you can have a war against an organzation who employs terrorist acts as their only means to fight because the war is so asymetrical.

In other news, AG Holder from today: “We are at war…” [in context of talking about KSM].

32

Fine. Who’s the enemy, then?

You’re reasoning backward, redefining “war” to be “what this situation is”. Five yard penalty, repeat the down.

You can see how that looks like the enemy is whoever you declare it to be, right?

Then why do you think you need to call it a war instead of a police action? Are we at “war” with the Mafia or the Cali Cartel or the Crips and Bloods too?

Disappointing, to the extent true. Got a fuller quote for us?

33

The President is authorized to use military force against, "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

That’s taken from the language of the Congressional AUMF resolution. We know Al Aqaeda planned and committed the attacks. We know the nation of Afghantistan harbored them.

I totally understand your frustration, if you are looking for something like, “the President is authorized to use force against the nation of Germany.” A group like Al Qaeda is intentionally hard to define, though, which is why you leave in a phrase like “he determines” so it’s not under-inclusive; which is exactly what you’re upset with.

The term “unprivileged enemy belligerent” is who we can try in the military commissions. While it specifically identifies Al Qaeda, it’s actually broader than who we are allowed to use force against. That’s kinda…off, but I haven’t looked into it too deeply.

Yes. As long as they planned, authorized, committed, ect the attacks or nations, organzations, persons who may committ future acts.

We call it a war so people will think its a war. It’s a novel idea and you have to get people on board.

We are not at war with the Mafia, Cartel, or gangs because Congress has not authorized the use of military force against them, the President has not declared their actions “armed conflict,” NATO has not invoked the mutual protection agreement, and the UN has not called their actions “acts of agression.”

I heard it on TV, but here’s a linkthat has it.

“We are at war, and we will use every instrument of national power – civilian, military, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic and others – to win,” he told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “We need not cower in the face of this enemy. Our institutions are strong.”

"Holder said he knows “we are at war with a vicious enemy who targets our soldiers on the battlefield in Afghanistan and our civilians on the streets here at home. … Those who suggest otherwise are simply wrong.”

34

I don’t see the word “war” anywhere in there.

Mighty convenient, isn’t that?

Exactly. It’s not a statement of fact, in fact just the opposite. It’s propaganda. Thanks for acknowledging that.

And, again, none of those things are “war”.

Thanks. It’s still disappointing.

35

I acknowledge it. Believe me, what happened/is happening is not lost on me. But, the longer something stays the same (you fight terrorism with the military because they are combatants) the less you need propaganda. It becomes accepted fact.

I guess I would need to know what you consider “war.” I can’t imagine what we’re doing in Afghanistan not being war by any rational use of the word. If you’re referring to it in another context, let me know. The world has done away with the formalities of being in a war, it’s objective now. It just has to look like war.

Again, from xtisme, “If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.” That’s almost literally the accepted defintion for an intra-state war. Intra-state war has no clear defintion though.

I understand we’re not in an inter or intra-state war, but we’re in a war nonetheless. Novel.

Very. But, for us or them?

36

Sez who? Where do you get the definition with a requirement to know thine enemy?? I’ve never see that used, so how about a cite?

In any case, we DO know who the ‘enemy’ is…the list would include the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and I suppose the Ba’athist party in the past. Seems fairly cut and dried to me, though obviously the last one on the list was put on through bullshit means.

No, a criminal act becomes a ‘war’ when military force is used against those who perpetrated the act. You don’t need to be a national government to have military force used against you.

The War on Terror is, of course, merely a buzz phrase. Forget about it. The discussion is whether our subsequent actions against the Taliban, AQ and Iraq constitute ‘war’…not whether the catch phrase used to peddle this stuff is bullshit. We aren’t at ‘war’ with ‘terror’, we are at ‘war’ with AQ and the Taliban (and the insurgents in Iraq of course).

Not that definitions mean much, but here is a definition from an online dictionary:

I would have to say that, by the above definition, what we are engaged in is a ‘war’, even if it’s undeclared. As I said earlier, nation states these days seemingly NEVER declare war. Does this make all conflict ‘police actions’, the buzzword from Vietnam? Was that not a ‘war’?

-XT

37

http://www.brainyquote.com/words/wa/war238447.html This definition agrees with Webster. It is a belligerent condition between nations or states. El Queada does not have a nation or state. It requires international police action. it need to be dealt with by the CIA and Interpol. It is not a war. It does not meet the definition.

38

Why does war have to be only about states fighting?

The Chinese Communist Party fought against the Republic of China for many years before defeating Nationalist forces and establishing the People’s Republic of China in 1949. Was the fighting from 1945 to that time not a war (to say nothing of 1927 to 1945)? Was it actually a “police action,” which should have been dealt with by the KMT cops and spies?

39

I’m not quite following your last paragraph, but you seem to be continuing the same mistake of thinking the GC is providing a general definition of war (or armed conflict). They only provide that definition for reading within the terms of the treaty, as in to provide for the time at which the provisions of the conventions are binding upon countries that have already signed up to the treaty. No more, no less. It isn’t a useful definition for war outside of the context of the legal question of whether the conventions apply to a particular and specific set of facts.

40

I don’t think it was an act of war, even if it was convienent to call it that.

An act of terror, yes. But so was the Oklahoma City bombing.

We’ve been over there for 8 years now, and we are no closer to winning this so called war on terror. I think the war on terror is like the war on drugs. Unwinnable, but perpetually fundable.