[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, bombing an Al Qaeda encampment is a deliberate attack on civilians?[/quote]
On criminal civilians, yes.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, bombing an Al Qaeda encampment is a deliberate attack on civilians?
Didn’t you know once there weapons drop there civilians.
[/quote]
No, they are civilians unless they are lawful combatants.
If they shoot at people they are criminal civilians.
It is not that hard.
[quote]orion wrote:
John S. wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, bombing an Al Qaeda encampment is a deliberate attack on civilians?
Didn’t you know once there weapons drop there civilians.
No, they are civilians unless they are lawful combatants.
If they shoot at people they are criminal civilians.
It is not that hard.
[/quote]
So, having identified that Al Qaeda leaders are meeting, we must notify them, in person, that we will be firing a rocket from a predator drone? Otherwise, they’re just civilians with guns, right?
As you said, we’d have to wait until they’re already shooting guns at our soliders. So no predator drone strikes?
So, each leader in an Al Qeada unit, when confronted by the sudden arrival of an overwhelming American force, must simply instruct his men to hold their fire. At which point, they aren’t legal or unlawful combatants, and having not fired, neither are they “criminal civilians.” They’re just legit civilians? With guns? Grenades? Rpgs? Leadership (though often rather loose)?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
John S. wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, bombing an Al Qaeda encampment is a deliberate attack on civilians?
Didn’t you know once there weapons drop there civilians.
No, they are civilians unless they are lawful combatants.
If they shoot at people they are criminal civilians.
It is not that hard.
So, having identified that Al Qaeda leaders are meeting, we must notify them that we will be firing a rocket from a predator drone? Otherwise, they’re just civilians with guns, right?
As you said, we’d have to wait until they’re already shooting guns at our soliders. So no predator drone strikes? [/quote]
What makes you think that? If they are in a combat zone, handling guns, they are a legitimate target.
The term civilan is only important in connection with the GC were even non-soldiers, even ARMED non-soldiers have certain minimal rights which are in part denied to them because of the BS invention of “unlawful combatant”.
Outside Geneva Convention-speak you can call them whatever the fuck you want and you most certainly can attack and kill them.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
John S. wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, bombing an Al Qaeda encampment is a deliberate attack on civilians?
Didn’t you know once there weapons drop there civilians.
No, they are civilians unless they are lawful combatants.
If they shoot at people they are criminal civilians.
It is not that hard.
So, having identified that Al Qaeda leaders are meeting, we must notify them that we will be firing a rocket from a predator drone? Otherwise, they’re just civilians with guns, right?
As you said, we’d have to wait until they’re already shooting guns at our soliders. So no predator drone strikes?
What makes you think that? If they are in a combat zone, handling guns, they are a legitimate target.
The term civilan is only important in connection with the GC were even non-soldiers, even ARMED non-soldiers have certain minimal rights which are in part denied to them because of the BS invention of “unlawful combatant”.
Outside Geneva Convention-speak you can call them whatever the fuck you want and you most certainly can attack and kill them.
[/quote]
What combat zone? You said they’re civilians, remember? That camp is a civilian target, full of civilians, until they start firing, right?
And, are you suggesting that “lawful” civilians can be deliberately targeted simply for being in a combat zone?
[quote]orion wrote:
The term civilan is only important in connection with the GC were even non-soldiers, even ARMED non-soldiers have certain minimal rights which are in part denied to them because of the BS invention of “unlawful combatant”.
Outside Geneva Convention-speak you can call them whatever the fuck you want and you most certainly can attack and kill them.
[/quote]
Ding ding ding.
Hey, you fucks, read the entire pages that were linked to.
The whole concept of “unlawful combatant” is simply a ruse.
Whether a prisoner or war, a criminal civilian or an innocent civilian all of them are covered by the Geneva conventions.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And, are you suggesting that “lawful” civilians can be deliberately targeted simply for being in a combat zone?
[/quote]
Quit playing dumb. This is all in respect to irregular combatants that do not qualify for prisoner or war conventions.
Unfortunately, for the US, there are other sections of the conventions that apply to those combatants that don’t qualify.
Yes, they are unlawful combatants, the key word being combatants, but under the Geneva Conventions, they too have various rights that signatories have agreed to uphold.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And, are you suggesting that “lawful” civilians can be deliberately targeted simply for being in a combat zone?
Quit playing dumb. This is all in respect to irregular combatants that do not qualify for prisoner or war conventions.
Unfortunately, for the US, there are other sections of the conventions that apply to those combatants that don’t qualify.
