Was 9/11 an act of war?

[CoolHandCox]

@Ravenman

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.

Hmmm. Everyone is a broad word, but my answer would explain that not everyone would be. If they have combatant immunity, then they would be freed after the war is over.

Under an occupation, different rules (and importantly respect for sovereignty) apply. In a country like Iraq, I would guess most would be tried in Iraq, but they could be tried in America. But yea, maybe I’m not following (but I even read the thread).

[gonzomax]

@Ravenman

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.

Japan wanted us out of the way so they could take over plenty of land. Conquest of territory was exactly what they were after. We were standing in their way. Do you think Japan attacked us to be mean?
AQ is not involved in a Civil War. A civil war will result in taking over territory, if you win. AQ is more like SPECTRE or CHAOS. International criminal enterprises.

[XT]

@gonzomax

Japan wanted us out of the way so they could take over plenty of land. Conquest of territory was exactly what they were after. We were standing in their way. Do you think Japan attacked us to be mean?

They attacked us for a variety of reasons, one of which was because we had their country under an embargo and it was hurting them economically. Another reason was, as you say, because they wanted a free hand in the southern Pacific, and they rightfully surmised that we would block such a venture. However, they weren’t after US territory, which I think was Ravenman’s point.

That said, the Taliban are certainly after territory, since they want Afghanistan back in their own hands. AQ also wants territory, since they want to create an Islamic fundamentalist superstate, with the heart of the territory being Saudi Arabia. The various insurgent groups in Iraq also want territory or power or both.

So, even by these ridiculous definitions all 3 groups seem to fit the bill for ‘war’. And this leaves out the fact that, by most common definitions, ‘war’ doesn’t have to be so narrowly defined as you and elvis (et al) are attempting to do.

AQ is not involved in a Civil War.

THEY think they are…a civil war for the hearts, minds (and souls for all I know) of the Islamic world.

A civil war will result in taking over territory, if you win.

Yeah. And? If AQ ‘wins’, they hope to form an Islamic (Sunni) superstate. That would encompass territory.

AQ is more like SPECTRE or CHAOS. International criminal enterprises.

Sez you. Most (including themselves) see them a bit differently.

-XT

[Little_Nemo]

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).

Is this true? I thought soldiers could be held responsible if it was established they personally had committed war crimes. Their combatant immunity only covered them as long as they stayed within the generally accepted rules of war.

[CoolHandCox]

@Little_Nemo

Is this true? I thought soldiers could be held responsible if it was established they personally had committed war crimes. Their combatant immunity only covered them as long as they stayed within the generally accepted rules of war.

It’s true, but you’re also correct. Combatant immunity doesn’t apply if that soldier commits a war crime (he’d be an unlawful enemy combatant). I thought I put that exception in parenthesis, but maybe it wasn’t clear enough. I tend to put a lot of things in parenthesis.

[gonzomax]

@Ravenman

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.

In civil wars both sides have territory, In an insurrection, one side does not. Castro and Cuba were not in a civil war. The USA was in the 19th century.
The Geneva Convention requires a couple things to meet the definition.

1. The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory
2. They must exercise some de-facto authorization over the population in the area they control.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Ravenman

Elvis is arguing that there is no war except state-on-state.

Essentially, yes, but groups trying to become states qualify too.

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.

Preferably, but if we’re going to call it a war anyway, then we have to follow that other set of rules. Bush allowed his captives *neither *legal protections *nor *Geneva protections. That’s uncivilized.

I’m asking if everyone who attacked US troops in Iraq after we toppled Saddam should be put on trial in US courts.

Either US or Iraqi courts would seem to have jurisdiction.

You know the answer.

I want to see if you do, Sparky.

[Ravenman]

@gonzomax

In civil wars both sides have territory, In an insurrection, one side does not. Castro and Cuba were not in a civil war. The USA was in the 19th century.
The Geneva Convention requires a couple things to meet the definition.

1. The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory
2. They must exercise some de-facto authorization over the population in the area they control.

What part of the GC makes you say this? As in, which convention and what article?

@ElvisL1ves

That’s uncivilized.

I agree.

I want to see if you do, Sparky.

Bless your heart.

[ElvisL1ves]

That would be No, then. Thanks.

[CoolHandCox]

@gonzomax

In civil wars both sides have territory, In an insurrection, one side does not. Castro and Cuba were not in a civil war. The USA was in the 19th century.
The Geneva Convention requires a couple things to meet the definition.

1. The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory
2. They must exercise some de-facto authorization over the population in the area they control.

@Ravenman

What part of the GC makes you say this? As in, which convention and what article?

This is obviously my answer, not his, but I’d guess he’s pulling it from Additional Protocol II to the GC, Article 1: “which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.”

@gonzomax

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.

That’s a correct view, but it’s increasingly becoming more accepted that you can be in a transnational “armed conflict” against a non-state actor. Actually, it is in fact a military operation during an armed conflict.

One example, in the Hamdan case, the defendant’s lawyer (Charlie Swift aka George Clooney) conceded that if the case were to be tried in a courts-martial, Hamdan would be subject to the laws n customs of war. You can only be subject to the laws n customs of war if you’re in an armed conflict. He conceded that point. I don’t know why he would do that, but he did nonetheless. The SC in that case also presumed that Article 3 of the GC applied to Hamdan and that Art. 3 could only apply during an armed conflict.

Obama appears to be agreeing with this logic. The law is evolving to treat “wars” against non-state actors as armed conflicts and I don’t see what’s going to stop it. To be fair, there are plenty of people/organizations that agree with you.