BF2S Forums KSM Trial Sheds Light on International Law not Keeping Pace

If a terrorist organisation acts in some capacity resembling a nation, then it can be argued that a response appropriate to an international incident is acceptable.

Not speaking about specific conflicts here, just in general.  Its a very grey area.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its not exactly a new thing though, since the US mutiny, Isreali terrorist gangs and so on.
The only difference now is WMD and technology give the terrorists the potential to strike with the force of nation states.
Should have seen that coming really.

Are you really equating the people who fought in the American Revolution with AQ? Really?

Are you really equating the people who fought in the American Revolution with AQ? Really?

They're both examples of asymmetric warfare which did not conform with the accepted standards of warfare at the time.

JohnG@lt wrote:

What exactly is asymmetrical about Bunker Hill, or the Battle of Long Island, or Saratoga, or the taking of Montreal or Yorktown, or Cowpens?

I was talking about backwoodsmen, as I stated clearly already.

My first impression of you was correct, you really are a left wing version of a NASCAR fan. There isn't a single thought inside your head is there?

No, you just choose to ignore the facts in front of you and extrapolate from your own imaginings.

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

What exactly is asymmetrical about Bunker Hill, or the Battle of Long Island, or Saratoga, or the taking of Montreal or Yorktown, or Cowpens?

I was talking about backwoodsmen, as I stated clearly already.

My first impression of you was correct, you really are a left wing version of a NASCAR fan. There isn't a single thought inside your head is there?

No, you just choose to ignore the facts in front of you and extrapolate from your own imaginings.

Lrn2UShistory.

As John has said, most of the battles were fought conventionally, the only group that was terrorizing people were the son's of liberty, and that is about it.

JohnG@lt wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

They're the equivalent of partisans and partisans have no rights. Throughout history they were strung up from the nearest tree without trial. The AQ people are getting far better treatment than any other partisans in history.

The founders of your nation would technically have been described as partisans. The fact of the matter is that the incumbent powers or those that are in a position of power will deem you to have 'no rights', whether you deserve them or not morally speaking. A 'moral' nation will/should not dismiss those rights. If they are powerful enough to be able to stamp all over morality then fair enough, but generally karma comes back to bite you in the ass.

What rights? The rights of an American citizen? They aren't Americans. The rights that they would've had in their own adopted country of Afghanistan? Public stonings and beheadings it is then!

I think anyone who has a just reason to wage war should have similar rights whether they wage war openly or clandestinely. Al Qaeda don't exactly have a just reason to wage war. Al Qaeda are not partisans - they're an international criminal organisation. And personally I believe in 'innocent until proven guilty' in matters of criminality. So they may be the lowest of the low in terms of scum, but one must remember that they could quite possibly be totally innocent. I don't see why presenting the evidence as to why they are accused in some sort of law court or military court is such a big deal. Parallels could be drawn to 'suspected' political 'criminals' being sent to gulags.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-11-23 15:39:40)

Dilbert_X wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I think anyone who has a just reason to wage war should have similar rights whether they wage war openly or clandestinely.

But who is going to determine 'just'?
The US revolutionists reckoned their cause was just, the British reckoned they were treasonous scum who should have been drawn and quartered.

Well that's the problem. Idealism fails. The powerful make the rules. The powerful are quite often not very just, not very principled and generally quite hypocritical. C'est la vie. Every now and then the powerful diverge just that little too much from what is generally bearable/acceptable and end up with a revolution on their hands. We are nowhere near that right now.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-11-23 15:51:31)

CameronPoe wrote:

Well that's the problem. Idealism fails. The powerful make the rules. The powerful are quite often not very just, not very principled and generally quite hypocritical. C'est la vie. Every now and then the powerful diverge just that little too much from what is generally bearable/acceptable and end up with a revolution on their hands. We are nowhere near that right now.

Sometimes Idealism works.

On rare occasion, idealism sparks a revolution that catches the powers-that-be unaware and unprepared.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dunno, Saudi Arabia could go either way, Pakistan may be worse.

Both of those countries, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to wake up in the morning to a news report that they were having a spontaneous 1979 Iraninan-style revolution.

Colonists lined fences and hedgerows to snipe at the British column, which was soon in disarray.

http://www.founding.com/timeline/pageid … efault.asp

Sniping was considered cheating in those days.

Please identify those units...with sources.

They weren't units, thats the point.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Colonists lined fences and hedgerows to snipe at the British column, which was soon in disarray.

http://www.founding.com/timeline/pageid … efault.asp

Sniping was considered cheating in those days.

Please identify those units...with sources.

They weren't units, thats the point.

Things have changed a little since then..
It's called "Third Geneva Convention, relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War"

Article 4 Para 6

" Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

First.
The territory must start out as "Non-occupied"
Second.
"Respect the laws and customs of war"

The forces covered in art 4 (6) MUST operate under the Conventions until captured to rate P.O.W. status.
As well, if such forces, at a time after said invasion, fall under the control of regular armed units, they would then be under Article 4 Para 2.

When the U.S. went into Afg, you could have "fighters" covered under 4 (6) for around 24-48 hours. After that they would have to operate under
4 (2).
Fail to do so and they become "Unlawful combatants" and are not covered for P.O.W. status.

Source


http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b28 … 1e004a9e68