I was answering the O.P., not commenting on your post. I don’t doubt what you said, sounds about right for the insurance industry.
Sorry for the misunderstanding then.
Personally I have minimal problems with the idea of going to war with a non-nation. I can accept the idea of declaring war against al Qaeda or the Medellin Cartel or the Mafia - these are specifically identifiable organizations which can be defeated. What I think are bad ideas are “wars” against concepts, like Wars on Terror or Drugs or Poverty. These are unwinnable because the “enemy” can never be completely defeated so they give the government an open-ended excuse for doing things it shouldn’t be doing.
Castro’s 26th of July Movement forces spent two years fighting Batista’s government before they ousted him.
At what point, if any, did they magically transform from criminals to a nation-state? At what point did Batista’s forces lose their designation as nation-state and become criminals?
You’re correct. The GC conventions are rules in war. The GC conventions don’t define “armed conflict.” That post was unclear. But, you have to be in an “armed conflict” for Articles 2 or 3 to apply (which was a point I’m not sure I made). I’m using the GC to differentiate between inter and intra State war (two common types of war you can be in), which the GC does as well and applying definitions of armed conflict to each.
I’ve been pretty consistent saying there is no definition of armed conflict. It just has to look like a war. It has to rise above crime to the level of military capability. Like you said, it’s a fact question done for each individual armed attack. I don’t know too much about the jus ad belllum (the legality *of *war), but you can only go to war if the UN authorizes or in Self Defense of an act of war (armed attack, whatever). The UN, NATO, Congress, President(s), all stated, the 9/11 attacks were an act of war, thus implying we could act in self defense. This implies those acts rose to the appropriate level of armed conflict.
I concur.
So Napoleon wasn’t at war with the Spanish partisans?
Huh? Were the partisans trying to become the new government of Spain? Then it was a war. Were they just opposing and terrorizing? Then it was a police action. Your point?
It sure looked the same to the troops, of course.
It is a crime for someone (let’s say a Talib) to plant an IED in an attempt to kill a US soldier in Afghanistan? What could they be charged with?
Attempted murder. Probably conspiracy to commit murder, too. What are you getting at?
I could say that they feel they are attempting to oppose an invasion of their homeland. AKA: irregular warfare.
It just seems odd to me to think that our laws are applicable worldwide.
In the case of post-invasion Iraq, how would you tell the difference between a combatant who would wouldn’t be subject to US murder laws, and a terrorist who would be? Or is everyone who attacked our troops in post-invasion Iraq a terrorist who should be put on trial?
So you agree there is a point where Batista was no longer the government. Then Castro became the government. Until Castro took over the government he was an insurrectionist. he was obviously not a nation state.
Are we at war with the Libertarian/Michigan Militia that Tim McVeigh was a member of? They are a threat to the state . Do we spend time and money with police and FBI watching them? Yet we don’t declare war. Because they are terrorists and have no nation and no territory ,we can not.
Sure there was a point where Castro took over the power. At that time he was no longer the insurrectionist , but the government. I suppose ,it Batista still had fighters left ,they would be terrorists. What’s the point?
The space goes AFTER the comma.
There is currently no shooting going on among ANY US government agency and the various militias. Wars usually involve shooting. When violence begins, check back.
Just so I understand your point, you are saying that there was no Cuban or Chinese civil war?
Okay, were we at war with the Branch Davidians?
So you are suggesting fighting Al Queada has something in common with a civil war? Good luck with that. Are you suggesting that they are trying to take over America? That would be way off too.
Osama relied of American aggression and stupidity of our leaders to do damage to our country. All he did was give Bush a push. Bush 's damage was self inflicted.
If we defeat al Queada ,do we get their land? What land would that be? Do we have to run their government and take care of their population? Well there aren’t any.
Sorry, but it is not a war. it is a real live police action against an organization of terrorists that move across borders and have no homeland.
AQ has something in common with a civil war in that civil wars are widely recognized to be wars, in spite of the fact that a government is fighting a non-state actor. I don’t understand what is so difficult about that to understand, other than it conflicts with the theory that countries can only go to war with other countries.
And there have been plenty of wars that weren’t about territorial conquest (e.g., Japan bombed Pearl Harbor but didn’t seek to turn us into the United States of the Rising Sun), so war doesn’t have to be about taking American territory.
You know the answer. And yes, Virginia, there are stupid questions.
The Taliban are attempting to re-establish themselves as the government of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda’s stated goal is an Islamic fundamentalist (Sunni) superstate. By your own definition (which I don’t agree with, BTW), both of these groups seem to meet the criteria for ‘war’. In Iraq, nearly every insurgent group is fighting us (and each other) with similar goals…so, that kind of meets your criteria as well, no?
-XT
There is something called National Jurisdiction. Basically, if the subject of the crime is an American, you can prosecute the guy who committed the crime under domestic law. Conversely, if the perpetrator was an American who committed a crime overseas and it violated US law, you could prosecute him in America (think Americans who go to Thailand to have sex with minors). That only applies if the statute specifically says it applies, otherwise the crime has to take place within US territory. Some countries go a step further and use Universal Jurisidction. The theory being some crimes are so heinous (torture) that it doesn’t matter if who the subject or object of the crime was, the country can prosecute (think Spain charging US leaders for torture; although Spain has since renounced universal jurisdiction).
First, you would use an GC Art. 5 tribunal to determine if the person was a civilian, POW, or unlawful combatant.
By combatant, I’m assuming you mean a soldier in the Republican Guard (or whatever). If captured, as lawful combatants, they would be POW’s. POW is great, because you get something called ‘combatant immunity.’ That means anything you did in the war, like kill an american soldier, you’re immune too. Lawful combatants can’t be tried for anything they did during the war (assuming they don’t do anything illegal once captured, like kill a prison guard, or commit certain war crimes, like fake surrender then open fire, ect).
A “terrorist” is an unlawful combatant, therefore they do not receive combatant immunity and the very act of killing an american soldier is illegal. Kinda sucks.
Insurgents could be one or the other depending if they follow the Art 4 of GC (wear uniforms, carry arms openly, military hierarchy, follow customs n laws of war). The Free French army would be an example of insurgents would be held as POW’s. It would depend on the insurgents and how they are organized.
Dude, you are completely missing the point.
Elvis is arguing that there is no war except state-on-state. He seems to oppose applying the Geneva Conventions to fighting terrorism, because that would be an admission that (a) we’re at war with Al Qaeda and their ilk, and (b) that means we could hold prisoners until the end of hostilities. He’s saying we have to put them all on trial.
I’m asking if everyone who attacked US troops in Iraq after we toppled Saddam should be put on trial in US courts.