Yes, they are unlawful combatants, the key word being combatants, but under the Geneva Conventions, they too have various rights that signatories have agreed to uphold.[/quote]
Ok, so they are unlawful combatants that get treated like civilians?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What combat zone? You said they’re civilians, remember? That camp is a civilian target, full of civilians, until they start firing, right?
And, are you suggesting that “lawful” civilians can be deliberately targeted simply for being in a combat zone?
[/quote]
Exactly. Our dear Austrian libertarian is trying to glue two concepts together to make a third - but they don’t add up.
If mobsters were sitting around a table - criminals, all - and they were armed, could we hit them with a drone under criminal law?
“In a war zone” civilian criminals is a fiction Orion made up - they are either criminals afforded criminal rights or they are something else entirely.
Under criminal law, we don’t get to flatten their meeting with a drone any more than we would get to flatten the above mobsters. Not if they are “criminals”.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What combat zone? You said they’re civilians, remember? That camp is a civilian target, full of civilians, until they start firing, right?
And, are you suggesting that “lawful” civilians can be deliberately targeted simply for being in a combat zone?
Exactly. Our dear Austrian libertarian is trying to glue two concepts together to make a third - but they don’t add up.
If mobsters were sitting around a table - criminals, all - and they were armed, could we hit them with a drone under criminal law?
“In a war zone” civilians criminals is a fiction Orion made up - they are either criminals afforded criminal rights or they are something else entirely.
Under criminal law, we don’t get to flatten their meeting with a drone any more than we would get to flatten the above mobsters. Not if they are “criminals”.[/quote]
Thank you. This is what is puzzling about this. They want to treat Al Qaeda simply as a bunch of civilian criminals. Like some damn gang bangers. Yet, at the same time, they seem to be ok with suspending criminal law to kill them with full military style operations. Such as the predator drone strikes. In that situation, they’re not even given a chance to surrender.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Thank you. This is what is puzzling about this. They want to treat Al Qaeda simply as a bunch of civilian criminals. Like some damn gang bangers. Yet, at the same time, they seem to be ok with suspending criminal law to kill them with full military style operations. Such as the predator drone strikes. In that situation, they’re not even given a chance to surrender. [/quote]
Well, and just to dovetail - if they are “criminals” they get all the constitutional safeguards for alleged criminals: “knock and announce” privileges, warrant requirements, probable cause and reasonable suspicion thresholds…
How awesome! Such naivete trying to mix war and criminal justice - but hats off to trying.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, and just to dovetail - if they are “criminals” they get all the constitutional safeguards for alleged criminals: “knock and announce” privileges, warrant requirements, probable cause and reasonable suspicion thresholds…
How awesome! Such naivete trying to mix war and criminal justice - but hats off to trying.[/quote]
You guys must be purposely ignoring the ideas being discussed with respect to the Geneva Conventions, right?
Civilians can also be combatants.
People who aren’t civilians, who are recognized as regular combatants, think uniforms and such, get privileges under the Geneva Conventions.
People who are combatants, but not regular, get lessor protections under the Geneva Conventions.
According to one of the rulings I pointed out, all combatants are going to fall under one of two categories. These are regular combatants or general civilian (combatants). Both classes are afforded rights under the Geneva Conventions.
How difficult is this stuff?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What combat zone? You said they’re civilians, remember? That camp is a civilian target, full of civilians, until they start firing, right?
And, are you suggesting that “lawful” civilians can be deliberately targeted simply for being in a combat zone?
Exactly. Our dear Austrian libertarian is trying to glue two concepts together to make a third - but they don’t add up.
If mobsters were sitting around a table - criminals, all - and they were armed, could we hit them with a drone under criminal law?
“In a war zone” civilians criminals is a fiction Orion made up - they are either criminals afforded criminal rights or they are something else entirely.
Under criminal law, we don’t get to flatten their meeting with a drone any more than we would get to flatten the above mobsters. Not if they are “criminals”.
Thank you. This is what is puzzling about this. They want to treat Al Qaeda simply as a bunch of civilian criminals. Like some damn gang bangers. Yet, at the same time, they seem to be ok with suspending criminal law to kill them with full military style operations. Such as the predator drone strikes. In that situation, they’re not even given a chance to surrender.
[/quote]
Did I write the GC?
Did I sign it?
No, the US did and now it is part of your law.
Since the GC describes how to treat POW or quasi POW`s it has little to say about how to conduct a military campaign.
[quote]vroom wrote:
You guys must be purposely ignoring the ideas being discussed with respect to the Geneva Conventions, right?[/quote]
You will note our responses w/r/t “criminality” were directly related to Orion’s suggestion that irregular forces are to be treated as ordinary criminals.
And then pointing out how that couldn’t possibly work.
