Israel makes a huge mistake. - Page 5

Az · July 29, 2003, 18:30

State vs. Strong group? yes. and it was called war.

Ned · July 29, 2003, 19:38

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

a) Reread my post. I specifically mentioned the action in the Yemen (thank you, Arrian) as an example of extrajudicial killing.

b) When did I say you shouldn't treat terrorists as murderers? Catch them, prosecute them, lock them up.

Krazy Horse, but the problem is that they are not murderers to the extent that they are enemy combatants captured on the battlefield, I believe they are they are POWs. The international community has been arguing, I believe, that our Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners are in fact POWs and should be accorded treatment as such. I have not heard heretofore the international community arguing that the prisoners are nothing more than murderers that should be tried for murder or conspiracy to murder.

I suspect such trials could be very simple. The only question is whether or not they are enemy combatants. If so, we execute them. Bizarre!

As to be missile attack in Yemen, I assume you believe that this action by United States was illegal. Is it your contention, then, that the war in Afghanistan currently being conducted by a NATO is illegal simply because the combatants do not hold any territory?

HershOstropoler · July 30, 2003, 02:27

Ned:

"The guerilla's or for that matter terrorists who kill are premeditated murderers and those that bear arms with the intent to kill are conspirators. In either case, they have no rights under international law as POWs, and can be tried and put to death or imprisoned for life, not just the duration of the conflict."

"Guerillas" can only be POWs if we have a) a war as defined above, and b) they qualify as legal combatants.

"Also, I suppose, that under this same law that if a government deliberately killing an enemy guerilla commander that the government is guilty of some kind of crime?"

If it is a war, a military enemy leader is a legitimate military target. If it is not a war, killing him is subject to the same rules as killing any other criminal.

"Take the current wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The conflicts against the territory-holding-governments has ended, but the fighting continues. How in the world can one say that the deliberate killing of enemy commander is justified on day one and not on day two when the only difference between day one and day two is that the enemy no longer controls territory."

When the enemy no longer controls territory, the other side has become the occupier and as such has obligations, like properly policing the occupied territory. The rules of warfare are replaced by the rules of occupation. If you stretch the term war, would you say it is legal to kill a drug dealer in the "war" on drugs by bombing slums in the US?

"Now, if it is OK for NATO to take out a Taliban commander under international law, it should be OK for Israel to do the same with a Hamas commander - that is unless there are some other legal distinctions that apply and not just some kind of double standard - one for the good guy NATO commanders and another for the Israeli commanders."

If you read above, I explicitly said that not all extrajudicial killings are illegal.
Hamas in Gaza is a murky area. Israel is no longer a full occupying power there, but also no full sovereignty of another entity has been established there. I don't think a Hamas leader is a military target, but if it is impossible to go for an arrest, an attack is justified in principle. Just not as long as it kills a bunch of civilians along.

HershOstropoler · July 30, 2003, 02:31

Sheesh, this is getting tiring....

"Krazy Horse, but the problem is that they are not murderers to the extent that they are enemy combatants captured on the battlefield, I believe they are they are POWs."

You can be a POW and be tried for murder.

"The international community has been arguing, I believe, that our Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners are in fact POWs and should be accorded treatment as such."

No, just that whether an individual has been a legal or illegal combatant shall be established on an individual basis in a fair procedure.

"I suspect such trials could be very simple. The only question is whether or not they are enemy combatants. If so, we execute them. Bizarre!"

Huh?

"As to be missile attack in Yemen, I assume you believe that this action by United States was illegal."

Done with the consent of the Yemeni government in an area that government does not really control, hitting the right target and not killing civilians? Where's the problem?

Ned · July 30, 2003, 05:37

You know, I have no idea what the point of HO or KH is anymore. It seems there is no "substantive" difference between the right to take out enemy commanders and the status of prisioners. The reason for this is that even in the time of war, we would prefer to capture senior commanders if we could. Also, with respect to combatants, we seem to treat them as POWs regardless. The question of whether they are legal or illegal combatants is irrelevant because their status as prisoners for the term of the conflict does not change depending on the answer.

HershOstropoler · July 30, 2003, 05:45

"The reason for this is that even in the time of war, we would prefer to capture senior commanders if we could."

Mostly. May not be the case for other war parties though.

"The question of whether they are legal or illegal combatants is irrelevant because their status as prisoners for the term of the conflict does not change depending on the answer."

2 differences:
The real war is over, the fake war has been extended indefinitely.
POWs enjoy guarantees that illegal combatants do not. That goes from treatment over red cross inspections to contacts with family and fair procedures.

Panag · July 30, 2003, 09:48

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"It is interesting that we have not heard from any of our European or Canadian colleagues"

Tomorrow.

hi ,

just one thing about canadian officers , rwanda 94 , ....

and who they left to clean up the mess , ..... you never believe it , the IDF , .......

the dutch maybe , that has some nasty bells to it , after some holocaust in the balkans , ....

europeans in front line positions , well since the porugal is out of africa for good and the spanish foreign legion aint taking foreign people anymore only the brits and french get to go overseas from that part of the world , and they at least have to take into account the fact that if they do anything wrong they shall face trial , .....

and it aint under that belgian law they put out of action a few weeks ago , .......

have a nice day

Ned · July 31, 2003, 08:10

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"The reason for this is that even in the time of war, we would prefer to capture senior commanders if we could."

Mostly. May not be the case for other war parties though.

"The question of whether they are legal or illegal combatants is irrelevant because their status as prisoners for the term of the conflict does not change depending on the answer."

2 differences:
The real war is over, the fake war has been extended indefinitely.
POWs enjoy guarantees that illegal combatants do not. That goes from treatment over red cross inspections to contacts with family and fair procedures.

But I have still not heard why a the status of prisoners or legality of killing enemy commanders suddenly changes depending upon whether the combatant army controls any territory like a legitimate government. I think there is something seriously wrong with the legal definition of war. Clearly, a bankrobber is not making war on a state. But guerilla armies do.

Also, guerilla armies often do not wear uniforms in order blend in with the populace. Does this transform them into the status of spies? I would hope not.

The war continues in both Afghanistan and in Iraq even though the enemy no longer controls territory. The US war against the Vietcong was a war, a real war. Justice Douglas often said that it was war and should have been declared by Congress.

The war in Palestine is just as much a real war as well any of the above.

HershOstropoler · July 31, 2003, 08:18

"Clearly, a bankrobber is not making war on a state. But guerilla armies do."

You have to draw the line somewhere. Why not territorial control? When does say an LA gang become a guerilla army in your view?

The reason to use the territorial aspect has I think two roots: one historical, as wars were mostly conducted between states; one practical, because territorial control by the enemy excludes using police powers against it.

Az · July 31, 2003, 08:27

When they pursue political goals.

Kropotkin · July 31, 2003, 08:30

Well, Lenin and quite a lot of others robbed banks... But then, I wouldn't consider them legal combatants by any standard.

Ned · July 31, 2003, 08:49

Azazel, I agree. Clearly international law has to catch up to history.

HershOstropoler · July 31, 2003, 09:00

Why would persueing political goals change an ordinary criminal into a warfaring entity? Also, what's the point?

Az · July 31, 2003, 09:01

Thing is, that international warfare custom in this sense, was formalized and called law in the top of the force of the organized military. Organized military forces have been crushing any guerilla groups for quite some time, and therefor, guerilla groups have almost been left out the of the equation. With the advent of the new moralities of war, guerillas have gained an advantage over organized militaries, which was unthinkable at the time of the formalization of the laws of war. Now the law must be rewritten to confront these new realities.

HershOstropoler · July 31, 2003, 09:11

"guerillas have gained an advantage over organized militaries"

Like what?

Az · July 31, 2003, 09:17

hiding inside dense residential areas, from the top of my head. In the not so distant past, 60 years ago, or so, the military could just use artillery in that situation.

HershOstropoler · July 31, 2003, 09:22

"hiding inside dense residential areas"

Which is the reason why you usually use a SWAT team rather than artillery for that purpose. As I said before, the situation with Gaza is a murky one as it's unclear who controls it.

But would you advocate using artillery against a "guerilla" hiding in residential areas in the westbank that are under Israeli security control?

Az · July 31, 2003, 09:43

No I wouldn't, obviously. That's why the laws of war exist, to prevent civilian casualties as much as possible. But I don't think that this should give the guerillas an option to hide behind civilians.

Anyway, how would you make a strike against Gaza strip, for example, on land be less bloody than a similar aerial strike?

Kramerman · July 31, 2003, 13:07

Quote:

You have to draw the line somewhere. Why not territorial control? When does say an LA gang become a guerilla army in your view?

perhaps when it engages a population using guerilla tatctics

That would make sense anyway.

Kramerman · July 31, 2003, 13:09

im not understanding the difficulty in defining a guerilla force

KrazyHorse · August 1, 2003, 00:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Also, guerilla armies often do not wear uniforms in order blend in with the populace. Does this transform them into the status of spies?

Yes. Duh.

So far, according to you, some guy who straps a bomb to himself, dresses as a civilian and attempts to detonate himself at an Army checkpoint (but fails and is captured) is a POW.

You'd better tell Israel this, as they're therefore holding POWs in conditions contrary to those established by the Geneva Conventions.

Ned · August 1, 2003, 00:45

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Yes. Duh.

So far, according to you, some guy who straps a bomb to himself, dresses as a civilian and attempts to detonate himself at an Army checkpoint (but fails and is captured) is a POW.

You'd better tell Israel this, as they're therefore holding POWs in conditions contrary to those established by the Geneva Conventions.

I was thinking more of the Vietcong, the Taliban or the Bathist resistance in Iraq. These are soldiers who hide among the populace and strike by ambush. If we capture such soldiers, I would hardly execute them for being simple murderers. They are POWs in my book.

However, if the "soldier" is committing a War Crime by attacking civilians, or attempting to do so, they can and should be treated as the criminals they are.

KrazyHorse · August 1, 2003, 01:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

I was thinking more of the Vietcong, the Taliban or the Bathist resistance in Iraq. These are soldiers who hide among the populace and strike by ambush. If we capture such soldiers, I would hardly execute them for being simple murderers. They are POWs in my book.

Not in anybody else's. If you catch them in battle and they're not fighting according to the established laws of warfare then a bullet in the head is as much due process as they're entitled to.

The Taliban soldiers are a different case (generally they didn't attempt to blend into the population and continue their resistance that way), plus they were fighting for the de facto government of Afghanistan.

Saras · August 1, 2003, 02:00

I say it's discrimination of the non-uniformed by the uiformed!