You are chasing your own tail on this one, because the comments were directed to Orion’s idea.
[quote]orion wrote:
Did I write the GC?
Did I sign it?
No, the US did and now it is part of your law.
[/quote]
The US, when unable to obfuscate things with legal mumbo-jumbo, has a history of unilaterally withdrawing from treaties just because they can. They do it and stare at the rest of the world saying “Whatcha gonna do about it?”.
So, in effect, that the US signed up on the convention doesn’t make it enforceable. Those people don’t recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ or anything of the sort.
After all, they got the muscle…
[quote]orion wrote:
Did I write the GC?
Did I sign it?
No, the US did and now it is part of your law.
Since the GC describes how to treat POW or quasi POW`s it has little to say about how to conduct a military campaign.
[/quote]
Where does it say in the GC that irregular forces have all the rights and privileges of an ordinary criminal civilian?
Which, by the way, are higher levels of benefits and privileges than POW status?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:
Did I write the GC?
Did I sign it?
No, the US did and now it is part of your law.
Since the GC describes how to treat POW or quasi POW`s it has little to say about how to conduct a military campaign.
Where does it say in the GC that irregular forces have all the rights and privileges of an ordinary criminal civilian?
Which, by the way, are higher levels of benefits and privileges than POW status?[/quote]
I think I was pretty consistent in all of this, saying that there are POWs and non POWs under the GC, tertium non datur.
That means, there is no group that was somehow not mentioned in the GC that can be detained indefinitely or tortured or otherwise not be treated humanely.
Since I am pretty sure that that part got through to you, I do not really care what you call the people that are fighting and would not be POW?s if they got caught alive.
Combatants, terrorists, insurgents, unless you do not invent a new legal category and attach it to it.
Ok, for the sake of argument, Zawahiri is one of two things if captured. He is either a PoW, needing only to divulge name, rank, and DoB (going by memory here). Or, a Protected Person. If he is a protected person, what is his obligation in providing life saving information?
Does he get to remain silent and still have his recreational activities, religious materials, and so on?
See, here’s the issue. Maybe against just about any other armed group, holding them with GC protections makes sense. You’re simply holding them till hostilities cease, in order to keep them from rejoining the fight. That is, unless an individual PoW is to be charged with a crime.
But, this is a completely different kind of enemy. This a enemy who carries out international attacks, while deliberately targeting civilians. It is a fundamental policy in their play book.
We’re not talking about some individual soldier straying outside the bounds. The goal here, is not simply holding them, but unraveling cells, and disrupting imminent attacks upon “non-combatant” civilians.
Furthermore, how in the hell can the GC apply to Al Qaeda? We’re not talking about a group engaged solely in an internal struggle. This is a group with clear cut military goals.
Grabbing land in various nations, pulling off attacks internationally, overthrowing and implementing governments in various nations, widespread recruitment, organized tiers of leadership, etc. That’s not Joe Schmoe Farmer picking up a rifle to shoot at an invading force arriving in his neighborhood.
Bull. They are a non-state military force with clear international political/military goals. And, this force doesn’t recognize the GC in the most extreme sense. Water-boarding? Our soldiers are mutilated, killed, and displayed on the internet.
If these bastards are to be protected by the GC, they can damn well sign on and practice the conventions themselves.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If these bastards are to be protected by the GC, they can damn well sign on and practice the conventions themselves.
[/quote]
I think you miss the point.
If they do not abide by the GC, or if they are not regular soldiers, they don’t qualify for prisoner of war status and all that entails. That much of what we’ve heard is true.
However, they are still afforded some protections, as combatants, according to the Geneva Conventions.
In particular, torture is not somehow allowed due to being on the opposing side in a military conflict. That’s what the Geneva Conventions have to say.
Most importantly, how much you hate or fear something should not be used to determine your behavior. My God, the things that were allowed due to fear and hatred during WWII should serve as a lesson to us.
However, if it is more convenient, you could treat them as prisoners of war if you decided to. In fact, I think they should be by default, according to the rules, until a tribunal determines that they don’t qualify.
After various wars the major powers got together and decided “never again” would war be used as an excuse to commit all kinds of atrocities against humanity. Now, the administration wants to backpedal on that.
It’s shameful.
By the way, I’m not trying to be anti-US with this. I think the US should continue to conduct itself with the highest ideals and hold itself up as an example to the world. Losing the ability to do so, by sanctioning torture at the highest levels, is something I see as a huge mistake.
Moral high ground? What?
I think in the “near” future that this event will be studied as an example of how easy it is to lose our way when the lessons of the past are no longer fresh on the minds of those living today.